Majority Rule

In a recent post I said that if elected president I would support the majority view for social issues. Readers jumped all over that as a recipe for oppressing minorities.

Would that oppression happen?

Most Americans are not gay, but the majority supports gay rights. Most Americans don’t want to kill themselves, but the majority favors legal euthanasia. Most Americans don’t use drugs, but still favor legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Most Americans are religious, but favor the separation of church and state.

Leading contenders for the job of president of the United States include a woman, an African-American, and a Mormon. It took a few hundred years, but the country has finally wised up to the fact that we’re all minorities in some way or form.

Help me think through this question by giving me some CURRENT examples in which the majority in the United States would suppress a particular minority in some way that is clearly evil.

I’m willing to change my mind on this issue if you have some good examples where majority rule in the modern United States would be evil. Seriously. But the only oppression that comes to mind for me involves one minority in the United States (usually a religious minority) using the government to oppress other minorities (for example gays).

So when would the majority choose to oppress a minority? Exclude in your examples anything involving economics or national defense. Those areas would be guided by experts in my hypothetical administration.

Comments

[Lupus]

We already have the "average" majority taxing the most successful/skillful at higher rates. Well attempting to, they are usually successful/skillful for a reason, and it's not cause they like to pay a dime more than they have to.

All trends I see are that the "average" majority wants to pay for more programs (national health care) by such an uneven tax code.

Oh, along the same lines, the poor have forced through a number of "minimum" wage bills. Essentially taxing the minority business owners. Paradoxically this reduces the number of jobs available for those same poor.

[Bob]

Example:
1) drugs. Despite what you say, the majority of the people in the U.S. are brainwashed to the point that they believe drug users are all thieves and murderers. They will not support the freedom to eat/drink/inject/smoke whatever you please.

2) privacy. The majority of the people in the U.S. believe that the government should be granted the ability to spy on our personal communications, with or without a court order.

3) required identification. The majority of the people in the U.S. believe that it is acceptable for the government to require that all citizens carry a National or State I.D. which authority can check any time they please.

Scott, you have to keep in mind that most of the people who see humor in Dilbert, who are your fans, and probably the type of person you gravitate towards, are the ones who know that Dilbert is true. The people around you might be reasonable, and have common sense, but the majority of the people in the U.S. are not reasonable, and have a hard time thinking for themselves. You, Scott, are living in a bubble, as we all are. Everybody lacks enough perspective to get an unbiased view on a large group of people.

Why would the president need to get involved in social issues, anyway. What business is it of yours, as president?

[pay attention]

Well, a majority in the United States would support the government listening in on the phone conversations of Jihadists who are trying to kill us. If foreigners don't have the constitutional right to plan to murder thousands of innocent men, women and children without the government eves-dropping on them, then the Constitution has been torn up by Bush and we all live in the worst police state in history. Sob.

[Juan]

The US foreign policy in regards to Cuba seems to be controlled by a very vocal minority in Florida. Even after we've normalized relationship with Viet Nam, China, and Russia, Cuba is left out due to the amount of clout the state of Florida has during a presidential election. The majority of Americans don't seem to care, the majority of American businesses are losing out to foreigners who are investing heavily in Cuba.

Also you could argue that Iowa and New Hampshire (and any of the states in that have early primaries) seem to have much more clout as far as domestic policy initiatives from presidential hopefuls compared to larger states that have primaries and caucuses later in the election season.

[olie]

Scott: "Most Americans are not gay, but the majority supports gay rights. Most Americans don’t want to kill themselves, but the majority favors legal euthanasia. Most Americans don’t use drugs, but still favor legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Most Americans are religious, but favor the separation of church and state. [...] So when would the majority choose to oppress a minority?"

While that's how it is where you & I live, it's not clear to me that the majority of Americans support gay rights, favor euthanasia, favor leagal/decriminizalized drugs or want the church completely out of the state.

In fact, I can see any one of these things going the other way. And that'd be bad.

[John Reedy]

Suicide booths.

http://awritersblock.com

[Jeff]

Circumcision. Anti-trust exclusions (AMA, pro sports, etc.) Eminent domain. Grandfathered exemptions (EPA limits, etc.)

All but the first might seem economic, but I think a strong case may be made otherwise.

[Rabboleth]

As far as numbers go, they're moot if a particular group does not have enough power to get what they want. When women are referred to as a minority, is has nothing at all to do with how many women there are. What makes them a minority is their comparatively low social status.

But back to the topic...

Favor a minority over the majority, and members of the majority will feel screwed-over. They'll complain of evildoing. Favor the majority over a minority, and members of the minority will feel screwed-over. They, too, will complain of evildoing.
Which one a person prefers depends, at least in part, on what group they are in. Distinctions of good and evil seem to be a based on whose ox is being gored.

[Jen]

How about people who live in states with a small population, like Wyoming or Montana?

Over their quite vehement protests, wolves were reintroduced in Yellowstone National Park because people from large states (like New York and California) thought that was the right thing to do.

Or arbitrarily declaring that snowmobiles generate the most air pollution in the Yellowstone and should therefore be banned. (Never mind the million [not kidding] buses, cars, and RVs that travel through Yellowstone in the summer).

People in masses are stupid, and that is why the US was intended to be a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, not a democracy.

[Steven McDaniel]

"I’m willing to change my mind on this issue if you have some good examples where majority rule in the modern United States would be evil"
Are we talking about the same country who elected George W. Bush...TWICE?
I rest my case." Ramas

Yawn! That has surely been said of every president of the United States, especially by those who align themselves with the other party. I like the way Mad Magazine put it: [Bush is] the worst president since, well..Clinton.

[Alex]

@Ramas:

>

Huh, books like "The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter Than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies and Nations" presents a good case against this quote.

[Francesco Orsenigo]

Are you telling me that, as a President, you would legalize file sharing and/or allow "piracy"?

[Paddy]

(a) Public Transportation Choices: The majority & the government discourage the use of a train for cross country traffic or even between my choice of 2 big places within a state (they choose the places and I buy a ticket on their terms). Within a city as well, some places arent tractable unless you have a car but what about having a bus albeit it takes only a few people a day

(b) Choice in Medium of Instruction in Schools: If I am a spanish immigrant and if I choose to have my kid educated in spanish as a medium of instruction with English as a second language (inverse the currentr situation of english as primary and a choice of your language for secondary), can I do that?

[T.I.M.]

I had no comment yesterday, then just now one popped in my head.
Education.

Smart People, by definition the minority, are inevitably oppressed by Stupid People. The state can never elevate the intelligence level of Stupid People to that of Smart People so it then bureaucratically lowers the intelligence level of Smart people towards that of Stupid People. This oppression negatively effects every remaining moment of the victim's life. Evil itself.

Stupid People always exhibit a necessity to tear down smart people, it makes them feel so though they are smart. But the act of tearing down a smart person ACTUALLY makes them yet more stupid. You can see where this oppression will lead: where we are now then worse.

