What's Fair Game in Democracy?

[MoralLibertarian]

The left in this country doesn't want us to vote on issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Some folks on the right don't think it's alright for 90% of the poorest to vote to take more money away from the richest 10% than anyone else.

Perhaps they are both right. Why should the majority, in any case, have the power to screw over the minority?

Note that this is theoretical. In the US the majority can screw over the minority because the Constitution allows for it in certain instances, even though we screw people over far more than we did back in the early days of it. The question is: what things should be decided by majority rule, and what things should be off-limits?

[Jimsween]

At 10/19/05 12:40 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: Perhaps they are both right. Why should the majority, in any case, have the power to screw over the minority?

Depends on the school of though. On one hand you can say because that is what democracy is and it is the rule of law. And on the other hand you can justify every insance with a logical argument as to why the screwing them over is not a bad thing but rather a good thing.

The latter is a better way to approach things, because the former can be abused. One could say why should the majority slave population of the south in 1850 be allowed to screw over the minority Southern plantation owners by freeing themselves and thus causing the slave owners to lose thousands of dollars of property.

It's better not to generalize in such a way.

Note that this is theoretical. In the US the majority can screw over the minority because the Constitution allows for it in certain instances, even though we screw people over far more than we did back in the early days of it.

Alot of black people would disagree with that. We tax the rich 6% more than the middle class, and we tax the poor 15% less. Not a big deal at all.

The question is: what things should be decided by majority rule, and what things should be off-limits?

The things in the bill of rights.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/19/05 01:15 PM, Jimsween wrote: Depends on the school of though. On one hand you can say because that is what democracy is and it is the rule of law. And on the other hand you can justify every insance with a logical argument as to why the screwing them over is not a bad thing but rather a good thing.

The latter is a better way to approach things, because the former can be abused. One could say why should the majority slave population of the south in 1850 be allowed to screw over the minority Southern plantation owners by freeing themselves and thus causing the slave owners to lose thousands of dollars of property.

You're twisting the true situation. Slaves did not screw over anybody, rather, the majority at the Constitutional Convention denied the minority (slaves) any sovereignty at all, unless you count 3/5 of a person and no vote as sovereignty. The majority of the slave population did not represent the majority of America as a whole, hence it was another example of the majority screwing over the minority.

Alot of black people would disagree with that. We tax the rich 6% more than the middle class, and we tax the poor 15% less. Not a big deal at all.

I was referring to the redistribution of wealth and the massive federal government. And we tax some rich people more than the Middle class but the richest are taxed way more. The lowest income brackets don't even have to pay income taxes.

The question is: what things should be decided by majority rule, and what things should be off-limits?

The things in the bill of rights.

There's a lot of things you liberals hold near and dear that aren't in the bill of rights or the Constitution for that matter. Like abortion, gay marriage etc. And we've already established that you think that those things should not be for the public to decide.

[Jimsween]

At 10/19/05 03:05 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: You're twisting the true situation. Slaves did not screw over anybody, rather, the majority at the Constitutional Convention denied the minority (slaves) any sovereignty at all, unless you count 3/5 of a person and no vote as sovereignty. The majority of the slave population did not represent the majority of America as a whole, hence it was another example of the majority screwing over the minority.

There was no vote on the slavery issue so the way your looking at it is wrong. Therefore the voting rights of the whites and lack of them of the blacks is irrelevent. It's not meant to directly relate to democracy, just the situation of majority screwing over the minority.

I was referring to the redistribution of wealth and the massive federal government. And we tax some rich people more than the Middle class but the richest are taxed way more. The lowest income brackets don't even have to pay income taxes.

In that sense I guess we are 'screwing them over more'. But your still blowing it out of proportion. The richest person in America still only has a 7% higher tax rate than someone making 70k a year, and only 10% higher than someone making 30k a year. And the lowest income 'brackets' (the one, I asumme?) is below 7,000 dollars a year.

There's a lot of things you liberals hold near and dear that aren't in the bill of rights or the Constitution for that matter. Like abortion, gay marriage etc. And we've already established that you think that those things should not be for the public to decide.

Abortion is in the constitution. A few times I might add. Even the supreme court knows that.

And gay marriage is a case of the republican majority screwing over a minority, so that irrelevent. And one could easily argue that gay marriage is indeed mentioned in the fourteenth amendment.

[ReiperX]

The majority isn't always right, in many instances it is. But when things like gun ownership, abortion, gay marriage, and things like that, those are rights that people have or should have that shouldn't be taken away unless there is a legitimate reason to. Abortion is the only one above that I can even see the slightest legit reason to take away, but the pros for abortion outweigh the cons for it.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/19/05 03:40 PM, Jimsween wrote: Abortion is in the constitution. A few times I might add. Even the supreme court knows that.

No it isn't dopey. We've had this argument before. You think it's involuntary servitude or some bull like that, neglecting the fact that it's ultimately the woman's choice to put herself in this position of "involuntary servitude" by consenting to sex (most of the time). But the words "abortion" never come up. However, the 10th Amendment clearly states that issues not covered in the Constitution directly are up to the states or the people through Representative Government.

