One of the most fascinating political beliefs for the past several thousand years has been the notion of using the idea of protecting "Minority Rights" has an excuse, justification for Minority Rule and exploitation.
The bedrock idea is that since the "Majority" just might deny the rights of the "Minority", the "Minority" must rule over the "Majority". And what are the "rights" of the "Minority"?
1), The right of unfettered use and acquisition of property. This involves the "right" to control and use the state to get rich.
2), The "right" to use the state to get power and position.
3), The state is the plaything of the "Minority", and impediments on being able to use the state or their wealth and power is a violation of their "rights".
Since the "Majority" just might not accept the "rights" of the "Minority", the "Minority" must control the state and keep the "Majority" in line and of course the "Minority" has every "right" to exploit the "Majority" for the "Minorities" benefit. To deny that is an unforgivable insult to the "Minority".
Thus we get the Roman idea of Libertas in the late Republic where it was considered an unforgivable violation of "Liberty" if wealthy aristocrats couldn't get rich from their political appointments. (Bribes, kickbacks etc.)
In the USA perhaps the height of turning "Minority" rights into "Minority" rule and a justification for tyranny was the writings of John C. Calhoun who died in 1850 and was a fanatical advocate of the South.
Calhoun's writings are a mess of contradictions, absurdities and missing the point. However the beginning and his notion was that the South being a minority in the USA needed protection and he proposed various solutions, like co-current majorities, two Presidents etc. However all this was merely a cloak.
Calhoun's real goal was the protection of slavery and that was the sole purpose of his defence of minority rights. Calhoun had no problem with suppressing freedom of the press, the crushing of Abolitionists, a minority, and of course Calhoun had absolutely no problem with the suppression, exploitation etc., of the minority of slaves. If anyone needed the protection of minority rights it was the slaves, but the thought never entered Calhoun's head.
Also part of Calhoun's defence of minority rights was the notion that the state laws of slavery went into the Federal territories, unlike the property laws of Free states, and of course the majority had to allow this regardless.
In the end Calhoun's idea of minority rights amounted to minority rule in that Calhoun literally held that the majority could not do anything that the minority objected to. Meanwhile Calhoun had no problem at all with the subjugation via tyranny of certain minorities. All of this to preserve slavery and tyrannize over a minority.
Has I said above all too frequently the concern over guarding the rights of minorities turns into minority rule and tyranny.
I also see how this sort of blends into in the USA urban areas being taxed to support rural areas, which are weirdly anti-government. (But don't let those subsidies stop.)
The bedrock idea is that since the "Majority" just might deny the rights of the "Minority", the "Minority" must rule over the "Majority". And what are the "rights" of the "Minority"?
1), The right of unfettered use and acquisition of property. This involves the "right" to control and use the state to get rich.
2), The "right" to use the state to get power and position.
3), The state is the plaything of the "Minority", and impediments on being able to use the state or their wealth and power is a violation of their "rights".
Since the "Majority" just might not accept the "rights" of the "Minority", the "Minority" must control the state and keep the "Majority" in line and of course the "Minority" has every "right" to exploit the "Majority" for the "Minorities" benefit. To deny that is an unforgivable insult to the "Minority".
Thus we get the Roman idea of Libertas in the late Republic where it was considered an unforgivable violation of "Liberty" if wealthy aristocrats couldn't get rich from their political appointments. (Bribes, kickbacks etc.)
In the USA perhaps the height of turning "Minority" rights into "Minority" rule and a justification for tyranny was the writings of John C. Calhoun who died in 1850 and was a fanatical advocate of the South.
Calhoun's writings are a mess of contradictions, absurdities and missing the point. However the beginning and his notion was that the South being a minority in the USA needed protection and he proposed various solutions, like co-current majorities, two Presidents etc. However all this was merely a cloak.
Calhoun's real goal was the protection of slavery and that was the sole purpose of his defence of minority rights. Calhoun had no problem with suppressing freedom of the press, the crushing of Abolitionists, a minority, and of course Calhoun had absolutely no problem with the suppression, exploitation etc., of the minority of slaves. If anyone needed the protection of minority rights it was the slaves, but the thought never entered Calhoun's head.
Also part of Calhoun's defence of minority rights was the notion that the state laws of slavery went into the Federal territories, unlike the property laws of Free states, and of course the majority had to allow this regardless.
In the end Calhoun's idea of minority rights amounted to minority rule in that Calhoun literally held that the majority could not do anything that the minority objected to. Meanwhile Calhoun had no problem at all with the subjugation via tyranny of certain minorities. All of this to preserve slavery and tyrannize over a minority.
Has I said above all too frequently the concern over guarding the rights of minorities turns into minority rule and tyranny.
I also see how this sort of blends into in the USA urban areas being taxed to support rural areas, which are weirdly anti-government. (But don't let those subsidies stop.)
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3IJpYla
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire