''The Tyranny of the Majority''

[DeSwiss]

On this Monday, November 2, 2009, the day before the voters of the State of Maine go to the polls to decide if they are to be in reality what all of the paperwork says we are in principle. Whether the citizens of Maine are to be allowed to "pursue happiness" as it has been previously declared is our right. And if they are in fact a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Or, if our government is not to be defined by us, but by someone's idea of god and what he demands. That we must all succumb to the laws of those whose limited vision of freedom extends no further than the pit of the dark imaginings of hell of which they constantly live in fear. If humanity has in fact "evolved" or rather, if we are no further along today than those who once lived in caves, grass huts and houses made of sticks. Who thought the world to be flat and sitting upon a foundation. And who believed that killing animals and setting them alight would assuaged the blood-lust of their god.

I thought it would be apropos to remember the words of one spoken long ago about the struggle to achieve freedom and equality. Through these words may we be reminded yet again, that this struggle is not a new one and is never over. That as long as there are people there will likely be discrimination -- but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it. We must constantly fight against our worst qualities. Our worst inclinations. Because in the end, it is this struggle against the worst in ourselves, that makes us truly "human."

Excerpt from On Liberty ~ “The Tyranny of the Majority”

“…Like other tyrannies, “the tyranny of the majority” was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant —society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries.

Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own.

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control—is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people...”

~ John Stuart Mill, 1859

The full text of On Liberty

[NMMNG]

1. Kick

From one subjected to the Tyranny of the Majority just a year ago.

[DeSwiss]

2. Kick again....

- From one who has been subject to the Tyranny of the Majority all his life.....

"Grownups can be such morons -- it's simple okay?
Equal means E Q U A L. Sheesh!"

[NMMNG]

5. Sick, isn't it?

That people like us have to beg for basic rights from people who shouldn't have the authority to withhold them in the first place...

[DeSwiss]

8. Very well put.

[DeSwiss]

3. Kick

[anonymous171]

4. Tyranny of the majority is not as dangerous as most other kinds of tyranny.

Also, this kind of argument is used by those with money to justify their hatred of democracy and society. I don't like it.

[JonQ]

17. Sure about that?

I think an argument could be made that it is worse.

Harder to fight against a tyrannous majority. Also, as it represents the people, it can claim ultimate moral high ground on all matters, so much harder to oppose it in that way.

The horrors of the french revolution illustrate what happens when the mob takes control.

[anonymous171]

34. What was so horrible about it? Sure it was chaotic and a lot of innocents got killed

But the final outcome was much better than what they had before.

[JonQ]

36. What was so horrible about it?

"Sure it was chaotic and a lot of innocents got killed"

you answered yourself.

[bemildred]

6. The tyranny of the majority is not worse than the tyranny of the minority.

Tyranny is the problem, plain and simple.

[DeSwiss]

7. I agree that tyranny.....

...is "the" problem. However, I believe that the distinction that Mills was drawing here, was to say that when the "majority" uses the process(es) of democracy (which is itself implicitly fair) to limit the rights of a minority, such actions are in effect tyrannical. While the process in achieving this inequality by voting and referendums may be democratic, the outcome is inequality which is antithetical to the very premise of democracy. There is little point in referring to a nation as "a democracy" or that it's citizens are afforded a "Bill of Rights," if the rights and privileges only apply to some, and not to all.

Some inequalities can be perpetrated upon minorities by "commission" -- where laws are specifically created and passed "by a majority" to limit the free-exercise of rights of minorities the majority dislikes or wishes to control for some reason. Usually and historically religion is at the basis of this prejudice. And we have seen many examples of this in our history, as it applied to the exercise of full rights by women, and in particularly the Jim Crow and similar type "race laws" aimed at blacks and other minorities (almost always those with darker skins).

The other form such inequality has taken has been is through "acts of omission" -- where the majority population, and/or those who are legally charged with overseeing the equitable application and adjudication of the laws, seek (in effect) to erase the very definition of what an individual's right are. And this is accomplished by simply refusing to accept those minority's definition of who they are. This has been the case in most states where the majority in the legislatures or at the polls have refused to extend the same benefits and rights that heterosexual citizens enjoy, to same-sex homosexual citizens. The resulting failure to acknowledge their rights has the effect of creating a legal definition of homosexuality even in the absence of any laws. But that void has the force of law. And it is anything but equal when the comparison of individuals is being made with respect to a heterosexual's relationships, family, inheritance rights, visitation rights, etcetera, etcetera. In other words, all the things we heterosexuals take for granted.

