Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watdcsu!brewster
From: brewster@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Message-ID: <3059@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 22:15:39 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3059
Posted: Wed Feb 25 22:15:39 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Feb-87 02:42:46 EST
References: <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <4197@utcsri.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 80


>From: coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta)

>Your definition of democracy is one that is unfortunately becoming
>quite common.  It is, however, I think quite incorrect.  What you
>describe is a tyranny of the majority.  

	I don't know the source and can't recall the quote exactly, but it
	goes something like this :
	"Democracy sucks, but it's better than the alternatives."
	
	Democracy is quite literally defined as a tyranny of the majority,
	unpleasant as that obviously is for some to face.

>If tomorrow 60% of Canadians
>should decide that that it was their wish to have all members of
>certain organization, or group, exterminated, that does not mean that
>such an event should occur.  In a democracy it is important that 
>the views of minorities be represented, and that when decisions
>are made there should be some compromise between the desires of the
>majority and the desires of the minority.  Of course, this does not
>mean that any given minority should have veto power, merely that in
>a true democracy the views of differing groups should try to be
>reconciled.  

	I agree completely, and stated the equivalent summary in the posting
	which you extract from.  This doesn't resolve the question however
	that in situations where reconciliation is not possible, something
	must be done.  A democracy presumes that in this situation majority
	rules;   simplistic true, but probably preferable to other
	alternatives.

>I think it is a tad simplistic to assume that just
>because there are more people who want A than want B, it gives
>the A people the RIGHT to impose their desires on all.  I think the
>basic principle of a democracy is that each individual should be
>allowed to act freely, inasmuch as his/her behaviour does not
>prevent others from exercising a similar right.  A tyranny of the
>majority does not satisfy this basic requirement.

	You have confused two issues here.  Firstly democracy is defined as :
	a form of government for the people, by the will of the majority of the
	people, a state having this form of government.  (from the first
	dictionary I grabbed.)  
	
	To paraphrase : one person, one vote, majority rules; plain, and simple.

	That is the basic and only principle of democracy.  This has obvious
	disadvantages and is suboptimal since, as someone else pointed out,
	this means that in a democracy minorities can be abused and "dumb"
	decisions made by the majority, as was the case with Nazism, a cause
	supported by the majority of the population at least initially .  

	The saving grace of democracy is that the majority usually don't make
	dumb decisions.  They usually choose to make rules similar to the
	freedom rule you propose, and other altruistic rules which support
	minority rights in some ways.  This is why democracy survives.  That
	is why Canada survives.  That is why Canada is respected as a
	democracy; we have collectively chosen to make and enforce rules that
	other people see as desirable, chief among these is our decision to
	protect minority rights whenever possible.  We could have made
	different rules, but we didn't, and now minorities look to Canada as a
	haven when they are abused in their own country.

	The rules that a democractic state chooses to make and enforce
	however, are entirely separate from the fact that the state operates
	as a democracy.  

	There is no theoretical reason why a state that operates as a
	dictatorship or under socialism or under communism could not make
	and enforce a freedom law roughly similar to the one you proposed.  And
	you have only to talk to your local economics professor who habitually
	campaigns and runs under the NDP flag (every campus has one right :*)), 
	to here why a state that runs under the guise of socialism would 
	be better at implementing and enforcing your freedom law.

						   Try not  to become  a  man
UUCP  : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster    of success but rather  try
Else  : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657                to  become a  man of value.
                                                         Albert Einstein