Jesse Ventura - A vote by the people would lead to slavery

[Cicero]

Robert Heinlein made the same point about Tyranny Of the Majority, but made it much better then Ventura did.

You mean:

"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"


He also said:

"An armed society is a polite society."

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

"First, what is it you want us to pay taxes for? Tell me what I get and perhaps I’ll buy it."

"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Locke wrote the state charter for North Carolina,

John Locke died in 1704, so I think you mean to say that he contributed to the writing of the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas (which predated the formation of the United States).

At any rate, the fact that Locke's political views on slavery were inconsistent with his philosophy of natural human rights is irrelevant.

ETA: Or maybe not irrelevant. It shows again the tyranny of the majority in his day and age.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

 

[INRM]

The US System of Government is supposed to be a Representative democracy in which majority is generally supposed to rule, with protections for the minority against a tyranny of the majority.

INRM

 

[daredelvis]

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

Unfortunately for you, the way I read the proposed law you would end up being my slave, which kind of sucks for me since you can't even keep your place clean.

Daredelvis

 

[Snide]

Whilst I doubt you'd have slavery I thought part of the rationale behind the system of USA government was indeed to prevent the "tyranny of the masses"?

Agreed, and I don't think he literally meant today people would bring back slavery with a vote, but rather if slavery had been left up to popular vote, it may never have completely gone away.

 

[Snide]

Lary King is defintely a fan of vapid and venal wrestlers. He was equally deferential to Hulk Hogan's rantings last week as he is to Ventura's this week.

I don't doubt that, but then I've yet to see a guest to whom Larry was not deferential.

 

[Skeptic]

Oh yeah, the unruly peasants had once again (like in every state they were actually allowed to state their opinion, no pun intended) decided not to recognize gay marriage.

Clearly they got the wrong answer. Isn't there a judge somewhere who will overrule the peasants and declare their view "unconstitutional"? There usually is.

Of course this begs the question why the people were even asked in the first place, when there is only one correct answer allowed and everything else is unconstititonal and evil and not at all nice.

Such a waste of taxpayer's money.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

So long as she is named Rebecca.

 

[Skeptic]

If we do get slavery back, I'm gonna get me a few. Especially one who can keep my place clean.

He said slavery, not torture....

 

[casebro]

As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences. A Black man didn't choose to be black. A child with birth defects didn't make that choice. Nor other handicapped. No job/housing/schooling discrimination based on male/female genes.

Discrimination is legal, if based on choice, NOT genes. You choose to rob banks, you become a felon and lose rights. You choose to molest children, your life turns to crap.

So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality, I don't see how the choice of sexual partners counts towards discrimination, or the lack there of. (Hmm, if homosexuality were once more considered a disease, ADA might help out?)

Of course, the simpler way around the question of gay marriage might be to abolish any legal distinction for marriage at all. No "married filing jointly", no automatic inheritance. Parenthood decided by genes except by contract. Prostitution legalized. Marriage would be a personal contract.

Contract "til death do you part", or for a chosen term? Hmm, with prenups as they are, "Term Marriages" are probably legal now, aren't they?

Of course all that I said is subject to the laws passed by We The People. Not many people seem to want to change the gay marriage situation. Or the hetero rules either.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Jesse Ventura: the opposite of eloquence.

He ain't got time to bleed

 

[MattusMaximus]

So marriage is slavery. Who'd a thunk it.

I'm my wife's love slave... and it's AWESOME!

 

[Ladewig]

As I understand anti-prejudice concepts, We The People have decreed that we should not discriminate against folks who have natural differences.

You have made a flaw in your reasoning. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Religion is a choice.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, until there is a proven scientific cause for homosexuality ...

I dub this the Philip Morris Fallacy ...

Moreover, consider how this line of reasoning affects the exemptions you make for race and sex. Would sexism have been OK until the XY system of sex determination was worked out? Was racism OK until the genetics of human skin pigmentation were understood (in fact, this is not yet completely understood, so I guess we can be a little bit racist). You mention handicaps --- would it have been OK to discriminate against a "thalidomide baby" before the causal role of thalidomide had been discovered?

 

[hgc]

He said slavery, not torture....

I'm pretty sure that if torture were put up for a vote, it'd be in like a flash.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Of course this begs the question why the people were even asked in the first place, when there is only one correct answer allowed and everything else is unconstititonal and evil and not at all nice.

Such a waste of taxpayer's money.

Its amazing that these state senators and councilmen and other jerks continue to draw a salary when they are too afraid to do their jobs and then just make them ballot measures. Clearly unconstitutional, but noone cares

It didnt help that when the people voted down a tax increase to pay for some rich guys' stadium down here (who still has the nerve to charge us admission!) the council put it thru anyway, resulting in someone shooting one of them in the ass

 

[Dr Adequate]

Its amazing that these state senators and councilmen and other jerks continue to draw a salary when they are too afraid to do their jobs and then just make them ballot measures. Clearly unconstitutional, but noone cares

Could you elaborate a little on this theme? So that we know what you're talking about?

 

[Puppycow]

Could you elaborate a little on this theme? So that we know what you're talking about?

I think he's saying that decisions should be made by representative bodies rather than by plebiscite.

 

[Skeptic]

I think he's saying that decisions should be made by representative bodies rather than by plebiscite.

Perhaps; but in that case why the charade? Why ask the people at all? It's not like those suddenly against ballots oppose all popular ballots about everything. They just oppose those ballots (and praise to the sky the "moderating influence" of "representative democracy", etc.) where they fear public opinion is not "advanced" enough to see "the truth" that the courts and the left-leaning legistlature had recognized.

To hear these folks, the fact that in every single state where gay marriage was legalized, it happened after legistlative or -- usually -- court action, and that in every single state where the people were asked in a ballot what they think, they rejected it, can mean only one thing: the people are stupid and racist, and should be forced to do the right thing by their betters.

A rather surprising view from those who, on every other matter whatever (the war in Iraq, say), keep praising public opinion polls as "the people's will", while claiming that congress not deciding to agree with them immediatelly is just proof of how "corrupt and out of touch" politicians are.