I would readily agree that it is tyrannical for a minority of less than 5% of the country's population to control the economic fate of the remaining 95% of that population. That type of a tyrannical minority I think we can all agree is not only terrible for a democracy, but absolutely cancerous. And if not checked, may end up killing that democracy. However, I do not hold that it is tyrannical for a minority to demand that they be treated with respect and accorded the same civil liberties and privileges that everyone else enjoys in this country. Or in the world for that matter. But then, I'm an idealist. So I don't always adhere to what most consider the political practicalities. I simply go with what I know is fair and right. And as cynical as I am, deep down I still believe in the concept of us being a "government of, by and for the people."

- Because the world needs dreamers too.....

[cark]

11. Isn't all legislation tyranny then?

Is it tyranny for a slim majority (as it has been for a long time one party or the other) to pass legislation that limit personal freedoms of those who disagree? I consider my paycheck as part of my freedom, that I traded part of my life for money. War and Healthcare are 2 sides of that same coin. Ones persons good idea is anothers tyranny.

[MajorChode]

13. I can't believe it is

In order for there to be tyranny in the first place, you must have someone who is oppressed and there's several examples of legislation aimed at ending oppression. I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say the oppressors or those who unfairly benefited from oppression are now the oppressed.

[cark]

14. Define oppression

Say I'm against government healthcare because I don't think it does enough to control costs - yet it is passed against my wishes. I am now subject to the laws and tax associated with the bill. Rules and taxes are a form of oppression as they limit my freedom.

[MajorChode]

15. That sounds like an anarchist definition of oppression

All government is going to limit your freedom in one way or another, but I can't go along with calling that oppression.

[cark]

21. Why Not?

This is a major building block of our constitution - limiting the majority from imposing laws on the minority. Having something forced upon you against your will is tyranny. This is why they favored a small federal government with limited roles, because they acknowledged this reality. Our constitution's primary function is protecting our rights and it reserved pretty much all other powers to the state.

Wouldn't it be great if our country was a smorgasbord of 50 different states. Where you could pick and choose the state with the government and programs that best fit with your sensibilities. Where you could pick a state with all the social services government could provide or a low tax no frills state or somewhere in between. Everyone could have a place they felt more comfortable. Think how much easier it is to affect change locally than it is nationally. Think of how much less fighting there would be nationally and how much more unified as a country we could be. Right now every battle in Washington is so big because half the people don't want whatever is being proposed. This is the system I think our founders intended.

[MajorChode]

30. I can't agree with your definition of tyranny

Having something forced upon you does not fit any definition of tyranny that I'm familiar with. If such force is astringent, capricious, or unjust, then you might have something, but living under the rule of law is not tyranny.

And no, neither can I go along with your libertarian view of how you think the US should be. The founding fathers lived in an agrarian society where the vast majority of your needs could be met within a small community and what someone did 1,000 miles away wasn't likely to affect you. They never expected our government to be static and fully intended that the government can and should change to fit the needs of the people. In your utopian society, it's not very likely that basic social justice would have ever found it's way to the south and there might still be slavery to this very day. Even in this modern age most people live and die within a small radius of where they were born. I can't go along with "love it or leave it." It's more than a bit of a moral hazard to enjoy the basic necessities of life in one area while those who help make it possible are doing without.

[DeSwiss]

16. After a fashion -- yes.

And I think Plato said it best: "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

If you think about why we have laws and legislatures to enact them, it is because it is the system that we've agreed upon to take the place of the one we used before to decide things: "the "might makes right" formula. And I suppose that it would also depend upon what the legislation actually is, but yes it could be argued that we act in a tyrannical fashion, at least the part about "imposing the will of the majority" upon those who thought otherwise.