[Dave Oblad]

It is evil to wrong someone. It is evil not to correct an obvious wrong.
And it's especially evil if you know you're supporting the wrong doing.

Case-1:
Your grandfather stole something valuable. He passed it to his son, who
passed it to you. The original owner wants it back from you and you refuse
because you didn't steal it yourself, even though you agree it was his. You
know you should not steal from others but keep it anyway. That makes you
a thief, just as guilty as the original thief. To hurt someone is the highest
form of evil and to steal from someone hurts them. Thus stealing is evil.

Case-2:
North America belonged to the native Indians who lived here for centuries
prior to the early settlers. Settlers refused to recognize Indian ownership
of this land because their King had legally claimed ownership of it. Tribes
foolish enough to fight for their land were systematically slaughtered.
We inherited this land from our forefathers who stole it from the rightful
owners. The majority know this truth, but refuse to return the land to the
original rightful owners. Making us all just as guilty as the first settlers.
Thus the majority, all whom refuse to give the land back, are thieves and
thus evil.

Best wishes Scott, from Dave :^)

[Andy Coulter]

how come every presedential candidate from massachusetts looks herman munster.

kennedy is the exception. he only looks like a warty douche bag.

[Andy Coulter]

rick santorum is a handjob.

[a]

How about gang rape?

[~C4Chaos]

hah!

http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2008/01/banned-myspace-deletes-largest-atheist.html

end of discussion.

~C

[Matt Hearn]

I'm curious where you get your figures; last I checked, a majority of Americans were NOT in favor of drug legalization, and a majority of American support some level of gay oppression (mostly they just want to prevent gay people from getting married, but a surprising number would at least tacitly support efforts to eliminate the "lifestyle"). I don't have the numbers handy, of course, because I'm LAZY, but I'm wondering where you got yours.

[Ramas]

"I’m willing to change my mind on this issue if you have some good examples where majority rule in the modern United States would be evil"

Are we talking about the same country who elected George W. Bush...TWICE?

I rest my case.

[bvb]

I am reminded of a great scene in "West Wing" where president Bartlett notes that America is a republic, not a democracy. We elect other people to make decisions, and this is especially wise since the complexities of most important issues make it difficult to impossible for the majority to make an informed decision.

I also like the quote "A person is smart, people are stupid".

Americans (I am one, by the way) as a group tend to be greedy, selfish, spoiled, etc. There are fine examples of generosity and pulling together in a crisis, but generally the public seems to want to be given stuff.

And then there is the media, which as a group seems to mislead - usually to fufill a perceived role as a counter to the "government establishment". Driven by sales, they tend to play towards the public's greedy, selfish, spoiled side. I don't trust "the public" to make good decisions (including electing the "best" person to lead - but hopefully a true leader that is wise somehow gets the job). Maybe the best we can hope for is the "check and balance" system of government.

[Stephen W. Stanton]

The majority view is often sub-optimal, perhaps even "evil" on many economics issues:

1. For trade protectionism / tariffs.
2. For soaking the rich with taxes.
3. For deporting illegal immgrants and restricting immigration.
4. For socialized healtchare systems that have proven unweildy in all cased where tried.
5. Against development and construction (to restrict supply of new real estate)
6. For overtaxing oil and pharma industries in ways that would hurt consumers (example: http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/fantasy_pharma.php )
7. Against "bix box" retailers that make life more affordable.
8. For "employer paid" taxes (vs. payroll deductions) which misunderstands the concept of "tax incidence".
9. For higher capital gains taxes
10. For make-work jobs that retard productivity and against layoffs that are necessary to increase productivity
11. For restrictions on speech (hate crime laws, harrassment, college speech codes, etc.)

I could go on. Sure, there isn't any issue as big as "pro-slavery" or "pro-genocide", but many, many smaller issues that hhave a huge negative and unfairly distributed impact in the aggregate.

btw - Women aren't minorities. They're just over half the world's population.

[bvb]

I agree with those who question your assertions about what the majority of Americans favor.

[Maurice Condie]

I think paedophiles would be discriminated against as a minority. We might all join in BUT the public are notoriously badly programmed moist robots.
A paediatrician was beaten nearly to death a year ago because some people are not precise about their discrimination…

[Maurice Condie]

I think paedophiles would be discriminated against as a minority. We might all join in BUT the public are notoriously badly programmed moist robots.
A paediatrician was beaten nearly to death a year ago because some people are not precise about their discrimination…

[Maurice Condie]

I think paedophiles would be discriminated against as a minority. We might all join in BUT the public are notoriously badly programmed moist robots.
A paediatrician was beaten nearly to death a year ago because some people are not precise about their discrimination…

[AC]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Who determines this?

The needs of the few or one outweigh the needs of the many.

Who determines this?

Individuals have to choose. Only when it is done out of (brotherly) love and care can we succeed as a society. At times we have limped along as a whole.

To poster "Noclue". The odds are high that the majority of posters are all "whities". I don't dare say more because any word I use or characterization will label me as a racists, just like you are a racist for saying that... oh wait, whites are the oppressors so it is ok to be racists towards whites.

[Joe]

Animals. It sounds foolish now, but that's the point. Years ago, the black man was looked at as no more than an animal as well. Homosexuality was medically recognized as a disease. We have made a lot of progress with respect to animal rights, but they aren't yet socially recognized as being at the same level. Obviously, they won't enjoy rights which require some base level of intelligence (like voting), but it will eventually be recognized that they are emotionally as complex as humans, and therefore crimes against animals would be on par with crimes against humans.

Hermaphrodites. Just throwing it out there.

[Rand]

There are two examples that I can think of off the top of my head: Islam and the rich. Islam is a minority religion and associated with terrorism. I think that it is likely that the majority of Americans would be willing to oppress Muslims as a result. There's already a lot of anti-Islam feelings in this country and I think that is simply held in check by political correctness. If people were empowered by simple majority rule with no concern about protecting minority then Muslims could easily be oppressed in this country. Second, there's the rich. The majority of people aren't rich, and the idea of redistribution of wealth would be a very tempting one. The main defense the rich have there is that they control the media, which in turn can influence the malleable majority, but fighting "more money for me" is difficult.

[ChrisO]

Good Morning,

Does anyone really believe that racism isn't alive and well in this country? Sadly, it is - not only that, the republicans have stolen the last two elections. How about the minority that didn't want to vote because they didn't honestly feel that their vote counted in W's first "victory" - what kind of message did that send to people like that and younger people voting for the first time? Doesn't the fact that we have minorities and feel the need to point them out tell you something? We're all one race - the HUMAN race.

[RavenBlack]

I'm pretty sure your statements about what the majority wants aren't actually based on checking with a representative cross-section of society. It sounds like the opinions of the same sort of majority that wants Ron Paul to get elected - an *internet* majority.

As someone else said, support for gay marriage, a subset of gay rights, is at the very least not a clear majority, and probably not a majority at all. I'd not be at all surprised to find that in a contest between "separate church and state" "christian state" "muslim state" etc., Christian state would come out ahead. (Important to have muslim state etc. as options so as to split the opposed-to-Christian-state vote.)

