"Minority Rule"

[Dill]

(06-02-2021, 11:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, for one, when it's about my own opinion then I decide that. And whether I see such a move as warranted or not is always following subjective criteria, as is everything really. My subjective stance would also be that attacking Canada is bad; and if a democratic minority would use every measure (including ones they wanted to get rid of before) to prevent something like that is fine by me. I'd not call them hypocrites, or inconsistent.

Now is a good time to remember that all value judgments are "subjective." 

But that doesn't make them all equally irrational or expressions of personal preference

or equally untethered from factual grounding. 

Collective value judgments take objective social form in institutions and laws, so that determining whether such are democratic or not is not "merely subjective" but a matter of correlating collectively established definitions and values to observable behavior. 

I agree it is not clearly "inconsistent" or hypocritical to blow up a democratic vote to prevent one party from passing anti-democratic laws to preserve its own power.  

It might even be consistent in the sense that (following Bpat) in decrying a filibuster against civil rights because it hurts democracy and then walking out of session to prevent legislation to curtail others right to vote, one is expressing a consistent ethical stance in each case, though in the latter one is breaking rules to which one supposedly subscribes.

But can one allow such exceptions to one's own side without allowing them to the other? 

The only way out that I can see is on the analogy to civil disobedience, which honors rule of law in the violation. 

One might also be inconsistent with the ethical stance to which one supposedly subscribes if one advances legislation to "secure the vote" as a sacred democratic right while refusing to explain or even address the question of whether that legislation will actually do more to limit that sacred right. 

[*michaelsean*]

(06-02-2021, 11:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, for one, when it's about my own opinion then I decide that. And whether I see such a move as warranted or not is always following subjective criteria, as is everything really. My subjective stance would also be that attacking Canada is bad; and if a democratic minority would use every measure (including ones they wanted to get rid of before) to prevent something like that is fine by me. I'd not call them hypocrites, or inconsistent.

Now sure, Texas republicans did not propose something quite that severe, but they proposed some measures that are imho shocking and blatantly anti-democratic, in both senses of this word. On the other hand, senate republicans used a measure akin to walking out to stop investigating an insurrection attempt. Because they think it might be bad for them politically, if the guy mainly responsible still is the party's monarch and only himself or someone with his full endorsement can ever get nominated for president or for almost any other elected office.

These two situations are so vastly different in their motivations (that assumption is not really subjective anymore), and in my (subjective) sense of morality, that lack of consistency on the democrat's part doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

Why would anyone be against attacking Canada?  "Oh look how good we are. We never do anything wrong."  Well for one you take giant RVs and drive 50 in the left lane from Michigan to Florida.    Those signs are MPH not KPH 'eh.  They are nation versions of serial killers.  "They were so nice and polite.  Never bothered anyone."

[hollodero]

(06-02-2021, 01:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would anyone be against attacking Canada?  "Oh look how good we are. We never do anything wrong."  Well for one you take giant RVs and drive 50 in the left lane from Michigan to Florida.    Those signs are MPH not KPH 'eh.  They are nation versions of serial killers.  "They were so nice and polite.  Never bothered anyone."

Oh boy, they sound just like the Dutch. If they indeed are, then yeah I should reconsider. All efforts to play nice with them should be filibustered.

But yeah, they will get away with it... yet again; courtesy of all those "oh my, humanism, peace, they are human beings as well, blabla" snowflakes.

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2021, 10:48 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's weird to me that walking out works like this. You'd think that an absent vote would default to a no vote and the quorum would proceed as scheduled.

Just like the filibuster, it seems like walking out is a tool installed into the system to prevent the government from doing its job and should, like the filibuster, be eliminated.

I've always felt like the majority should be able to enact their agenda and, if it fails, they will be voted out and the new majority can fix the problems the previous majority created.

Now, the fact that this majority's agenda happens to be "ensuring we keep our power regardless of our popularity via voter suppression" makes this a unique situation because it potentially prevents the above cycle from happening. I am not an advocate of the ends justifying the means, but voter rights are a very sticky situation, given my belief that the majority's agenda should be allowed to fail and allow the people to recognize this and replace them.