But bear in mind that in "The Tyranny of the Majority" John Stuart Mills was speaking from 1859. And his experience up until then was with the machinations of the kings, queens and the so-called nobility of Europe who had spent the past 1500 years killing each other over land and power. And using peasants as fodder. And the parliament of that time, barely represented the common man -- that was truly the time of "trickle-down" economics. And even today, it could be still argued that this is largely so. Otherwise we wouldn't still be fighting the rich and politically powerful over the issue of whether it is morally right or not that a person's life should depend upon whether someone is feeling charitable or not. Or, whether one has enough money to keep from dying.

Now in a larger sense, the answer to your question would be no. Because we often are the recipients of what we view as tyrannical behavior. Our parents, for example. Parents unilaterally make decisions for us that we have little or no say in when we are young. As we grow older we're allowed input maybe, but the decisions and the money to fund them, aren't ours. We only learn later that those visits to the doctor and the dentist, that the dance lessons and the trombone lessons were in fact for our own good. It taught things about ourselves we would never have learned otherwise. And even if they don't work, there is much to said for the process of elimination. So at least we know what we don't want to do with our lives.

Likewise, many of those who are now arguing against funding healthcare, because they cannot see how they benefit, but only how they lose. But they are failing to realize (or simply don't want to) that the benefits may not be readily apparent particularly in the beginning. Is it to my good that future generations are healthy? Well, yes. Since they'll have to run things when I'm old, I'd rather healthy people be in charge rather than sick ones who can't think and act at the time of my life when those skills are diminishing in myself. But the purpose that I posted this to begin with, was as a reminder that the fight for personal freedom has been of long-standing. And the references of which I am speaking, have little or nothing to do with taking something away from anyone. But rather, extending freedom more completely and equitably.

Passing legislation that increases my taxes may indeed be considered tyrannical -- by me. But I benefit from the greater good that those taxes will bring in, or so the theory goes. And in-general I agree with that theory, even though I may not always like it. But in the case of gay people's rights (which is the focus of this post), there is no loss to my freedom by extending the same ones to them. And that's my point.

- And welcome to DU.

[cark]

27. Considering Legislation - Freedom of Choice

I'm probably a little more libertarian than a lot of people here, but I always like the default position to be personal freedom when considering legislation. My great idea might be your unwanted intrusive burden. If it isn't fundamentally necessary for the (federal) government to fulfill its constitutional role, then it should be left to the states to enact. This way if the state enacts something I think is particularly egregious I can possibly escape to another state. I think you could even take this further, to the county/city level, for a lot of laws. I have a lot more say locally than state wide and more state wide than nationally. Keeping government as local as possible is usually best IMO.

The federal governments main role should be protecting our basic fundamental natural rights.

[Starry Messenger]

9. Bookmarking.

[Starry Messenger]

10. kick for the lunch crowd. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

Democracy is only one, of many, forms of government. None of which are necessarily benevolent or tyrannical. All of which seldom hesitate to bemome despotic in order to retain power.

[DeSwiss]

19. Indeed.

And well said. There is also this perspective on this same point that I've recently come across:

"Law can be sustained only by a sovereign power which reserves for itself the right... to suspend the rule of law(s) on behalf of the Law itself." ~ Slavoj Zizek (The Parallex View {Short Circuits})


- As contradictory as hell, and yet nothing else works quite as well. Or at least nothing that we've thought of so far.....

[endeavourniche]

20. Re: Tyranny of the Majority

The United States is not a democracy. The Founding Fathers understood that democracy is in reality; "mob rules". That's why our country was set up as a Limited Republic wherein the "majority rules as long as it does not infringe upon the inherent rights of the individual". Inherent rights being those provided by nature. In other words you are born with them.
This is one of the most misunderstood facts of the U.S. Constitution. Most Americans simply believe the majority rules and the minority be damned.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. And, theoretically, it works. Some of the time, it actually does.

So does Communism, Fascism, Monarchism, and downright despotism. Which brings us to "All politics is local", as Tip O'Neill said. One can be content with any form of government if one is on the right side of the power structure.

[endeavourniche]

26. Agreed

[ItNerd4life]

18. I'm confused. Couldn't Tyranny of the majority describe public healthcare?

Forcing everybody to participate and use a government run healthcare program, isn't that tyranny of the majority?

I mean most tyrannical governments say its for the good of the people. That's what is being said about healthcare.

I'm serious, could someone please explain how there is a difference?