Which is, of course, another nasty side effect of majority rule - in any non-binary decision the person setting the options can strongly influence the winner.

Unless you use Condorcet voting, in which case a policy of non-interference would perhaps tend to bubble to the top.

[rita mae]

When they get over their penis envy.

Rita Mae

[Dianne]

Sick people (minority) oppress healthy people (majority). Every healthy person pays massive taxes and health insurance (in every form) to allow a few genetically deviant and/or criminally-negligent people to maintain their unhealthy lifestyles.

But no-one would ever, ever say (out loud) - "you know this lifelong drug addicted alcoholic is a waste of oxygen".

Without laws, most people with chronic diseases, drug problems, alcoholism, AIDS or cancer would be out of work and out on the street if companies were allowed to fire them.

The grotesquely obese would also be fired if we had half a chance, but then they aren't a minority. :-)

[NaturalBornKieler]

I'm not sure you could call this oppression, but my guess is that the majority would vote for, say, free lunch for everyone. Or something similar that translates to forking out money to the masses. Whenever people get the opportunity to decide on their own income, they'll find very good reasons to allocate themselves a hefty portion. I don't know how it's in the US, but here in Germany the members of parliament have the right to vote on their own compensation. Guess what happens.

Cheers
NBK

[Dave1-20-2009]

a) Since when are 'women' a minority?
b) The sign of a great leader is one who does what's right, not what's popular. I think the reason our recent crop of leaders suck is that defining what is right is impossible so we get polled instead.
c) The constitution should come first (not the one fantasized about by the so called origionalists). And, in that way, you're right; interpretation by the majority can be a reasonable guide but only when the rights of the minority are not infringed by prejudice.

[Mark]

The majority decision may depend on how much interaction there is between the people. Columbia University ran an experiment in how the views of others would affect an in-duh-viduals view of "what is good" in music.

You would need to build in some kind of check to counteract the sheep effect.

NY Times have an article here http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9504E5DA123EF937A25751C0A9609C8B63

[BJUK]

Tizzle said Christians get upset about others saying happy holidays instead of happy christmas. Those in-duh-viduals need a history lesson. The church hijacked the pagan feast of Xmas and renamed in (Jesus was born in March). So use "Merry Xmas" and really pee them off!

As to Letra's comments about walking around naked. If we all did it I agree, but during the change over it could cause a host of car (and other) accidents. However, bringing bodies out into te open would, I think, help rid us in th UK of the repressivness associated with sex and hopefully give as a more "healthy" european approach. It won't happen, its snowing today!

What the effect would be in th US I can't really imagine!

[Mark]

[Personal property would have no protection from the Robin Hoods of the world. Everyone who is perceived to be rich, ie you have something we want, would have their possessions or their inventions taken from them.
Posted by: amy gunn]

So the more you have, the more protection you get from a lawful society. So pay more for that which you benefit most from.

[Mark]

[Minority: the wealthiest Americans.

Majority: the rest of Americans.

The Oppression: increasingly high tax rates on the minority, to fund various entitlement programs, tax rebates, etc. for the majority.

Posted by: Jeffrey Ellis]

OK, minority, mow your own lawns. Build your own roads. Grow your own food. Process it yourself.

A company is more efficient with management (excepting PHBs), but you can still run a company just on workers. Your company cannot make any money when your inventory stockpile is gone and you have no workers.

So when the poor people are 10% more efficient, you, the rich person, take that 10% for yourself. You then loan it out to the poor people so they can buy things (that you didn't build) and you get more money back.

Then, when there's rioting, you have much much more to lose than the poor people, whereas the police cannot protect the majority effectively, so you GET more from the police over and above what you "deserve" from the amount you've hoarded.

And you get pissy about having to pay more for it?

It's not as if you NEED it, is it.

[Mark]

"Rich people(a definite minority) would be oppressed by not-rich people. A current day example is progressive tax rates.

Posted by: timdau"

OK, so you rich people, stop working for a month. No production. Nil.

Did anyone notice?

Now, you poor people, take a month off. No working. No production.

Did the CEO clean the shit out of the company toilet?

[Noclue]

Are whities the only ones posting here?

I don't know how true it is that the majority whites still oppress racial minorities, but its pretty easy to find people screaming bloody murder about it to this day.

Panel Finds Bias in Connecticut Courts
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EED81F39F937A15757C0A960958260

Obama: Justice System is Racially Biased
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/obama-justice-s.html

Race Drives Use of Death Penalty in U.S. Judicial System, Amnesty International Report Finds
http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/may99/051799d.htm

Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States

Is this not a clear example of an evil majority (allegedly)?

[Fafnir]

You asked for hard data - well, according to a recent Gallup poll, less than half of Americans would be prepared to elect an otherwise qualified atheist president. That tells me that a majority of Americans have a strong distrust of atheists, and with a little nudging could very easily start oppressing them legally. (Note that at best a large minority of Americans already oppress atheists in one way or another.)

The poll's available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/103150/Percentage-Unwilling-Vote-Mormon-Holds-Steady.aspx. The corresponding figures for black people, gay people and women are 93%, 56% and 86%, respectively.

Disclaimer: I'm an English atheist - over here atheists and theists get along fairly well.

[AJ]

Doesn’t the idea that majority rule for everyone seem like suppression of the individual.

To put it simply the majority of the US say we are bigger than you (to either states towns counties etc) so you do what we say
What if the majority opinion was that gambling was wrong everyone in las vegas etc would hate you as it would have to shut down lol.

Law’s are different from state to state this shows a definitive separation as to what the local majority opinion is so because of the majority rule as a whole in the US (under your proposed leadership) some places defiantly would have there individual rights/liberties/choices/lifestyles trampled underfoot.

No definitive opinion and choice could ever be the right one opinions have to evolve depending on the situation.
Part of the point of having leaders is that you vote for the person who is the smartest or has the smartest group behind them your idea would effectively to have the country ruled by mass vote, i.e the exact average of everybody willing to put the opinion into the hat what would be the point of having an elected leader then instead it would be more like a mass vote governed by an arbitrator.

like the rest of your election plan sounds more like a sound byte but it wouldn't really work but then again very few things work in reality there needs to be personal accountability for the people in charge that would make them suffer to the point where they are afraid to do anything that wouldn't be in the best interests of everyone long term

[ml/nj]

I guess you don't smoke.

[Warfreak2]

The problem is that a minority can represent themselves as a majority (in order to opress another minority), given the low US voter turnout. As your example, fundamentalist Christians are far more likely to go out and vote against gay marriage rights, than the non-gay non-fundamentalists are to go out and vote in favour of them; so even if there were a majority in favour of gay marriage (which, in the US, I'm not convinced of), that majority would have to represent themselves in the ballots (in the same proportion as the fundamentalist Christians would), which is unlikely.

To put it another way, what you want is an average, but unless everyone votes, what you get is a weighted average, weighted towards those who feel most passionately about the issue.