For example, I'd be in favor of the minority filibustering/walking out/doing whatever they can if the majority theoretically wrote a bill that said "Republicans' terms are 10 years and Democrats' terms are only 1 year" (pure hypothetical that is likely unconstitutional, but you understand my point, I think). There is a bounds by which I belief intervention is required and restricting voters' rights/ensuring your re-election indefinitely is one of those bounds for the self-perpetuating issues above.

Here is the problem, though. Quorums are an important tool in the running of any sort of decision-making body. Now, should quorums just be half plus one? That's my general take on it. But if you have a 50/50 body then that can still become problematic, albeit less so. Quorums are necessary, though, to prevent a handful of assholes from convening in the middle of the night and passing their own agenda.

[Belsnickel]

(06-01-2021, 02:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, again, is a subjective criteria.  What you consider to be such an act may not be what someone else considers such an act.  So who gets to decide when such an act is warranted or not? 

I didn't touch this, earlier, but I feel like I need to comment, here. The legislation objectively limited democracy. There is no subjectivity to that statement. The subjectivity lies in what level of limitation to democracy do you find acceptable. The subjectivity lies in whether it will be interpreted to be unconstitutional. There is no subjectivity, however, in whether or not the legislation in this instance limited, and thus damaged, democracy.

[CJD]

(06-02-2021, 01:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Here is the problem, though. Quorums are an important tool in the running of any sort of decision-making body. Now, should quorums just be half plus one? That's my general take on it. But if you have a 50/50 body then that can still become problematic, albeit less so. Quorums are necessary, though, to prevent a handful of assholes from convening in the middle of the night and passing their own agenda.

But wouldn't logging every person not in attendance as an automatic no prevent the middle of the night shenanigans?

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2021, 03:13 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: But wouldn't logging every person not in attendance as an automatic no prevent the middle of the night shenanigans?

Counting placed votes for people that are not present has a whole host of problems associated with it. Voting has to be an action, it should never be something that defaults to an answer.

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2021, 09:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Big states have been split.

That's how the Republicans got four senators out of the Dakota Territory instead of two. 

populous* states

[BmorePat87]

(06-02-2021, 09:49 AM)Dill Wrote: I'm not worried about who's in charge--if there is transparency and democratic accountability. 

But it's not clear we can have that going forward, given the mass and permanent disinformation permeating U.S. politics. That is by far the real problem, and what makes issues like the filibuster and "voter integrity" legislation so problematic. 

But are you saying that "full nuclear" will lead to the Senate and Electoral College increasingly representing a superminority? 

Who is in charge becomes an issue when one party is making a lack of transparency, no democratic accountability, and conspiracy theories their platform, but yea, the actual concern is those specific things. 

I'm suggesting that Democrats will control the Senate far less than Republicans will, so they'll regret getting rid of the filibuster when they're inevitably no longer the majority in the Senate. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-02-2021, 11:47 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, for one, when it's about my own opinion then I decide that. And whether I see such a move as warranted or not is always following subjective criteria, as is everything really. My subjective stance would also be that attacking Canada is bad; and if a democratic minority would use every measure (including ones they wanted to get rid of before) to prevent something like that is fine by me. I'd not call them hypocrites, or inconsistent.

Now sure, Texas republicans did not propose something quite that severe, but they proposed some measures that are imho shocking and blatantly anti-democratic, in both senses of this word. On the other hand, senate republicans used a measure akin to walking out to stop investigating an insurrection attempt. Because they think it might be bad for them politically, if the guy mainly responsible still is the party's monarch and only himself or someone with his full endorsement can ever get nominated for president or for almost any other elected office.

These two situations are so vastly different in their motivations (that assumption is not really subjective anymore), and in my (subjective) sense of morality, that lack of consistency on the democrat's part doesn't seem like a good argument to me.

If you're comparing just those two situations, then sure.  However, and this won't be the last time I point this out in this post, what you're really objecting to here is the motivation behind the action and not the action itself.

(06-02-2021, 12:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Now is a good time to remember that all value judgments are "subjective." 

But that doesn't make them all equally irrational or expressions of personal preference

or equally untethered from factual grounding.

Sure, but, again, it does shine a light on the fact that the objection to "minority rule" has more to do with what that minority is doing, or protecting, than the concept itself. 

Quote:Collective value judgments take objective social form in institutions and laws, so that determining whether such are democratic or not is not "merely subjective" but a matter of correlating collectively established definitions and values to observable behavior. 

