Sponsored Links

[Gray Seal]

I have been mulling over this subject after seeing so much of political discussion revolving around this core ethical question.

It is part of many constitution debates. What are the rights of states(as a minority) versus federal? What is the status of religion with government? Should government be limited to what it can or can not do? If so, when?

It is part of many social laws dealing with family such as same sex marriage.

It is part of business law. What limits can or can not be put on corporations? Can corporations work with government to gain special privileges(big business is more important as it represents more people than a small business)? Corporations are treated differently than small businesses and they should because they are big.

It is part of states rights discussion. Is it bad for the majority of the entire country to decide issues which affect individuals but ok for a majority of a smaller slice of the country( a state) to decide issues for individuals?

I can not hardly think of any law where this should not be considered, unless you picked the last poll option.

I am interested in what everyone's core ethics are on this subject. This is not a constitution debate. I want to know how people view their interactions with each other. I want to see it from everyone's perspective of the role of government.

One of the most ironic things about law is that the rights of the minority only exists if the majority decide that they are important.

Please expand upon the cursory poll options from your point of view. State what the exceptions you might have to either absolute minority protection or majority rule.

TOPIC TO DEBATE:
Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

This post has been edited by Jaime: Mar 18 2005, 07:57 PM

[Jaime]

REOPENED.

TOPIC TO DEBATE:
Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

[VDemosthenes]

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

Never. Today's minority is tomorrow's majority; likewise, today's majority become the minority. The very idea that minorities need protection is laughable. We are a free nation with a democratic system where every citizen gets one vote. Not every caucasian gets one vote, nor any hispanic, nor asians or africans. Every person gets representation in this nation. To protect the minority is to insult a majority with favoring a group too weak to influence most opinion.

Minority groups complain they aren't heard, well I can tell you why. Because they are the MINORITY. They have lesser influence, lesser support and lesser resources. But my repeating theme that they we are all equal people with no need for a minority vs. majority type society does not go down very well in practice.

Some odd number of decades ago African-Americans were the minority group of America, they still could be considered a minority, but African-Americans disprove anyone's theory that the minority needs protecting. Outspoken leaders for equality changed everything by showing us we needed them as equals. They did not have much caucasian-support from government/private channels. Individuals aided them, that is true, but the force that changed our views on equality were a minority. The same minority that redefined American civil rights did not need protection, they still do not need protection; because they came together as Americans to demand a better America.

[SuzySteamboat]

Should we, or when should we, be concerned with protecting those in a minority?

Never. Today's minority is tomorrow's majority; likewise, today's majority become the minority. The very idea that minorities need protection is laughable. We are a free nation with a democratic system where every citizen gets one vote. Not every caucasian gets one vote, nor any hispanic, nor asians or africans. Every person gets representation in this nation. To protect the minority is to insult a majority with favoring a group too weak to influence most opinion.

Minority groups complain they aren't heard, well I can tell you why. Because they are the MINORITY. They have lesser influence, lesser support and lesser resources. But my repeating theme that they we are all equal people with no need for a minority vs. majority type society does not go down very well in practice.

Some odd number of decades ago African-Americans were the minority group of America, they still could be considered a minority, but African-Americans disprove anyone's theory that the minority needs protecting. Outspoken leaders for equality changed everything by showing us we needed them as equals. They did not have much caucasian-support from government/private channels. Individuals aided them, that is true, but the force that changed our views on equality were a minority. The same minority that redefined American civil rights did not need protection, they still do not need protection; because they came together as Americans to demand a better America.

You know what I think is most interesting about your response is that you immediately interpreted "minority" to mean "black" and then based your entire response on this assumption that I have no idea where you got it from. There were absolutely no indications of the subject of a racial minority in the OP; indeed, when I first read I didn't think about black people, but the concept of being in the minority. Many times, being in the minority has nothing to do with race. I am a racial minority, but I'm even more concerned about being in a religious minority.

But with gems like "to protect the minority is to insult a majority with favoring a group too weak to influence most opinion" I guess when you, as a non-minority male, become a minority in a mostly hispanic America, you will shut up and take it and assume that you should have no voice in government or laws or anything just because you happen to be less than 50%. I assume you will be lobbying for a mostly white Congress to give up their seats to hispanic candidates? I assume you will have no problem with Hispanics enacting laws that, overtly or covertly, favor themselves? Do you really believe that because someone happens to belong to a group that is less than 50%, they shouldn't have a voice? That any opinions or views or needs they may have are completely irrelevant? That by the very definition of being a minority means that they have nothing useful to contribute to anything and therefore deserve to be ignored?