[Zzyzxmo]

All this pissin' n moanin'.

Ewww, my head hurts. Who gives a Ratberts' ass.

Live and let live...

[Noel]

Hi Scott,

this reply feels a little useless, but I just thought I'd say that your assumptions on what the majority of Americans would do is the opposite to what I believe is actually the majority's oppinions.

Especially when it is an oppressive majority that makes itself appear more majority-like than it actually is because 'you want to murder innocent babies???, me and the rest of the street are gonna make your life living hell', is a good example.

I think if everyone got a secret ballot on every issue, I still think you'd have to decide for the majority that their opinions are oppressive, but then you wont stay president long.

Noel.

[Khan747]

Scott - After 9/11 many people people were trying institute mandatory pledge of allegiance in schools. As a Jehvohah's witness with kids in school, we had hard time during that period since we view the pledge as a form of worship. We also in 1999 had to a case go to the supreme court over our right to go door to door in one city.

So in my opinion, yes the potential is still there for the majority to suppress the minority if the climate is right.

[wernman]

"Most Americans are not gay, but the majority supports gay rights. Most Americans don’t want to kill themselves, but the majority favors legal euthanasia. Most Americans don’t use drugs, but still favor legalizing or decriminalizing drugs. Most Americans are religious, but favor the separation of church and state."

The libreal media support those things, not the majority of Americans, although the media paints it that way. Get outside of libreal New England or CA and you'll find most people don't support any of those things.

[Noumenon]

The first post I saw when I came in here said exactly what I was about to post, ellipses and all. Good job, Chris Ulmer.

[simon]

"The majority would clearly have us become a Police State in the name of security." if thats what the majority wants , so be it .... you think you have the right to ditate to others, yet whine about a pilice state ?

[Steven McDaniel]

"..Minority: the wealthiest Americans.
Majority: the rest of Americans.
The Oppression: increasingly high tax rates on the minority, to fund various entitlement programs, tax rebates, etc. for the majority."
Posted by: Jeffrey Ellis | January 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM

"....Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.'
'Are there no prisons?' 'Plenty of prisons,' said the gentleman, laying down the pen again. 'And the Union workhouses. Are they still in operation?' 'Both very busy, sir.' 'Oh. I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course, I'm very glad to hear it.'
'I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned-they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.'
'Many can't go there; and many would rather die.' 'If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.' " (Sound familiar?) A government that taxes the very wealthy to feed the poor and give them medical care is obeying the dictates of Christian charity and also the famous prayer of Maimonedes, held in the same esteem as the Hippocratic oath: "..Preserve the strength of my body and of my soul that they ever be ready to cheerfully help and support rich and poor, good and bad, enemy as well as friend. In the sufferer let me see only the human being..." It is not 'evil' to 'oppress' the very rich by making them help the poor. This is why as a Christian, I am registered as an Independent, not a Republican.

[simon]

"The problem is where do you draw the boundaries of the majority" 51% .. study maths you moron.

That the fact that the goverment shouldnt uphold the majority view makes me laugh .... what else are they there for ?

As for "not if its evil " Id remove that cavet too. Evil is a personal view, and while muder is evil , if the majority conceed that muder of 1 individual will save thousands then hard luck if your the one ....

[sid]

few have noticed that u suggested at women being a minority. Is this because they are on average smaller?

[Justin]

Where in the blue hell are you getting those statistics? Maybe it's just my state, but the majority does not seem to favour legal euthanasia. And a question-If thier is more than 2 options, do you have to have 50 percent or just me the majority?

[Tomas Liubinas]

Progressive taxes!

Greetings from Lithuania
http://tomas.liubinas.com

[E]

Majority: US Citizens

Minority: Illegal immigrants

Illegal immigrants are oppressed because they have no representation and no legal recourse in the US. Perfect case of a majority (in power, making the decisions) oppressing a minority that has no voice.

[AJ]

Ok just a few examples where the rights of the minority are sacrificed for the benefit of the majority and yes I know most of these examples can be explained away logically if they couldn’t people couldn’t get away with having these opinions.

Ex convicts (apparently paid for there crime but still put in a situation bad jobs etc social pariah where going back to a life of crime seems a valid option)
Polygamists
homeless
Recreational drug users
The mentally ill (we lock them away)
The unattractive (even though this accounts for the majority society shuns us because we don’t want to admit it)
Just a few examples there are more

Now here is the big kicker you don’t know the majority opinion only the opinion of those willing to give it and the turnout for elections shows that most peoples opinion is apathy they just don’t care anyway (or care enough to be bothered if you gave these people a say that would require no effort the majority opinion might shift very quickly.

Also there is a big difference between an opinion that would be free to express and one that would cost people
Give them a choice of paying for a national transport improvement service that would revolutionise the US in 10 years but cost approx and extra $500 a year from people in taxes and nothing would get done and even though it would be seen as a great idea it wouldn’t fly because of that

Here is the big one though to help save out planet billions will need to be spent in implementing the alternative fuel ideas and power production ideas to make them effective soon enough even though the public would be all for it they wouldn’t pay an increase in taxes to fund it if they had the choice (and this is for the planet /everyone)

[Tom]

Perhaps the most obvious example is our current system for electing a president. There are a number of explicit and implicit activities that the majority (Republicans/Democrats) uses to repress the minority (third party candidates).

there are codified barriers (e.g. gerrymandering, the electoral college and ballot rules that impose significant barriers to non-established politicians)

there are other barriers (e.g. news coverage that does not include the voting results of third party candidates and the near religious zeal that people exert for their "party" right or wrong)

Although I doubt that people are typically introspective enough to realize that they are indeed making a choice, but third party candidates make it very uncomfortable for them to question the hair's breath of difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[Nick]

Ask any New Zealander/Australian of sub-continental asian or middle-eastern descent whether they'd prefer to fly to Europe via Asia or via the US, the answer is most likely Asia. This is because when they fly via the US, they suffer quite serious oppression based on their race.

I think that majority rule would probably perpetuate this discrimination (probably no more than it's perpetuated by the more self-centred approach you currently have, but still)...

[Vix]

I think you'll find that women are actually a majority, according to your most recent US census.

kthxbye

[Anthony]

Erm. Your definition of evil here is presumably along the lines of 'the majority of people would think it wrong'. So I feel you're onto kind of a definite winner here. I don't really agree with you though.

Personally, as a non-smoker I think the smoking example is a good one. I think it's atrocious that the non smoking majority should be allowed to dictate to business owners etc. whether or not their customers are allowed to give themselves cancer if they choose to.

