Post #3381312

2026-06-15 11:33 UTC

The point is that minorities don’t cease to have a right to autonomy just because they’re in the minority. The 99% could also have a strong vested interest to abuse the 1%. I agree that minorities shouldn’t inherently have their rights forfeit to the majority. I agree that, in most cases, the majority should protect the rights of minorities and that doing so is often in their own best interests. You fail to miss an enormous caveat - this is not an absolute. Should those child abusers, as a minority group within the population, have their right to abuse children protected from the rule of the majority? Is it the tyranny of the majority to constrain/limit the actions of that minority just because they are in the minority? Should they have a place where they can go to be free of majority rule and live only by the constraints that they themselves feel are appropriate? This is why governance is not a simple thing. There are variations, spectrums, and extremes within the population. Ultimately, the majority must, to some degree, have rule over minorities. We should do our best to determine which “freedoms/rights” should be protected and which can, and in some cases, must be infringed upon. Obviously, I’m not advocating that any particular minority, particularly when it comes to ethnicity or nation of origin, is inferior or deserves to be ruled over. However, due to the nature of the system, it unfortunately can and does happen. It’s a constant struggle. I do note you use the word “autonomy”. Due to the varied interpretation of that word, it means nothing to me in this argument. If you want to be more specific, feel free, but it is just a word. What it means and what should be covered by any rules that use the word will, ultimately, be determined by… the majority.

Replies (1)

@StopTech@lemmy.today 2026-06-15 20:03

Of course I don’t think anybody has the right to abuse others, but that’s true whether the majority favor it or not. Sometimes the majority favors it, so majority rule is not a solution in that case. Anyway my problem is not with rules being decided by the majority - although I think a supermajority would be better. (Thanks for graciously asking what I am actually proposing, which I will now explain). My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate. This also goes a long way to solving the problem of unjust laws, as every law that applies to a person would do so because they consented to be under those laws by entering that country. It’s not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that. Nor can somebody make their own country as a shield for immoral activity unless those activities can somehow be committed entirely within that person’s own land. There are still very immoral things that people can do in the privacy of their own homes, but most immoral activities involve harming other people, which usually requires leaving home or tricking people to cross the border and enter that person’s home, which would need to be clearly marked as a separate country in order for its laws to have legitimacy upon visitors. The remaining immoral activities would either be of a self-harming nature, damaging to their own environment, preventing competent adults from leaving the country or neglecting duties over children or non-competent adults. The first two are less concerning, naturally self-punishing and will incur hostility from neighboring countries once the effects spill over into them. The third makes the country illegitimate because it means the population are being held against their will and the fourth if particularly egregious makes the country morally bankrupt, so in either case the population and foreign countries are justified in overthrowing that government and punishing those who behaved unconscionably. So in this way people with very different views have the freedom to go their own ways and pursue their own little utopias as long as they aren’t forcing themselves on others or doing very heinous things to their own people. This should lead to stronger communities, happier day-to-day lives and - most importantly - it is a just system because it is based on consent. Even if our current system led to great outcomes, it would still be unjust because it is forced upon us and that alone is enough reason to abandon it and seek a just alternative.

Open ##3381309