Jimmy Wales wrote:
O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll have a hard time agreeing on very much. If 90% of a population is white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome? I don't think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is morally repugnant.
I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of majority rule advocates that sort of thing. The standard formulation is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or rule by a minority elite.
I'm a little reluctant even to post this comment, because I don't think we want to launch into an open-ended debate here about political worldviews. Suffice it to say that the areas on which I think we all agree are:
(1) Violation of the rights of a minority is morally repugnant, even if it takes place under a system of majority rule; and
(2) Wikipedia's current informal system of self-governance has worked pretty well thus far.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll have a hard time agreeing on very much. If 90% of a population is white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome? I don't think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is morally repugnant.
I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of majority rule advocates that sort of thing. The standard formulation is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or rule by a minority elite.
The alternative is the so-called "Rule of law" i.e. that we are ruled by laws not men. This is the underlying idea behind a Republic, and the purpose of a written constitution. It limits what one group (typically a plurality or majority) can use the government to do to other groups.
It seem as if Sheldon Rampton and Jimmy Wales may be talking past each other because the former is using the term "majority rule" figuratively to mean constitutional democracy while the latter is using the term literally. Perhaps if you can agree on terminology, you can then agree on the issue.
M Carling
M Carling wrote:
It seem as if Sheldon Rampton and Jimmy Wales may be talking past each other because the former is using the term "majority rule" figuratively to mean constitutional democracy while the latter is using the term literally. Perhaps if you can agree on terminology, you can then agree on the issue.
I think that's right. It seems, based on his followup, that we probably don't disagree all that much.
--Jimbo
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
O.k., then we're likely so far apart in political opinions that we'll have a hard time agreeing on very much. If 90% of a population is white, and votes in fair and open democratic elections to impose rights violations ("separate but equal" or worse) on the 10% that is black, you'd consider that a morally appropriate outcome? I don't think so, but that's what I mean when I say that majority rule is morally repugnant.
I agree, that would be morally repugnant, but no serious proponent of majority rule advocates that sort of thing.
That sounds naive. It's not the idea of majority rule that is repugnant, but it's application. Unfortunately, people like simple answers, even simplistic ones. They equate democracy with simple majority rule, and don't want to consider anything more complex. The "serious proponents" that you mention are a minority. This is de Tocqueville's tyranny of the majority.
The standard formulation is that the "majority rules, but the minority has rights." The question of how to define the boundary between majority rulership and minority rights has always been difficult to define, but that fundamental problem doesn't get any better if you resort to the only viable alternative to majority rule, which is one-man dictatorship or rule by a minority elite.
The one-man dictatorship is often more reliable and predictable than a minority élite.
Eclecticology