[David Pick]

Criminals are an oppressed minority: they are imprisoned, sometimes even executed; the State invades their privacy trying to identify them; their property is sometimes taken away; even the decisions about what constitutes "criminality" are made by the majority. They live in constant fear of this oppression and never know if anyone they meet will report them to the "Authorities" who will then hunt them, capture them, interrogate then, and finally hide the results of this oppression away from the general population in places called "Prisons". There isn't even any pretense of a religious justification for this: it's supported by nearly all, religious or not, and the religious rarely use religious reasoning to justify their support; in fact it's only a very few people who say that we should "Hate the Sin but Love the Sinner". This sort of oppression is so ingrained in us that a basic technique by those who would oppress any particular minority is to try and persuade the majority that the minority in question are "Criminals". 'Nuff said: I'm sure you get the point -- it's only in a cartoon that anyone would be able to put "Career Criminal" as an occupation on a job application form.

[Sandip]

This should make for fun reading.
It keeps amazing me how funny news can be.
Now I have a linking to why people read the newspapers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7217370.stm

[Boblock]

"Exclude in your examples anything involving economics or national defense"

It's pretty hard to think of an example not involving economics.
I also suspect the majority would find it hard to form a coherent view - ie a national health service would be good, but we don't want to pay for it.

[Mazza]

I'm appalled not one person has mentioned capital punishment. America is the only civilized country in the world that performs it, but it is such a majority view that no one even questions it.

You can't oppress a minority group much worse than taking their lives.

[Eli]

Quick point Scott, women in the US aren't a minority, they're the majority. Sadly most ment (and women) have yet to figure this out.

[John Galt]

The fact that a majority of the readers of your blog protested against minority oppression shows that a majority rule will not opress minorities.

[quantum_flux]

Isn't it the people who are religious that are oppressing themselves and others by inflicting the morality of Moses on everyone? Moses was a woman abuser and an Egyptian murderer, a liar and a cheat, a myth and a thief, and immoral and unjust.

Anyone who follows the law of Moses is oppressing themselves every bit as much as they are oppressing atheists, hindus, buddhists, gays, women, scientists, businessmen, doctors, lawyers, sushi-chefs, babies, poets, philosophers, astronauts, comedians, real-estate agents, environmentalists, pagans, porn-stars, and chimpanzees.

Not even to mention the fact that they kill each other over the many different interpretations of the law of Moses or the myth of genesis.

[yehadut]

As a vegetarian, perhaps the torment of animals counts. Most Americans say they're against animals cruelty, but they don't care much about people wearing fur, eating factory farmed meat and eggs, going to circuses, and so on, so they apparently don't mean it. You could claim that animals vastly outnumber humans and are not minorities, but that's the kind of quibbling that says women aren't minorities. They aren't allowed in your vote, so they're a minority.

Another example -- those so-called terrorism suspects, innocent people detained indefinitely without charge and tortured. Most Americans don't care. They say so in polls.

Or, foreigners. Americans care about the welfare of fellow Americans way more than those abroad. This is simple bigoted tribalism. But it is by far the majority sentiment. Why are we spending money fixing stupid potholes when there are people dying in massive numbers from easily curable diseases like malaria! The US has not lived up to its Millennium goals, and Americans are cool with that.

[Rachel D. C.]

I take it since "current" is in all caps, you weren't wanting the answer of slavery. Still, we do have slaves, albeit they are citizens of other countries (from whom we deny US citizenship to--perhaps for that purpose. we get the good:labor without the bad: the burden of representing them).

Another example is the fact that I am certain I could not have a successful run for president because I'm an atheist or poor. I realize that someone could cherry pick examples of queen bees who rise to the top despite the odds, but you have to admit that those odds are stacked against the poor and atheists much more than wealthy-family bible believers (which is perhaps the only reason Georgy got in).

Lastly, you'll notice that due to lack of active support from those who favor gay marriage, the considerably large group of people who oppose it prevent men and women from seeing their dying partners in the hospital and kick them to the curb once their partner dies.

And it won't make me feel better to trust that some day decades or hundreds of years from now, the majority will become more enlightened and not mistreat these and other minority groups. I say you got to be careful about sticking up for the minorities.

[Bob]

Violation of property rights is the current wide-spread example.

My money is not mine if I cannot hire whomever I want with it. If I want to hire all white people, or all black people, that's what I get to do because it is *my* money. Not yours, and not the majority's. Mine.

If I want to sell off a kidney to pay for college, that's what I get to do because it is *my* kidney. Not yours, and not the majority's. Mine.

If I want to try an experimental drug to treat an illness, and someone is offering to sell it to me, you cannot interfere because it is my body, my money, and his drug. Not yours, and not the majority's.

If I want to allow smoking in my restaurant, you cannot interfere because it is *my* restaurant. Not yours, and not the majority's. Mine.

The majority always has a problem understanding the concept of property rights, and always attempts to exert primary control over all resources. How much they allow us to dispose of as we see fit is only a measure of how benevolent a dictator they are. It does not change the fact of the dictator's existence and power.

And since the majority is a different group on every issue, the end result is that we are all oppressed in many ways, and are each only the oppressors in a few ways. Throw in the concept of entitlement and it has accordingly been noted that:

"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frederic Bastiat

Since there is no such entity as "the public," since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that "the public interest" supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others. – Ayn Rand

[Joe]

Majority opinion works something like: Yes, I want the Government to do something about climate change. Yes, I want to keep driving my gas guzzling super car. Yes, I support renewable energy. No, I am not willing to pay 5c a week more for electricity. Yes, I agree it is bad that plastic bags kill load of innocent sea animals. No, I am not willing to forgoe the slight convenience of a disposible plastic shopping bag. Yes, I support unconditional religious freedom. No, I do not support allowing islam to become a majority religion. Yes, I support disarming society. No, I do not want to give up my fully automatic anti-tank grenade launching shot gun bazooka that I need to protect my family from a home invasion that has never happened.

Good luck with you theory Scott! :-)

BTW. I get your point but the song still kind of sucked. What you say is true for commercial pop-songs, but true art is in the process and the relationship/communication between the artist and the appreciator. You can't mimic that. Fun experiment though.

[CLS]

How are women minorities again? Is male chauvinism an issue with majority support?

[Mark Wilden]

Most Americans don't use drugs?? Americans LOVE drugs. (Unless you were just talking about the illegal ones, of course.)

[cr steuusy]

the majority are christian.

i/you am/are an atheist.

do i have to spell it out for oyu?

steussy

[KD]

*********
Help me think through this question by giving me some CURRENT examples in which the majority in the United States would suppress a particular minority in some way that is clearly evil.
*********

Abortion is a maybe depending on your view of whether a prebirth child is human. If you take a more religous view or believe different set of DNA, different person would likely consider it evil. A slight majority favors a practice which kills about 1 million (potential) humans every year in the US without any sort of trial.

Smokers are also hounded by the non-smoking majority mostly because they are an annoyance, which is kind of ironic if you think about it. Most people who would decriminalize drugs would also probably ban smoking. It's not quite evil, but it is a loss of freedoms.

So aside from those things, it usually is a vocal minority who are trying to hurt other groups.

[chuck]

I guess it all depends on how you define "majority".
If you define a majority as 50% +1 of all the people, then we have nothing to worry about - it's highly unlikely that 50%+1 of all the people will ever agree on anything.

