Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Is what the Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats are doing, fundamentally wrong?
The Wisconsin and Indiana Democrat legislators have fled their entire states, in order to disrupt voting in their various houses of state government and prevent the newly-elected Republican majorities from passing anything the minority Democrats don't like. Some say it is the right thing to do, others say it is wrong.
Before government really existed (cave-man days?), people used to settle disputes by knuckling under, or doing battle, sometimes with much bloodshed. People eventually decided that that was just the wrong way to go about it, and that there had to be a better way. Many alternate methods were tried, and finally a lot of societies settled upon the idea of "majority rule". That is, people would list their disputes on pieces of paper, pass the pieces out to eveybody, and each person would mark down which side he favored. And they all agreed, for the sake of avoiding all that strife and bloodshed, that they would all obey the voice of whichever side got the most votes... even if they didn't personally favor that side.
It was a far from perfect system, of course. Some felt that the "tyranny of the majority" wasn't much better than the tyranny of whichever side could shed the most blood. But by and large, they pretty much agreed that at least they were doing better than the cave mn had done. And in the societies that agreed to that, the idea of voting and Majority Rule, lasted a long time... lasting to the present day in many cases.
Today we see the Wisconsin and Indiana minority Democrats, throwing off that agreement. Despite centuries of acceptable history - and a far better record (however imperfect) that most other schemes of government - they no longer feel that Majority Rule is the way America should go. And they are throwing off, all by themselves but for their entire societies, the advantage that have come with it, as well as the disadvantages. And they are offering no alternative method at all, for resolving disputes.
Disputes are as old as the human species itself. And after centuries (millenia) of experience, experimentation, trial and error, Indiana and Wisconsin Democrats have decided to throw off the agreements of centuries and bring Majority Rule to a grinding halt... against, of course, the express wishes of the majority. Needless to say, they had no problem with Majority Rule, until very recently when they found themselves in the minority for the first time in a while in their respective states.
What they are doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not only an assault just on the majorities of today, but upon the very bedrock of Democracy itself. Societites have found more advantage than disadvantage, for many centuries now, in agreeing to obey the majority, than in nearly any other method of government. More and more countries are fighting to set up and use this method themselves.
But the Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats think the experience of the ages is wrong. And they propose to destroy the very concept of Majority Rule, and keep destroying it, until and unless they become the "majority" themselves. Or bully others into treating them that way, at least.
The Wisconsin and Indiana Democrat legislators have fled their entire states, in order to disrupt voting in their various houses of state government and prevent the newly-elected Republican majorities from passing anything the minority Democrats don't like. Some say it is the right thing to do, others say it is wrong.
Before government really existed (cave-man days?), people used to settle disputes by knuckling under, or doing battle, sometimes with much bloodshed. People eventually decided that that was just the wrong way to go about it, and that there had to be a better way. Many alternate methods were tried, and finally a lot of societies settled upon the idea of "majority rule". That is, people would list their disputes on pieces of paper, pass the pieces out to eveybody, and each person would mark down which side he favored. And they all agreed, for the sake of avoiding all that strife and bloodshed, that they would all obey the voice of whichever side got the most votes... even if they didn't personally favor that side.
It was a far from perfect system, of course. Some felt that the "tyranny of the majority" wasn't much better than the tyranny of whichever side could shed the most blood. But by and large, they pretty much agreed that at least they were doing better than the cave mn had done. And in the societies that agreed to that, the idea of voting and Majority Rule, lasted a long time... lasting to the present day in many cases.
Today we see the Wisconsin and Indiana minority Democrats, throwing off that agreement. Despite centuries of acceptable history - and a far better record (however imperfect) that most other schemes of government - they no longer feel that Majority Rule is the way America should go. And they are throwing off, all by themselves but for their entire societies, the advantage that have come with it, as well as the disadvantages. And they are offering no alternative method at all, for resolving disputes.
Disputes are as old as the human species itself. And after centuries (millenia) of experience, experimentation, trial and error, Indiana and Wisconsin Democrats have decided to throw off the agreements of centuries and bring Majority Rule to a grinding halt... against, of course, the express wishes of the majority. Needless to say, they had no problem with Majority Rule, until very recently when they found themselves in the minority for the first time in a while in their respective states.
What they are doing is fundamentally wrong. It is not only an assault just on the majorities of today, but upon the very bedrock of Democracy itself. Societites have found more advantage than disadvantage, for many centuries now, in agreeing to obey the majority, than in nearly any other method of government. More and more countries are fighting to set up and use this method themselves.
But the Wisconsin and Indiana Democrats think the experience of the ages is wrong. And they propose to destroy the very concept of Majority Rule, and keep destroying it, until and unless they become the "majority" themselves. Or bully others into treating them that way, at least.
