You're forgetting, unter doesn't believe a democracy can injure a minority.
And a dictator can't? And a dictator is not more likely to do injury?
I never denied that a dictator could wrongly injure someone. You have denied that a democracy could.
And I have said there is no history of a super majority ever taking the rights of people away.
And I have said there is no history of a super majority ever taking the rights of people away.
That's because every time someone presented an example, you said it wasn't "real democracy."
And I have said there is no history of a super majority ever taking the rights of people away.
That's because every time someone presented an example, you said it wasn't "real democracy."
Bullshit.
In the US the majority last gave us the Civil Rights act.
It has expanded rights.
It has not curtailed them.
Bullshit.
In the US the majority last gave us the Civil Rights act.
It has expanded rights.
It has not curtailed them.
The civil rights act was approved by less than 400 people.
Bullshit.
In the US the majority last gave us the Civil Rights act.
It has expanded rights.
It has not curtailed them.
The civil rights act was approved by less than 400 people.
Yes. That is how it was approved. A majority vote. Democracy not dictatorship.
Yes. That is how it was approved. A majority vote. Democracy not dictatorship.
400 people is not a majority of the US population.
In the months leading up to the bill being signed on July 2, there was support for the act, but still a third opposed the bill. One month after its passage, when the implementation phase began, support was just more than 50%, with nearly 1 in five voicing uncertainty about the bill. The civil rights movement itself was viewed with suspicion by many Americans. In 1965, in the midst of the Cold War, a plurality of Americans believed that civil rights organizations had been infiltrated by communists, with almost a fifth of the country unsure as to whether or not they had been compromised.
It was still just under 400 people who voted to pass the bill, and one person who signed it. It was not passed by plebiscite.
It was still just under 400 people who voted to pass the bill, and one person who signed it. It was not passed by plebiscite.
400 out of what?
It was a majority not a minority.
And for once US democracy worked.
The majority in Congress actually reflected a majority in the nation.
That one person signed it is a reflection of a Constitution that separated power. But not far enough.
That the executive is one person is not a good idea.
Better for it to be a democratic body.
It was still just under 400 people who voted to pass the bill, and one person who signed it. It was not passed by plebiscite.
400 out of what?
It was a majority not a minority.
And for once US democracy worked.
The majority in Congress actually reflected a majority in the nation.
That one person signed it is a reflection of a Constitution that separated power. But not far enough.
That the executive is one person is not a good idea.
Better for it to be a democratic body.
It was 400 people who voted for it in a nation of millions. 400 people are less than 1% of that.
It was 400 people who voted for it in a nation of millions. 400 people are less than 1% of that.
The nation did not vote on it.
It was 400 people who voted for it in a nation of millions. 400 people are less than 1% of that.
The nation did not vote on it.
There you go, thanks for the admission. It wasn't a majority that voted on it.
There you go, thanks for the admission. It wasn't a majority that voted on it.
No.
But of the people who voted on it a majority vote decided in favor of freedom.
There you go, thanks for the admission. It wasn't a majority that voted on it.
No.
But of the people who voted on it a majority vote decided in favor of freedom.
So when elected representatives vote for something, that is democracy in action, such as Jim Crow Laws.
To see Jim Crow laws as an expression of a majority is ridiculous.
And I have said there is no history of a super majority ever taking the rights of people away.
That's because every time someone presented an example, you said it wasn't "real democracy."
So according to you, when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed the Civil Rights Act, that was Democracy, but when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed Jim Crow, that was not Democracy.
So according to you, when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed the Civil Rights Act, that was Democracy, but when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed Jim Crow, that was not Democracy.
You seem to think being born into a society where racial segregation was legal and racial prejudice was widespread and cultural accepted is meaningless.
So according to you, when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed the Civil Rights Act, that was Democracy, but when the elected officials (elected by a majority in their districts) passed Jim Crow, that was not Democracy.
You seem to think being born into a society where racial segregation was legal and racial prejudice was widespread and cultural accepted is meaningless.
If it was "culturally accepted" that means the majority accepted it.