But if you defined a majority as the largest number of votes, then we have problems. There are usually more than 2 positions on an issue (despite what CNN says). If 34% want one thing, 33% want another, and 33% something else, does that mean the 34% "majority" rules? Or does the 66% who couldn't agree with each other, over-rule the 34% who could?

[zakis]

There is no such thing as a majority.People think of majoritys as soildiers . The more soilders or people who hold the same opinion the more valid the said opinion but in america no one knows the numbers of people who hold a certain opinion so people in america , in fact everywhere just assume the majority opinion to be the one most advertised on television i.e oprah and the mindless meme slogan their small circle of say 100 repeat . their small circle of 100 is not representative of the entire country!
And i say mindless because many purport to believe high pholosophical ideals when in actual fact their just repeating something they heard . What that newspeak word? Duckspeak . TO CONCLUDE THERE ARE NO MAJORITIES , ONLY MINORITIES . 1 percent of people is all you need for a majority thought .

[Scott]

Historical example: Japanese internment camps. It's not hard at all to imagine something similar happening today with Muslims. All it would take is another (bigger) 9/11. I don't have the study to back it up, but I bet you could have got a majority to agree with racial (or religious) profiling at airport screening stations at any time during 2002, and maybe even today.

[David Laturner]

Firstly, you could claim that the majority denies clear abortion rights to those women who want them. That's a fairly qualified minority, but the fact remains that Roe vs Wade is at best a messy compromise - abortion rights belong in the constitution, or at least legislation, rather than a Supreme Court decision that could be overturned at any moment.
Secondly, you run into problems because if the majority chooses not to recognise the minority, or their claimed right, as valid, the oppression can be argued out of existence. The example I started off thinking about here was pedophiles, who could argue that they are denied the right to consensual sex with minors. The majority doesn't recognise the ability of a minor to consent to sex, negating any argument before it starts.

[Rabbit]

Historically the only times when rulers have been truly evil are in dictatorships. People like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot come to mind. The founders of our constitution knew better and decided not to concentrate power into one person. When people make laws governing themselves, they want to make laws that are in their best interest. For majority rule to work, the majority needs to agree with the laws that are being made.

There is one example where the majority oppressed the minority in a way that was evil:

Slavery

Too bad that is not a current example.

How about:

Illegal immigration? Would you pass laws that ultimately stripped illegals of natural rights? Would you treat them like terrorists?

Too bad you ruled out economics. Tariffs and taxes can be very easily used to oppress minorities. Since SUV drivers are a minority, and the American public wants laws that help make energy less expensive, why not pass a tax that specifically targets SUV drivers?

We could oppress the elderly. Often times we don't care as much about the elderly as we should.

[Juk]

Well, I can think of one current situation in the U.S. where a majority has abused its power to remove the rights of a minority because they believe them inferior: minors.

[Dudeman]

The problem here is...
You are making too much sense...
People can't take a simple approach because "that's not the way it's always been done"...

I'm still voting for you for president...
I'm not gay but I support their right to be in a happy or miserable marriage and have to divide assets to get out of it...
I've never used drugs but I support them being decriminalized so the prices will come down, death rates will drop with the quality going up, and the government can tax it along with all of the criminals no longer making all the money and stealing from honest working americans like myself to pay for their overpriced drugs...
I also am healthy but if I wasn't, I think that I should have the right to die peacefully at the hands of a doctor...
I'm not religious, nor do I care about the separation of church and state, but if the majority wants it, I'm ok with that...

All these people are forgetting that a democracy is supposed to be majority ruled... Even though it's not the case... Now if you could kick out the illegals and make them apply properly (along with learning english) you'd probably have all the votes in my circle of friends (that also currently don't count.)
CW ;-)

[Lorien]

The fact that women made it into your list of minorities (at least for the Democrat race thingy), highlights the implication that "minorirty" and "majority" aren't the right words to describe the issue.

Let's be honest and call them the "have power" and "have little or no power" groups. This takes away all associations with physical characteristics that just makes people emotional, defensive and confused.

[Arby]

It is always interesting to see the words that are used in describing any minority plight. The minority’s proponents assume the mantle for the protection of the rights of the persecuted and go forth to battle their oppressors. The buzz words are entitlement, right, power, prerogative, privilege, claim, freedom, license, opportunity, dispensation, advantage, benefit, concession, partiality, bias, prejudice, discrimination, preconception, favoritism, enable, permit and sanction.

All of these are use to describe the harassment, maltreatment, bullying, singling out, hounding and harrying of the minority group in question. In many ways minorities are just as discriminating as their perceived tormenter. Reverse discrimination is prevalent and is getting more evident everyday.

This country always goes to extremes to make sure the rights of minorities are addressed and often to their disadvantage. Don’t claim to have the answer, just look on in wonderment when these excesses actually hurt the minority’s cause.

[Crimson_Sky]

Firstly, ROFL @ today's comic.

My mom and I have been loving that commercial lately, and seeing the reference in the comic was priceless!

Secondly, I agree with your point. Even though I'm not american I can somehow associate with this type of arguement. Recently I found myself moderating on a very large forum, and it got to be completely insane with how people were reacting to every moderating decision made. Apparently all of the team (it took a majority vote of at least 3 moderators to action anything) were bias of both sides! We were pro one side of the arguement in one occasion, then apparently pro the other on another case. So people were actually creating threads to try and get some of us voted out for being unfair.

Note the fact it took a majority vote of at least 3 moderators. Explain to me how someone can claim bias of one moderator as being the reason for an unfair ruling on ALL cases? ;) InDUHviduals, much?

[Gustaf Sjöblom]

Drug users...

...and convivts, and quite possibly racists.

Groups that the majority activly dislike or have very little sympathy for would most likely be worse of. Convicts, drug users and other groups fall under this.

Then there is the problem of weighting. For example 60% might be against a certain thing but don't care very much while 40% are for it but care a great deal indeed. How will this administration handle such cases?

[alan]

Everyone should oppress Volvo Drivers, smug bastards, car built to survive 100 mph head on with an elk, and does not use much gas and does not break up families (18 month maternity - paternity leave for all of Sweden's workforce), then they drive carefully, as if there was an 8 inch spike mounted in the centre of the steering wheel.

oh, and the little people, the ones that pay their taxes, we would cheerfully oppress those that don't pay their taxes.

[Richard]

Remember half of the population is below average so any majority ...

[rita mae]

booger eatin' bed wetters

Rita Mae

[jim]

A distant example, but it may be relevant. What about the Japanese internment camps during WWII. I guess you could call that national defense, but 1) it still sucked and 2) I doubt if anyone can prove that helped national defense. And I don't think we're much better people than our parents were.

[amenot]

Your plan doesn't work because:

- The majority of people are typically stupid and ignorant hence if they decide stuff, disaster will happen.
- The majority of people in this country are white, if they have their way, they would discriminate others in job hiring/promotion, in college acceptance, etc.
- The majority of people in this country are christians, they do not vote for a person who does not claim he/she is also a christian.

