One of the enlightened aspects of western development is its formal democracy. It is open to scrutiny, checks and balances, individual choice and à codified set of rules that limits à power grab . That it depends on true information in a confused and busy world is difficult but that has to dépend on personal choice. However there is a second layer of democracy constantly operating...that of community choice and its acceptance or rejection. Because we are blessed with freedoms as to how we live our lives, the ONLY thing that limits it is whether it harms others (so is illegal) and whether we are prepared to live with it in our larger society. Examples. Smoking Short skirts 100 years ago seeing the ankle and wearing hats. Single sex partnerships Chewing gum in the streets The Sex Pistols, grunge etc. Transgender identities. What is harmful to society will be rejected by the "public voice: What is acceptable will be allowed to remain IN THE NAME OF HUMAN RIGHTS No govt or propaganda or quasi social campaign should ever be allowed to impose its own choices onto anyone else associâted with threats of the collapsing of western culture. The very imposition is against western culture. If we give crédence to those who shout against personal life style with a threat of imminent doom and try to impose their own choice of lifestyle as a solution, are in fact trying to manipulate populations to think in their shadow. It happened in Germany in the 30's when the huge propaganda campaign told the population that the Jewish lifestyle was unacceptable. Be careful. Be aware. Be thoughtful and be who you are without fear. .
The only reason to ban things has always been that claim that it is "harmful" to society. But a nearly unlimited number of different things could be seen as "harmful" to society in different ways. So there is not always a clear place to draw the line. It often seems like modern-day progressives are simply trading some sorts of freedoms for others. Well, actually, pretty much all the freedoms they wanted have been won, so now it is mostly freedoms that they are chipping away. In a free society, we do have to be willing to some extent to tolerate things that may be a little bit harmful. There will be some inevitable trade-off. Does that even really make sense? You think the fleeting and passing sentiments of current public opinion are omnisapient? That sounds like giving in to mob rule and tyranny. And besides, we all know (or should know) a large segment of the population is ignorant and their opinions on many matters are manipulated and shaped by the media. This is not a good basis for determining what rights should exist. It's especially highly ironic that you mention rights that are minority rights. The feelings of the majority often cannot be trusted to protect the rights of the minority. For anyone who actually stops to think about and examine what the message is that you are conveying, I think it's really fundamentally not any better than a fascist dictatorship running things and deciding which rights the people should get and which they shouldn't. (And by the way, people like you are exactly why otherwise freedom-loving people in history were pushed into having to resort to supporting fascist dictatorships. Because even fascism will often have more freedom than the type of vacuous philosophy you are supporting will) Good intentions and happy feelings are not a substitute for sound philosophy and reason. You know the saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions"
Did I mention fleeting and passing sentiments of public opinion? No. Those are expressed in what the public decide is acceptable over a period of time, which then becomes part of law decided by a majority. That is how a democracy works and why the media is so important. And why minority rights are enshrined in human rights laws and your own Constitution. Enough of this fascist stuff. Frankly the word needs to be avoided since it doesn't mean anything anymore. And please don't put words into my mouth.
I agree it's important to conserve western culture. But I suspect you and me might have very different ideas of what "western culture" is.
That was my point. What is the point the point of upholding "freedom" if what that is is entirely dependent on what the majority happens to think it should be? It's just a bunch of moral relativism. All that really comes down to is the right to vote, which while it may be important, I would say has some big differences from freedom and liberty as a wider concept.
Moral relativism doesn't discount freedom. Moral acceptance changes with time. We have the freedom to recognise that. You don't think law should recognise the common acceptance of Moral expectations? Protecting minority rights is, BTW, a generally held Moral expectation itself.
Pixie, I know that you come from France. And your entire philosophy expressed is very French. But I think the entire French philosophy is not sustainable in the long-term of history, and that French democracy will ultimately implode on itself. Probably before British or German democracy collapses. Keep in mind that Denmark and Norway were joined as part of the same kingdom (ended in 1814) for a longer period of time in history than France has been a democracy. The Ottoman Empire lasted 4 times longer than the age of France's Third Republic.
The problem is that the 'harm' is relative, and we're 'accepting' less and less. Hell, most places that champion themselves a 'free democracy' already have laws where you can be fined or jailed just for hurting someones feelings. Thats an extremely low metric for 'harm' ...how smoking has survived is inexplicable (tho Im glad it has). The problem with democracy is it's subjective. 'Freedom' should mean more than just whatever 51% want it to. Democracy in-and-of-itself doesnt allow for that. Only when democracy is held in check with objective limits does freedom survive.
And? I have no idea how this had anything to do with Western lawmaking as we were discussing. Now you have hooped over to another lilypad and used selected bit of a thousand years of history. I dont accept it.
