Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mhuxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!abeles
From: abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Martillo and Logic (tyranny of the majority)
Message-ID: <111@mhuxm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-May-84 12:01:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxm.111
Posted: Mon May  7 12:01:17 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 8-May-84 00:25:55 EDT
References: <855@eosp1.UUCP> <464@ihuxt.UUCP> <101@tilt.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Murray Hill, NJ
Lines: 21

<>

The law attempts to be fair, but can't always be just.  Thus there are
those who are incorrectly imprisoned, for example, who constitute a
minority who are essentially oppressed by a majority.  Similarly the victims
of crimes are a minority of people whose rights are abridged partially due
to an inadequate check by society on the actions of criminals.  I think that
minority rights are central to the quality of society.  How about the minority
who are crippled by auto accidents?  Are road safety laws adequate for them?
Or, on the flip side, what about the person who loses his auto license because
of excessive traffic tickets, and can no longer make a living because he needs
a car to go to work each day?  Is driving a privilege or a right for such
a person?  Maybe the tickets were mistakes.

Democracy, per se, may possibly encompass majority tyranny, but the real
problem for a well-intentioned society is to allow for maximum minority
income tax Code really be fair given its
complexity?  At what level (how many dollar$) do we give up trying to match
a person's income tax to his fair share of the national expenses.  This is
separate from questions of whether we feel it is best to carry out government
policies through income tax subsidies and increased taxes.