[endeavourniche]

22. Hcare

The argument has been made that Congress itself, the Legislative branch of our government in and of itself violates the Constitution.
I can't find the site I where I read that, so I can't explain the reasoning.

[DeSwiss]

28. As I've said in a post response upthread.....

...one must bear in mind that John Stuart Mills was speaking from 1859 at a time when government and the laws they enacted applied largely to the benefit of the rich and powerful. Not us common folk. Commoners could not even vote during much of his time. I used his essay as a focal point from which we might to view our own times, a century and a half later.

But in answer specifically to your question, I would say yes, it might be argued on the question of healthcare that the majority's decision could be seen as tyrannical by some (even though the issue of gay rights and the voting in Maine today -- not healthcare -- was my initial reason for posting this). However Mills' point I think, is that it is a constant vigil that we must undertake to insure that we are not acting in a tyrannical fashion, or that we do so as little as "humanly" possible. There is no silver bullet where the lives of humans are involved. We just have to muddle through. There is no law and no formula that will answer all the right questions and leave no one unsatisfied. I think that Mills last paragraph above, addresses the question you're asking:

There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism. But though this proposition is not likely to be contested in general terms, the practical question, where to place the limit—how to make the fitting adjustment between individual independence and social control—is a subject on which nearly everything remains to be done. All that makes existence valuable to any one, depends on the enforcement of restraints upon the actions of other people...”

The laws being passed against gay marriage are taking away rights already guaranteed under the Constitution, namely those dealing with equality and due process -- for heterosexuals -- even though it doesn't exactly say that. But it's being interpreted that way through the filters of religiosity, and the effect is a loss of rights by some because they don't fit the majority's definitions.

[cark]

32. I don't see any difference.

As citizens we have become conditioned to accept any restriction on our freedom as contitutionally acceptible as long as a majority in congress approve it and the president signs it. When someone asked speaker Pelosi about the constitutionality of healthcare the other day, she indignately refused to entertain the notion that congress might be somehow restrained. That attitude trouble me.

[morgan2]

23. Im wondering when some church

will challenge gay marriage bans on freedom of religion grounds. It seems a pretty clear cut case, if you have a church that performs gay marriage that a state would have to recognize them.

[endeavourniche]

24. Maybe not

They would make the separation of church and state argument and say they don't have to recognize anything the church says or does.
It would probably be a good argument since the "state" recognizes a "Marriage License". The State doesn't care if you get married in a church or not.
I'm just putting this out there. Don't rip my head off.

[DeSwiss]

29. You make a very interesting point....

...however, from my reading of it, the single right that religion has under our Constitution is the right to exist. That's it. All other rights belong to the government or the people. While gay marriage does not threaten the existence of religion (although some claim that it does and I wish that it did), but it doesn't. Likewise, anyone claiming that gay marriage threatens the free exercise of their religion because their religion promotes gay marriage, would be most likely laughed out of the courtroom. And that's the case, even in the face of historical proof (in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches) for same-sex unions.

- However, I'd prefer that religion just stay the hell away from secular life as much as possible. When it's all said in done, in my opinion they only make things worse in the end.

[JackRiddler]

31. Oooooh! Is it worse than the capitalist oligarchy we actually have?

[DeSwiss]

33. Since man discovered agriculture, the Capitalist Oligarchy....

...has been with us. When we stopped hunting and gathering and began growing our food, we found that we needed someplace to put it all. Some place to sell it all. And some place to put the gold that we made from selling it when it was all said and done (cue bankers).

That money our ancestors made became the first capital, and the leaders of the tribes who once wore skulls around their belts, later exchanged them for diamonds, ermine and pearls and went uptown and became "The Nobility." Who owned pretty much all of it. And what they didn't own, they shared with the knights. That would be like a modern-day CEO in our own times. So in truth, to go to the point where there was no Capitalist Oligarchy, we'd have to go back to hunting and gathering.

- And it may come to that......

[JackRiddler]

35. thank you for a fine little essay...

Perhaps things changed again starting about 250 years ago, once there was a surplus that could actually allow more than 5 percent of the people to live in the cities, and we have a different kind of capitalist oligarchy today - a replaceable one, perhaps?

I'm going to post that graphic all over the place, by the way - thanks!