[SpookysFriend]

We do not inherit the world from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.

[Jim Casey]

I think the purpose of the congressional and administrative branches is to temper the will of the people so that this country moves forward at a measured pace. It's easy to whip the populace into a frenzy where the majority of people support a given cause that may be unjust -- it's the job of our elected officials to ensure the public doesn't make rash decisions we may regret later.

That's one of the benefits of living in a constitutional republic instead of a direct democracy. The drawback is it's a slow process -- but more-or-less, given enough time, we get it right, and without the expense of popular revolution every other year.

[Yuriy]

Minorities will easily be able to oppress smaller minorities, as long as the majority remains apathetic.

[Gryffalio]

DeeGee: We already established that with the fact that he stated what he stands for.

I think the points already made do all point toward the fact that it would be impossible to know and implement the majority view. If you represent a state then you probably could do so quite easily, however to represent a nation and do this you would have to have opinion polls left right and centre and even then, you wouldn't have an official view. The only way to find out what the majority believes in is to do as the Australians have and make voting mandatory. Also, making referendums on everything including which flavour of jam you put on your toast on thursday morning and make it mandatory for the public to join in this as well.

And yet again we come to a stumbling block, what of the millions of illegal immigrants living 'outside the grid' do they count? would you truly represent the majority including those who are not citizens of the States? would you simply represent those who are citizens and can vote? if so, you're not really representing the majority of the nation because there are many who live, breath, work, (don't pay taxes), drink, eat, sleep in America who don't have a say and whose voice you cannot hear.

The only feasible way to run a country is through standing for your own issues and hoping to get elected on them. Then implementing said stance and hoping to be reelected. If the majority don't agree with you, you don't get reelected (unless you're called George W)

[JPS]

So you would rather oppress the majority over the minority?

[shagbark]

Polygamists.
Animals.
Rich people.

But most importantly

Politicians.

[luke]

The problem is, in the past majorities have been influenced to discriminate against minorities through propaganda. Propaganda doesn't have to be state-run.

In Germany and Rwanda, populations have been influenced by propaganda (admittedly state-run) to discriminate against (or tolerate discrimination against) minorities.

In answer to your question, I'd say that a majority would oppress a minority when someone either paid for the advertising, or more likely, controlled relevant media outlets.

[DWH]

Idealy we should have a pure democracy.That is,I vote on a 'bill' that is proposed by anyone(what,no elected officials!)and my taxes are adjusted accordingly.If only three people vote on an idea,then that is all the budget it would get.Of course, this form of government would wipe out majority and minority and corruptive rule,so don't look for it to happen too soon.

[D. Mented]

This blog is an exception - the majority of Americans are not just Christians, they are currently Christians who allow themselves to feel persecuted any time their imagined right to impose their beliefs on all is limited.
Most of the Christians who read and post here are the more sensible type that feel souls and sins are for God to judge, no human interference necessary, so a secular system that guaruntees individual rights to worship is plenty good enough for them. Constant contact with people who have good sense can lead to a false sense of security.
The religious majority, given the chance, would leap to impose their beliefs on all (for their own good, the foolish, misguided devil worshippers..."They may say they aren't worshipping the devil, but their leaders are secretly carrying their prayers to Satan." I wish that was not a direct quote)
D. Mented

[disembodied consciousness]

I'm fascinated by what people consider to be oppression. It may not even be possible to agree on what policies oppress what minority. How then can you rule?

Are rich folks oppressed when they pay a greater percentage of their income in tax? You can call it "unfair" because everybody isn't charged the same number of dollars, or "fair" because rich people consume more services like police and defense to protect their assets. (Not that this is realistic. In reality there are so many exemptions for the wealthy that the net effect of tax law is still regressive).

Are smokers oppressed when they cannot light up wherever and whenever they want? You can call it "fair" since it affects both smokers and nonsmokers equally, or "fair" since smoke is harmful to nonsmokers. Why is it "unfair"? Have to ask a smoker.

Religious intolerance can even be rationalized as being sure the apostate hear the Good News.

[Briana]

I was raised in a very religious family, with all the stereotypical beliefs that this implies. I've grown up a bit lately and learned to listen to both sides of the story, so some of my beliefs have changed. However, I've never been able to understand the Pro Choice viewpoint. No matter how I look at it, I can't see abortion as anything other than killing a human being. In my mind, killing a person is clearly wrong, no matter the circumstances.

How do we define an action as evil? I don't know if there is a "clear" answer. I know plenty of people who would classify homosexuality, abortion, illegal immigration, etc. as clearly evil... would the majority agree?

[Mark Thorson]

The Native Americans, who were
robbed and massacred, and who
have not regained even a small
part of their land. Only a
few tribes got rich from
gaming.

The majority seems pretty
comfortable with the existing
situation.

[chrism]

ack, I totally misread that question. sorry.

[chrism]

They rich and powerful...they suppress the poor and uneducated. Heck, you could even call politicians the minority, but they sure do a great job controlling the rest of us, well outside of actual legislation.

[Dave B.]

There is strong public support for repression of the following activities:

Taking Drugs
Smoking
Prostitution
Eating fatty foods
Gambling
Political Speech (via campaign finance reform)

...just to name a few things off the top of my head.

[Chris Taylor]

I think we can all agree that it would be in the best interests of the country (and entertainment industry) to oppress the hell out of celebrity Scientologists. Vigorously.

[Joy]

To the one who thinks smokers are oppressed:

When you can pee in the community pool, and it only stays with you instead of spreading out to all of us, then I'll agree with you. In the meantime, try chewing tobacco. And don't spit!

Tobacco is filthy, either way. But if you keep your filth to yourself, fine.

CFS'93

[Nodnerb]

This post is wrong in so many ways.

1) Paragraph 3 is total hogwash.

2) Paragraph 4 contains "African-American" which is also wrong. He is either African or American, can't be both. Do you consider yourself a New York-Californian? If he came from Africa and is not a citizen he is an African living in America. If he became a citizen he is an American. It's the same with any other geographical area, town, city, country, or continent. The people who insist upon making such distinctions are causing many of the problems with "minorities". We are constantly blasted by people in foreign countries for our arrogance, but have you ever heard of an American in any other foriegn country who insisted upon being referred to as an "American-German", "American-African" or "American-whatever" especially if he, his parents, and his grand-parents were all born in that country?

[Keely]

Someone above said:

"Rich people(a definite minority) would be oppressed by
not-rich people. A current day example is progressive tax
rates."

I would like to point out that most politicians making these decisions are, in fact, rich people. Thus, it is the minority shooting itself in the foot.

[maximusjack]

"Evil" oppression of a minority by the majority tends to occur when the majority is scared by the minority. During WWII, nice Japanese-Americans were rounded up by the majority and placed in camps because the majority was afraid of them. The current example today is the "enemy-combatant". These are individuals deemed by the majority to be so dangerous that they are not to be given the same rights at trail as other Americans. (No right to know what crime you committed, no right to question your accusers) If you get labeled as an enemy combatant (which can happen even to Americans) your rights are oppressed.
You may argue that this designation is the work of Cheney et al. and not the majority. But the majority has not demanded change. It has not asked Congress to put an end to it. It has through its silence accepted and endorsed this "evil" oppression.