Democracy is 51%. In the West there are a great number of conditional laws...no smoking "unless you are outside". No demonstrations " unless you register them first: etc. Because the law considers the safety and welfare of as many people as possible. I am sure that pré 1865 those who held slaves thought that emancipation was "too many laws" and the law was passed for the welfare of a minority. Using today's oft repeated mantras, this would make many opposed to emancipation even before you get into questions of race. But in fact laws against slavery have benefitted tens of not hundreds of people since and are supported by all but a tiny number of people. And I support laws against hurting people's feelings. Why should we allow such offensive behaviour to go unremedied?
I know of several European countries where those laws are abused. For example, some Leftist protesters will continuously get disorderly and make a scene because they can't stand seeing their political opponents on the Right stage any public message; and then the local authorities will say that the Right cannot hold a demonstration because it would result in a "public safety" issue. Rights that are all just relative are not real rights.
That is a terrible example and you know it. Suppose the number of slaves were in the minority of the total population, and the rest of the population either supported slavery, didn't care, or feared the slave population being turned lose if they were given their freedom (which was the actual case in the U.S. South at the time).
I support laws guaranteeing the legal right of one person to hurt other people's feelings. Government hurts peoples feelings all the time with the laws they pass. This type of thing you advocate for, it's inevitably going to curtail the right to free speech and discussion of important topics concerning society and politics. And an individual should have the right to criticize another individual if they believe that person is doing something wrong to other people. You claim you support freedom, but I think it only takes a little bit of logic and a peak under the surface to see that you do not, in fact. Most American conservatives would find your beliefs rather authoritarian, controlling, and leaning towards socialism. You can say you support "freedom", but I don't think you hold to the principle anywhere near as closely as Conservative Libertarians do. For starters, I would say one of the most important freedoms is to be given some securities and rights to help be able to secure those freedoms. And I am not just referring to voting. You seem to confuse theoretical legal or political power with actual power. Things don't always work that way. Just writing down that we have rights on a piece of paper doesn't guarantee that we will have those rights. I do think that is one thing many of those on the Left have trouble understanding. Why should government allow something that may be hurtful to society? Because government can't always be trusted to decide what is good for society. And because individuals should have rights, even if that might theoretically not result in the best outcome for the collective group of people in society.
Several? Would you please give a name to such events in which countries about what issues? Or stop making up stories.
I think I had in mind mainly Germanic countries. I have not read of any examples of this happening in France or Britain. Although I have seen one video where British police on the street arrested a Christian preacher because of how a surrounding crowd was reacting to him, not liking his message. (Though the particular preacher seemed to be intentionally trying to provoke a confrontational reaction, so it did seem to be more about how he was saying it than what his underlying message was)
And? What is the suppose meant to tell us? I repeat. Slaves were a minority. The law abolishing slavery was passed by a free majority population. The laws subsequently protected countless minorities since. That is a perfect example of a majority protecting a minority. Other laws include protection for the disabled, for the wealthy and for children who cannot vote. You wrote:. "It's especially highly ironic that you mention rights that are minority rights. The feelings of the majority often cannot be trusted to protect the rights of the minority." You later say most minority rights have been secured. Make up your mind.
Maybe you are not so familiar with the history. Yes, it was abolished by a free majority population, but not by the majority population where those slaves were actually located.
That is not actually what I said. There are minority rights that are not being protected today, or are in jeopardy. They are just not the type of minority groups that progressives care about. (I am not referring to race or gender)
You introduce your post laying down your opinion about being able to hurt someone's FEELINGS and then spend the rest of your post discussing freedoms and rights and securities and god knows what else. The while thing is an unconnected word salad. and once again you accusé me of mentioning something I never mentioned. What is this nonsense about describing rights on a piece of paper?? What on earth is that about? I SAID I do not agree with deliberately insulting someone. Because there are better ways of achieving your purpose. Shouting into their faces does not ever convince anyone of anything. It is lazy, confrontational and completely unproductive.
Freedom to vote and for the majority to be given the power to form a consensus is not necessarily freedom. You seem to think it is. Well, at least you seem to think it is if a few other trivial rights are thrown in there too that don't really matter that much. Just look at the types of examples you gave in the opening post!
Oh. So I guess places which have right of franchise and who are governed by decree are free. I think you need a dictionary.
Here's a hypothetical for you. If I were to start a Nazi dictatorship and impose that as a form of government over your country, but I gave you all those freedoms on that list, do you think that would be freedom? No of course not. Thinking it would would be completely silly. I think you really need to ask yourself, those things you listed, are they really the types of freedom that actually most matter? If the only point of living in a free country is to be able to do stuff like smoke and wear short skirts, I might as well be living under a fascist dictatorship then. Sometimes I get the feeling that lots of progressives don't even really care about freedom. They just want to have a "good time".
