I HAVE BEEN WONDERING
Of all the governments in this (our) world today - which are the governments that show a bias towards the well being of the majority?
OK, a silly question.
It does not, however, close the doors for a damned good reply that is quite different from the original philosophy that inspired such a silliness.
Yes, yes, yes, I am asking something about democracy. Boring.
I have just been wondering which government, even in a democracy, can claim to be in bias towards the well being of the majority.
Damn it is, is it, so difficult?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
BTW : The BIG PRINT is due to the clear failure of certain eyes that are headless in Gaza.
Makes a change anyway.....
Typical ravings of an anarchist.
Rhodesia used to do rather well before it became democratised.
Get off my back Anonimoose.
Off to get a hippotightarse injection methinks.
Any government support for that?
Well, they most of them often CLAIM to be biased towards the well being of the majority...whether they can claim so with any credibility or truthfulness is a different matter (scuse my pedantry).
The one in that computer game, SimCity? Damned if I can think of any others at present.
Was that Ian Smith calling from beyond the grave?
I agree Trousers: Smith always used to justify white rule on the basis that the blacks were far better off that way. Like Old Tories, each to their station, all things bright and beautiful etc. New Tories, armed with their trick-em-down economics insist that the rich minority getting richer always makes the majority richer too. I guess you'd have to go way back, before the Enlightenment, to find any kind of rule based on explicitly non-majoritarian principles.
Was that Ian Smith calling from beyond the grave?
I agree Trousers: Smith always used to justify white rule on the basis that the blacks were far better off that way. Like Old Tories, each to their station, all things bright and beautiful etc. New Tories, armed with their trick-em-down economics insist that the rich minority getting richer always makes the majority richer too. I guess you'd have to go way back, before the Enlightenment, to find any kind of rule based on explicitly non-majoritarian principles.
I do wonder a bit about that. If something's good for 51% and bad for 49%, is it the right thing to do?
And then again, what if the majority believes that parking offences should be dealt with by means of capital punishment? Extreme, of course, but people have been sent to their deaths in the millions on even less justification than that.
All governments are conspiracies against the people.
Good thread.
Some democratic ways ignore the 50% rule as a majority. Could be 75% or whatever and could be the slow road to consensus sometimes.
See Daily Torigraph for Ian Smith thing.
All governments do not have to be against the people. Some may be WITH and FOR the people. If I read Bauman here well enough he would say that this is best done when the FOR the people ( a moral imperitive) comes just before the WITH. Interesting that methinks.
Sori to be so serious but I really cannot have my Merkin saying "good thread" and get away with it.
Post a Comment