The second thing I have a problem with is that you immediately associating being in the minority with being "weak." I have a MAJOR problem with this and I'm sure if you look at my member photo, you'll understand why. Just because someone is part of a minority group does not mean that they are too weak to influence most opinion, in fact if you ask your conservative counterparts I'm sure you'll interrupt more than a few complaining about the "tyranny of the minority," especially in matters of religion or morality.

As far as "African-Americans disprove anyone's theory that the minority needs protecting" goes, I'd like to kindly refer you to this article for just ONE example of how ludicrous that sounds not only to this black person, but a white man as well. Do you think you'd be treated completely fairly as a minority in a society where the wishes and whims and rules of the majority rule over everything? Do you honestly believe minorities don't need any sort of special protection against unfair majority rule? Cause, you know, I distinctly remember a time when America was like that, and I really don't think life was all that great for African-Americans pre-1960s. Or the Native Americans. Or Asians, particularly Japanese in the 1940s, or Chinese in the early 1900s.

"Outspoken leaders for equality changed everything by showing us we needed them as equals. They did not have much caucasian-support from government/private channels. Individuals aided them, that is true, but the force that changed our views on equality were a minority."

Wrong. The laws may have changed, but I'd have no problem finding someone who still doesn't think that minorities are equal to white people. Not in that "I have a black co-worker I get along really well with" way, but more of a "I'd let my daughter date one without giving her a 'are-you-sure-you-want-to-do-this-what-about-the-problems-your-kid-would-have' talk, where the pseudo-concern vaguely disguises their wish to tell them not to date" way. You cannot force changes of opinion, no matter what the law may say. You honestly expect me to believe that in 1960, a majority of white people believed that blacks were inferior, yet 10 years later the laws forced their opinions to change? Cause you know, I'm sitting here and I'm trying damn hard to try to rationalize the idea that the only thing keeping white people from socializing with minorities and letting them drink from their fountains and use their restaurants and sit next to them on the bus was the law.

Bottom line is, for a real reference on just how society would work and operate without protection for minority rights, all you have to do is pick and choose any time in society before 1964 and envision yourself as a minority during that time. If that doesn't change your opinion that minority rights aren't worth protecting, or that minorities don't need laws specifically protecting them, then I guess nothing else I could say or do would.

[VDemosthenes]

First of all I wish to address my deep sincerity when I say I had no intention to portray african-americans as weak. When defining "weak" mentally I extended it to mean a group who would have a more difficult time to overcome barriers or obstacles established by a majority.

Secondly I wish to apologize if I insulted you in anyway for my usage of the example of the Civil Right's movement. I chose to highlight this event because it is an example of where the minority did not need protection to overcome something they fought for and believed in. It is a prime example of why the minority does not need protection: because convictions will overcome anything, no matter how well represented you are.

You are correct in your citing I did not have to insight to address religious minorities. I was wrong to jump the gun, yet I still support my claim with the fact the minority did not need the majority to overcome suppression or barriers.

Again, you are right in my not clearly defining weak as being a minority. I have the upmost respect for minorities and their struggles- yet the ability to overcome such struggles is why aid from outside sources is not needed.

You explain the difficult time minorities had during the forties and sixties, if times had not changed I would agree with you. Racism, I believe, has been significantly reduced in the nation and has assisted in the need to not have special treatment provided.

I stick to it that all people, regardless of who they are, or what ethnic group or their religious heritage is have the basic right to have their rights protected. To ensure to minorities, or even majorities for that matter, more protection than anyone else is simply absurd. We are all given the same Bill of Rights, all born under the same flag: yet their are some who want to live in the past, remain independent, but still accept such things as Affirmative Action. This is racial hypocrisy and is my chief example of why favoring one group over the other is unacceptable.

I say majority groups have more influence... what I failed to say was they should have preferential treatment, which they should not. Life for everyone has changed and it is time for everyone to say goodbye to the past. All it does is cloud the issue that we are all Americans who are we ourselves one group of people. Call me nationalistic but I consider all American's as an equal group of people with the same rights as everyone else, no protection should be given to any group over the other. Ever.

Again, fondest apologies to you if I have unfairly ruled against your background. It was short-sighted and closed-minded of me and uncalled for.