I agree it is not clearly "inconsistent" or hypocritical to blow up a democratic vote to prevent one party from passing anti-democratic laws to preserve its own power.  

It might even be consistent in the sense that (following Bpat) in decrying a filibuster against civil rights because it hurts democracy and then walking out of session to prevent legislation to curtail others right to vote, one is expressing a consistent ethical stance in each case, though in the latter one is breaking rules to which one supposedly subscribes.

But can one allow such exceptions to one's own side without allowing them to the other? 

The only way out that I can see is on the analogy to civil disobedience, which honors rule of law in the violation. 

One might also be inconsistent with the ethical stance to which one supposedly subscribes if one advances legislation to "secure the vote" as a sacred democratic right while refusing to explain or even address the question of whether that legislation will actually do more to limit that sacred right. 

It's interesting that you mention civil disobedience, as it's a great example of what I'm saying above.  A certain lawyer, who doesn't know the law, called me an extremist for pointing out that many otherwise lawful gun owners will outright ignore gun laws such as registering their "assault weapon".  This isn't an academic question either, it's been definitively shown in New York and other states with "assault weapons" registration/bans.  The compliance right is abysmally low.  This is civil disobedience.  However, it receives rather less support than the "civil disobedience" we saw over the past twelve months.  Herein lies the danger in such subjective opinion.  Even morality, in some instances, is hardly a universally agreed upon concept.  Take abortion.  Millions of people legitimately believe that abortion is murdering a child, do you support "civil disobedience" in trying to stop abortion?  What could be more moral than trying to prevent children from being murdered?

(06-02-2021, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh boy, they sound just like the Dutch. If they indeed are, then yeah I should reconsider. All efforts to play nice with them should be filibustered.

But yeah, they will get away with it... yet again; courtesy of all those "oh my, humanism, peace, they are human beings as well, blabla" snowflakes.

Hey, my father's family emigrated here from Schoonhoven in the early 1800's!

(06-02-2021, 01:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't touch this, earlier, but I feel like I need to comment, here. The legislation objectively limited democracy. There is no subjectivity to that statement. The subjectivity lies in what level of limitation to democracy do you find acceptable. The subjectivity lies in whether it will be interpreted to be unconstitutional. There is no subjectivity, however, in whether or not the legislation in this instance limited, and thus damaged, democracy.

Agreed.  However, not allowing foreign residents or illegal aliens to vote is also limiting democracy.  Not allowing people in prison to vote is limiting, or "damaging", democracy.  I realize you're essentially acknowledging these types of differences in your post, but they should be spelled out for those less inclined to subtlety.  Whether the proposed legislation was egregious in ways that the above are not is, I suppose, up for debate.

[hollodero]

(06-02-2021, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're comparing just those two situations, then sure.  However, and this won't be the last time I point this out in this post, what you're really objecting to here is the motivation behind the action and not the action itself.

Sure, I guess in my view one party perverted the idea of "minority rule", and I'm objecting to that motivation. But if rules allow to be misused in that bad faith manner then I think it's only logical to think about the rule itself.

I understand not getting rid of every minority right. But I'd be fine with changing the rules, so that these minority rules/rights/filiwhatevers do not apply for appointing commissions or something like that. I'm sure there's some nuclear trickery to get this change through with 50 votes and I'd have no issue with that.

[Dill]

(06-02-2021, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: The only way out that I can see is on the analogy to civil disobedience, which honors rule of law in the violation. 

It's interesting that you mention civil disobedience, as it's a great example of what I'm saying above.  A certain lawyer, who doesn't know the law, called me an extremist for pointing out that many otherwise lawful gun owners will outright ignore gun laws such as registering their "assault weapon".  This isn't an academic question either, it's been definitively shown in New York and other states with "assault weapons" registration/bans.  The compliance right is abysmally low.  This is civil disobedience.  However, it receives rather less support than the "civil disobedience" we saw over the past twelve months.  Herein lies the danger in such subjective opinion.  Even morality, in some instances, is hardly a universally agreed upon concept.  Take abortion.  Millions of people legitimately believe that abortion is murdering a child, do you support "civil disobedience" in trying to stop abortion?  What could be more moral than trying to prevent children from being murdered?

How is rule of law honored in the violation here?    Simply ignoring the law =/= civil disobedience.