[sam]

Here's a good example where listening to the majority might not be such a great idea:

Majority: US Citizens
[Minority: rest of the world
Form of suppression: regime change.

After all, the majority of Americans were all for Iraq (at the time). Ok, that might be a bit of the tail wagging the dog, since the majority were subjected to false advertising, but still.

Posted by: rdas7 | January 30, 2008 at 09:26 AM ]

I'm not being funny, mate, but how the hell dod you figure out that US citizens are the majority when compared to the rest of the world? Seriously, wtf??

[Lou]

"Nonetheless, we need look no further than illegal immigrants to see how majorities treat powerless minorities. Yes, they are not American citizens, so can't vote, but they are clearly human beings. They often work in slave-like conditions without benefit of medical care or protection of the law. That counts as oppression to me."

But, if they were here legally they wouldn't be so oppressed, would they?

The reason they are working in those horrible conditions IS because they're not citizens... Had they 'stood in line' and became a legal alien, they would have more rights. I'm not talking about 'human rights,' but the ability of the country to regulate the working conditions (and taxes) of it's citizens and visitors. If you're outside the system, you're not protected by the system...

[Edmund]

In what way are women a minority?

[Bil]

polygamists
Where's my freedom to have enough wives so that they can keep themselves entertained and I can go to the office and get some work done?

[argenbert]

tits. now that i have your undivided attention:

because lack of cohesion, for a majority to have some kind of power it's very hard: even when a majority can elect a president, this president will find a lot easier to press this same majority that elected him than pressing on a 'major' minority.

the reason is cohesion.

[Zoltan]

Many people have referred to religion / atheists, but no one has talked about science.

It's my understanding that the majority of USians believe in ghosts, psychics, homeopathy, and a number of other completely discredited beliefs. And believing in those things is, in fact, evil. Believing in so-called medicinal practices that do not work cost people health (and later, increase health costs), and in general believing in things that have been shown to be without merit contribute to the 'dumbing down' of society.

The majority of USians do not have a good grounding in science. And that's highly problematic.

[phaser]

What gets me is how do you figure out what the majority really wants? I see lots of claims for what the majority opinion is and there are cores of people who claim to represent them majority (the Moral Majority is neither).

I'll grant that my experience in my limited travels around the country doesn't make my view very valid, but it is interesting to see how regionalized "majority" opinions are and also how vocal minorities spouting "truthiness" can subdue the true majority opinion. In the example of Brown v Board of Education, was it really true that the majority supported segregation? Or was it that an extremely loud minority managed to look like a majority and sway the perception of the majority opinion?

[Chris Ulmer]

Drug users...

[elmegil]

The problem is where do you draw the boundaries of the majority?

You're correct, nationally those positions are the way the nation tends. But in local areas, some states, some counties, some cities, such positions are turned on their heads.

And when you start enforcing the national majority on the local majority which disagrees with it, those local folks are going to claim to be an oppressed minority. See Boy Scouts of America, various Country Clubs, etc.

[Jeff Moses]

Seems to me it's all about the details. It's possible to support "gay rights" but not support the right of gay people to be teachers. Or to support "gay marriage" but not full tax equity for same-sex couples. Getting a sense of what "the majority" opinion is really depends what question you ask.

[Peter Sommers]

How do you propose to finde out the majority opinion on every single issue?

Which opinion are you looking for? The one we have in public? The one we have in private/anonymously? Or the one we have after the costs of our opinions are made clear to us?

It is this last opinion that would likely give rise to the oppression people are concerned about. Supporting minorities groups is easy, when its free.

[DeeGee]

The homeless.

In my city, we bust panhandlers for asking for money. We call it something else -- vagrancy, public urination, littering, etc. -- but we really don't want homeless people around.

How do we get away with it? Quiescent courts, harassing police, judgmental passersby, archconservative local press.

It won't surprise you to learn that we've spent so much time complaining about trivia that the scalawags and carpetbaggers have appropriated just about everything of value. We're stalled in just about every way a city can be.

Nobody notices or much cares, apparently.

[Captain Penguin]

You said "I’m willing to change my mind on this issue".

That is why you're not a politician!

[Ariel Tupolski]

The majority of the people think it is just fine to use/take any copyrighted material on the internet for whatever purposes. The minority of artists, such as yourself, think this is stealing. "Clearly evil" is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously the marjority don't think taking/using copyrighted material is evil at all. The pesky minority might disagree.

[Tim]

Scott,
Think about what you just said and how opinions have changed from 30-40 years ago. Majorities at whatever time favored oppression of blacks, gays, women, and many other groups.

Everybody knows if you have enough money you can change majority opinions at least temporarily. A couple of months ago Rudy Giuliani would have won the primary in Florida, but yesterday he didn't. Wait until you see what Bloomberg does with a Billion dollars in the upcoming election, do you think there are not people who could spend that amount on many other issues?

The reason we are a Republic and not a pure Democracy is that the people only make decisions on what they know at the moment, which of course comes from the media (who sensationalize in order to sell papers). Elected representatives are supposed to digest all of the information and deliberate on behalf of the people who elected them. They decide what their constituency would want if they had the best information (like our politicians are supposed to have...).

Scott, this is the first time I've seen you really step on your own crank, you are usually much more thoughtful. I've decided not to vote for you until you show that you have studied up on your political theory.

Tim

[David Kimball]

One doesn't need to imagine such a scenario - one only has to observe. This would happen whenever you had a demagogue who could convince a majority of the people that such and such was right.

This happened with the demagogue named Bush. He convinced a majority of the people that we needed to invade Iraq in order to fight a non-existent enemy. As a result, over 100,000 people died.

Democracy is based on the premise that the people will be intelligent and will act rationally. But if people act irrationally, especially when having their emotions plundered, Democracy is no better than fascism - for it is in the hands of demagogues either way.

[timdau]

Rich people(a definite minority) would be oppressed by not-rich people. A current day example is progressive tax rates.

[orangemike]

Repeated referenda on gay marriage say you're wrong.

The treatment accorded Wiccans, Muslims, atheists and communists in this country say you're wrong.

(For the record: I am none of the above; but I read the newspapers and the election results.)

[Mike]

There seems to be an inherent need for most people to feel superior to others, which always results in repression. For example, you say that "Most Americans are not gay, but the majority supports gay rights," when in reality those same Americans keep voting to outlaw marriage equality in state after state. They claim that if the gay couple next door is allowed to have a happy marriage then that somehow is a threat to their own marriage. People don't vote for what they think is right, they vote for what the think will preserve or promote their own personal agenda, regardless of what they say they believe.

On the contrary, we live in an age of reverse discrimination against the majority. Minority rules!