And gay marriage is a case of the republican majority screwing over a minority, so that irrelevent. And one could easily argue that gay marriage is indeed mentioned in the fourteenth amendment.

One could argue it, but it's not in the Constitution. That's the whole point. Just like one could argue (weakly, I might add) that abortion is mentioned in the Constitution in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

If the government shouldn't intervene in abortion or gay marriage, why should it intervene via progressive taxation and transfer payments?

[Gtd-Orion]

how aobu tthis the percent are equal there for ethe rich don't technically lose and the poor dont' suffer but bush keeps giving stinkin ta breaks to the wealthy

[Jimsween]

At 10/19/05 05:47 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote: No it isn't dopey. We've had this argument before. You think it's involuntary servitude or some bull like that, neglecting the fact that it's ultimately the woman's choice to put herself in this position of "involuntary servitude" by consenting to sex (most of the time). But the words "abortion" never come up.

We had this argument before, and it degenerated into you just repeatedly calling me wrong and eventually you quit posting. And the phrase is indentured servitude, which specifically applies when consent is given.

However, the 10th Amendment clearly states that issues not covered in the Constitution directly are up to the states or the people through Representative Government.

It nowhere says directly. And it doesn't even state that it all, it says 'powers not delegated' not 'issues not covered'.

If only issues directly covered were protected by the constitution, then it would be full of loopholes. Free speech wouldn't apply to anything written or typed. Religions could be taxed. And the government could search your property as long as it wasn't a house.

One could argue it, but it's not in the Constitution. That's the whole point. Just like one could argue (weakly, I might add) that abortion is mentioned in the Constitution in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.

Weakly? No, I'm afraid not, those are perfectly legitimate arguments, used by supreme court members as with many judges and lawyers. I guess they are weak in the same sense it's weak to say that the equal protection claus abolishes slavery.

If the government shouldn't intervene in abortion or gay marriage, why should it intervene via progressive taxation and transfer payments?

Because abortion is in the constitution?

[MoralLibertarian]

At 10/19/05 06:02 PM, Jimsween wrote:

At 10/19/05 05:47 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

We had this argument before, and it degenerated into you just repeatedly calling me wrong and eventually you quit posting. And the phrase is indentured servitude, which specifically applies when consent is given.

I quit posting because you're hopeless. The issue is choice. Remember that song, "The Devil Went Down to Georgia"? Johnny bet his soul that he could beat the Devil in fiddle. He was lucky and he won, but if he lost, the Constitution would not protect him from an eternity of "involuntary servitude" because he knew exactly what he was getting himself into.

Come on Dopey, the 10th Amendment mentions the states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Powers not delegated: since the Constitution mentions no where that abortion is legal or illegal, or says no where that gay marriage is legal or illegal, the states (or the Federal government through representation) reserve the power to permit or restrict such actions. Ironically, the Judicial Branch does not reserve those powers.

If only issues directly covered were protected by the constitution, then it would be full of loopholes. Free speech wouldn't apply to anything written or typed. Religions could be taxed. And the government could search your property as long as it wasn't a house.

Most of your claims are dubious. Let me show you why:

Amendment 1: ...or of the press... (so written and typed does apply)
Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures... (effects implies private property)

Weakly? No, I'm afraid not, those are perfectly legitimate arguments, used by supreme court members as with many judges and lawyers. I guess they are weak in the same sense it's weak to say that the equal protection claus abolishes slavery.

Those arguments are little more than a justification of personal policy preferences.

If the government shouldn't intervene in abortion or gay marriage, why should it intervene via progressive taxation and transfer payments?

First of all, so are taxes, in more way than one. Second of all, I'm not talking strictly about the Constitution. I'm asking what issues should be allowed to be voted on and what issues are out of the public eye.

[Memorize]

I think that most things like abortion should be voted on. After all, this is a democracy (republic for those who would want to correct me in some way), and the majority wins.

[SEXY-FETUS]

Can someone tell me where abortion is protected in the constitution without a complete bastardization and twisting of words?

[Slizor]

In that sense I guess we are 'screwing them over more'. But your still blowing it out of proportion. The richest person in America still only has a 7% higher tax rate than someone making 70k a year, and only 10% higher than someone making 30k a year. And the lowest income 'brackets' (the one, I asumme?) is below 7,000 dollars a year.

Nice stats. I prefer to use relative ones that show the impact of flat taxes, like VAT, on the contribution of the poorest.

[therealsylvos]

At 10/19/05 03:40 PM, Jimsween wrote: Abortion is in the constitution. A few times I might add. Even the supreme court knows that. And gay marriage is a case of the republican majority screwing over a minority, so that irrelevent. And one could easily argue that gay marriage is indeed mentioned in the fourteenth amendment.

Really?easily? well i have just read the fourteenth amendment and could not find the word "gay" in there. so please enlighten me. how could you "easily argue" this point.