The act has to be politically framed to catch the attention of political authority,*
and the actor then has to accept punishment as defined by existing law 
(that's how one honors rule of law in the violation). 

Not clear what "subjective opinion" refers to here. 

That people can subscribe to different but rationally constructed moral codes which clash may illustrate "dangers" of one sort or another, but I don't see that such differences/clashes are based on "subjective opinion" especially if the clash is over abortion.  

I don't think abortion, as currently legal in the U.S., is murdering children so no, I wouldn't support efforts to criminalize abortions via civil disobedience or any other means.

*Think of someone publicly burning a draft card and going to jail, as opposed to someone driving through a stop sign because no one was looking.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-03-2021, 12:00 AM)Dill Wrote: How is rule of law honored in the violation here?    Simply ignoring the law =/= civil disobedience.

For you, because you, apparently, only acknowledge "civil disobedience" when you agree with it.  Otherwise it's just general law breaking.

Quote:The act has to be politically framed to catch the attention of political authority,*
and the actor then has to accept punishment as defined by existing law 
(that's how one honors rule of law in the violation). 

Do they have to meet both of your personal criterium to meet the definition of "civil disobedience"?  I mean, to you, sure.  But you consistently show a massive double standard with most issues of importance.

Quote:Not clear what "subjective opinion" refers to here. 

Not to you, but thankfully that's not a bar the concept has to hurdle.

Quote:That people can subscribe to different but rationally constructed moral codes which clash may illustrate "dangers" of one sort or another, but I don't see that such differences/clashes are based on "subjective opinion" especially if the clash is over abortion.  

Of course you don't.

Quote:I don't think abortion, as currently legal in the U.S., is murdering children so no, I wouldn't support efforts to criminalize abortions via civil disobedience or any other means.

The most important part of that sentence being the word "I".  You clearly live in a bubble of what Dill believes and discount all other possibilities.

Quote:*Think of someone publicly burning a draft card and going to jail, as opposed to someone driving through a stop sign because no one was looking.

Yes, let's look at this fascinating analogy.  One involves ignoring a law based on principle, and the other involves ignoring a traffic ordinance because "no one's looking".  Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to have an honest debate.  Please explain to us all how ignoring a stop sign is an example of civil disobedience.  

[NATI BENGALS]

When I think of minority rule I think of months and months of obstruction, not letting a prez fill vacant court seats in a timely manner comes to mind.

Sure this is a great gotcha both sides do it moment. Which I know is really big in the I know you are but what am I Trump Republican Party right now.

But when I comes down to it. Protesting a potentially unconstitutional voter suppression bill by walking out one time, and preventing a potus from doing their constitutional duty for months are two totally different things IMO.

But both sides do it. I know. Republican logic

[Belsnickel]

(06-02-2021, 08:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Agreed.  However, not allowing foreign residents or illegal aliens to vote is also limiting democracy.  Not allowing people in prison to vote is limiting, or "damaging", democracy.  I realize you're essentially acknowledging these types of differences in your post, but they should be spelled out for those less inclined to subtlety.  Whether the proposed legislation was egregious in ways that the above are not is, I suppose, up for debate.

Oh yeah, I get you here. I'm a big Robert Dahl guy when it comes to how we view democracy. If any adult is excluded from voting in the society, then it limits democracy. Personally, I would expand voting rights, but that isn't the popular opinion.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: For you, because you, apparently, only acknowledge "civil disobedience" when you agree with it.  Otherwise it's just general law breaking.

Do they have to meet both of your personal criterium to meet the definition of "civil disobedience"?  I mean, to you, sure.  But you consistently show a massive double standard with most issues of importance.

The "personal criteria" you refer to exist as a long history of precedent, beginning with Thoreau's 1848 essay "Civil Disobedience."
But refined through engagement with MLK, who spends most of his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" explaining the steps involved in non violent direct action (non-violence being one of the criteria for defining an act as civil disobedience) and the relation of the disobedient to the law which separates his actions from "general law breaking." 
https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

An updated "capsule" definition might be found here, just to establish how widely recognized the criteria of civil disobedience are, how the practice of civil disobedience is separated from "general law breaking": 
The Six Characteristic Elements Of Civil Disobedience https://youmatter.world/en/definition/civil-disobedience-definition/

If people employed the above-mentioned "elements" in protesting abortion, then I would certainly agree they were practicing civil disobedience. I can do that without agreeing with their goal. And not agreeing doesn't involve me in a "massive double standard."

