A thought on the "majority" okaying the elimination of rights

[zbdent]

You know, there was a flourishing society who thought it was perfectly okay, in fact, entertaining, to have minorities and underdogs thrown to lions, or fight for their lives against well-armed and seasoned killers . . .

[Tamyrlin79]

1. that is what is termed "tyranny of the majority"

the law applies to others, not to the majority, who exempt themselves. It is a corruption, in that it is clear violation of the Golden Rule. As is this idea of American Exceptionalism in international affairs, while we are on the topic.

[PurpleChez]

2. What these "majority" people never think about it

that they might not always be in the majority. They never stop to think, for instance, that the next religious whackjob president just might decide that their particular denomination of whackjobs isn't wacky enough. Oops! You're on the outside looking in now, Bubba! Even a basic knowlege of history shows us that dictators will roll over friend and foe alike in their pursuit of power. Sure you've got your W sticker and all those ribbon magnets, but if you get in the way you're getting squashed -- car fish or no car fish.

[JAbuchan08]

3. I believe the majority would be with us if they were informed

as much as I disdain some human behavior I believe people are generally good. I think people will turn against Bush and his law-breaking once they see its full extent.
BTW, it doesn't matter if 349,999,999 Americans think that Bush's spying is okay it is still illegal.

[ginnyinWI]

4. respect for the rule of law

...are they still teaching that in schools today? Do people pay attention? Have they learned their history--what can happen when one or more individuals become "the law" rather than a country living according to a constitution?

I hope so!
:hide:

[zbdent]

6. They're probably not teaching it in the "voucher-dependent" private

schools that the Repukes push . . . remember, they will teach that "God's law" is above all else . . . except for the part where Jesus said that you also have to obey Caesar's laws . . .

[JAbuchan08]

7. I don't think people fully understand the concept, mention the word

"terrorist" and people suddenly get all irrational. Anything is okay if it stops terrorism, never mind whether innocent people have their rights violated as a result. I've debated a million freeps and they can't seem to conceptualize the fact that our government is not just hurting terrorists - they can't make even the smallest concession to this point.
When they say, its okay to sacrifice some of our rights for better security they are never talking about their rights.

[ginnyinWI]

9. they're suffering from black-and-white thinking...

I'm old enough to know that you are never 100% anything--in this case, there is no such thing as "perfectly safe". It's all a system of trade-offs and degrees. We never were safe, even before 9/11. The difference is now a lot more people realize this. But we'll never ever be able to get back to that innocent place where we think we are safe within our borders. Some people don't see this, and think that if we just do whatever our government says, then we'll be safe and secure. That kind of thinking is for children or those with childish minds, unfortunately.

[tenshi816]

13. The rule of law?

I thought that only applied to blowjobs. The rest of the time the Republicans ignore it.

[havocmom]

5. If they truly want to give up rights, call for a Constitutional Convention

to go through ALL the exercises to change the instrument. Am betting the majority of folks who would bother to participate are more like DU than any other demographic group.

The alleged majority that doesn't mind losing rights is just too fucking lazy to be involved with Democracy! They don't care what happens so long as they aren't forced to think much.

[donkeyotay]

8. Ironic, since the Right likes to say our rights are divinely given,

so obviously they are not for man to give away. God bestowed them on you whether you want them or not, whether you are using them or not, and you certainly don't have the right to take away someone else's.

[seabeyond]

10. they are not thinking or pretty confident repug will take next election

and next election. what would be that confidence unless they really do believe the repugs has figured out how to steal it. why oh why would repugs want all this power for a pres if they think a dem could ever get in

[rman]

11. It looks like a majority wants W impeached,

according to a recent MSNBC poll.
Aside from that i hear the likes of Ann Coulter claim that Bush admitting to warrentless domestic spying did improve his ratings.

[Strawman]

12. my guess is that they support rights and freedoms in the abstract

but will go along with specific violations of rights for security, especially when it's the liberties of others that are being encroached upon. I forget who said it, but that's how liberty dies, bit by bit.

We've survived the Red Scare, The Espionage Act, The Sedition Act, hopefully we can survuve this. We still have a constitution that shows some deference to minorities and individual civil liberties, even if it is ignored by this cabal and the flunkies it has placed in the federal judiciary.