So now we are back to your claim that people silently refusing to follow the law and register guns qualifies as civil disobedience. How, specifically, is rule of law honored in the violation here? 

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 06:35 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Oh yeah, I get you here. I'm a big Robert Dahl guy when it comes to how we view democracy. If any adult is excluded from voting in the society, then it limits democracy. Personally, I would expand voting rights, but that isn't the popular opinion.

What about non-citizens (e.g. foreign residents, undocumented immigrants)? Dahl doesn't include them, right?

Seems the problem here is more that already enfranchised citizens would be disenfranchised by Texas' "election integrity" laws.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not to you, but thankfully that is not a bar the concept has to hurdle.
Of course you don't.
The most important part of that sentence being the word "I".  You clearly live in a bubble of what Dill believes and discount all other possibilities.

So far, it looks like you were not using the concept of civil disobedience as it is generally understood among political scientists and activists. Rather than assert that your usage was not a "bar the concept has to hurdle" or accuse you of living in your own bubble or responding "of course you don't," or immediately questioning your good faith, I have taken the time to explain in more detail the classic definition of civil disobedience.

My employment of the term, drawn from long-standing definitions and practice, does not establish that I "live in a bubble" or "discount all other possibilities" just because I "discount" as civil disobedience actions which don't fit generally acknowledged criteria of civil disobedience. Though I am still listening if you can show me how your example of refusal to register guns fits those generally acknowledged criteria. 

I'm asking for clarification, again, of what you mean by "subjective opinion" in adjudicating ethical behavior based upon principles collectively held and objectively enshrined in law. So far, it just seems you are using the notion to create a false equivalence between actions which have more solid ethical ground and those with less (or none). So far, no one responding to your original example has expressed ethical paralysis regarding the walkout or the intent to reduce access for some demographics.

If "massive double standards" are bad, and "honest debate" is a goal here and a criterion you'd hold me to, then my request for clarification ought to be met with clarification, not dismissal. 

(06-03-2021, 01:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:*Think of someone publicly burning a draft card and going to jail, as opposed to someone driving through a stop sign because no one was looking.

Yes, let's look at this fascinating analogy.  One involves ignoring a law based on principle, and the other involves ignoring a traffic ordinance because "no one's looking".  Honestly, it's like you're not even trying to have an honest debate.  Please explain to us all how ignoring a stop sign is an example of civil disobedience.  

"Us"? 

The point of the example was to contrast a clearly defined act of civil disobedience with an act which was just "general law breaking." So someone ignoring a stop sign was not offered as an example of civil disobedience, but of an action which was NOT civil disobedience.  Note the cue: "as opposed to."

[Belsnickel]

(06-03-2021, 08:51 AM)Dill Wrote: What about non-citizens (e.g. foreign residents, undocumented immigrants)? Dahl doesn't include them, right?

Seems the problem here is more that already enfranchised citizens would be disenfranchised by Texas' "election integrity" laws.

I don't know if Dahl specifically covered it, but in the literature surrounding polyarchies, there have been many arguments that preventing non-citizen resident from voting is still a limit to democracy as those individuals are subjected to the laws and are taxed by the government. Because of this, their lack of voice in the government is a reduction in the democratic principles.

And yes, I am aware of the situation in Texas.

[Dill]

(06-03-2021, 09:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't know if Dahl specifically covered it, but in the literature surrounding polyarchies, there have been many arguments that preventing non-citizen resident from voting is still a limit to democracy as those individuals are subjected to the laws and are taxed by the government. Because of this, their lack of voice in the government is a reduction in the democratic principles.

And yes, I am aware of the situation in Texas.

Dahl constantly refers to "citizens" when defining democracy, doesn't he? 

I mentioned the question of non-citizens as it reminds me somewhat on your comments about quora and the instability which might follow the lack thereof.

If I could vote in Canada or Mexico, and Canadians and Mexicans can vote here, it seems our respective democracies might dissolve in incoherence. Transparency and accountability would be difficult.  

I understand why some might want to include non-citizens residents, though, as it would seem they have a stake in the political arrangements under which they live, but no voice.