Minority Rights often means a Minority Rules

[Pacal]

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.)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Every person is a minority of one, and every individual wants a system that benefits themself in some way. But most of us recognize that a system which benefits everyone also benefits the individual. It's not a zero sum game.

The bedrock idea is that since the "Majority" just might deny the rights of the "Minority", the "Minority" must rule over the "Majority".

That's a silly idea. One could as easily posit that since the "Minority" just might deny the rights of the "Majority", the "Majority" must rule over the "Minority". After all, history is littered with examples of minorities doing just that.

As I said, every person is their own a minority. Does that mean we should all be striving to 'rule over' everyone else? What would happen if we did? When it comes to 'ruling over' there can only be one. Simple logic tells me that my chances of being the 'ruler' is much smaller than being one of the 'ruled'. A system that makes all but one a disaffected subject is not one I would want to be a part of.

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".

Every time you exercise a 'right' you run the risk of impinging on the 'rights' of others. Do that too much and they might just decide that you are taking more than your fair share of 'rights' and deprive you of even more. It is in our best interests for everyone to have sufficient rights that they don't feel unfairly disadvantaged. We may accept other people being 'rich' if it makes us richer too, but not if makes us poorer. We may accept a few getting power and position to 'control' the state if they make it work better than we could, but not if it only works for them and not us.

A selection of 'rights' that only applies to a minority of advantaged individuals is not Minority Rights, which is defined as:-

a legal framework designed to ensure that a specific group which is in a vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized position in society, is able to achieve equality and is protected from persecution.

Minority rights means being equal to the majority, not above it. Those who aren't satisfied with just having the same rights as everyone else might try to twist it into meaning something else, but they aren't fooling anyone. We know their real agenda, and it's not protecting the rights of others.

Has I said above all too frequently the concern over guarding the rights of minorities turns into minority rule and tyranny.

How frequently is that? Can you provide some examples?

 

[Pacal]

Every person is a minority of one, and every individual wants a system that benefits themself in some way. But most of us recognize that a system which benefits everyone also benefits the individual. It's not a zero sum game.

That's a silly idea. One could as easily posit that since the "Minority" just might deny the rights of the "Majority", the "Majority" must rule over the "Minority". After all, history is littered with examples of minorities doing just that.

As I said, every person is their own a minority. Does that mean we should all be striving to 'rule over' everyone else? What would happen if we did? When it comes to 'ruling over' there can only be one. Simple logic tells me that my chances of being the 'ruler' is much smaller than being one of the 'ruled'. A system that makes all but one a disaffected subject is not one I would want to be a part of.


Every time you exercise a 'right' you run the risk of impinging on the 'rights' of others. Do that too much and they might just decide that you are taking more than your fair share of 'rights' and deprive you of even more. It is in our best interests for everyone to have sufficient rights that they don't feel unfairly disadvantaged. We may accept other people being 'rich' if it makes us richer too, but not if makes us poorer. We may accept a few getting power and position to 'control' the state if they make it work better than we could, but not if it only works for them and not us.

A selection of 'rights' that only applies to a minority of advantaged individuals is not Minority Rights, which is defined as:-



Minority rights means being equal to the majority, not above it. Those who aren't satisfied with just having the same rights as everyone else might try to twist it into meaning something else, but they aren't fooling anyone. We know their real agenda, and it's not protecting the rights of others.

How frequently is that? Can you provide some examples?

Well I did give two examples. John C. Calhoun's very silly ideas about "Minority" rights which basically were little more than a defence of slavery and the right of Slave owners to more or less rule.

The other example was in the late Roman Republic the wealthy Roman Aristocrats demanding the "right" to rule in order to protect themselves from having their power and wealth threatened by the majority.

In the 19th century the rhetoric of protecting the minority was used to defend the minority of the wealthy / powerful from the perceived threat of the majority to their power and wealth and this was used has a justification for minority rule. Basically the idea was that the wealthy and powerful were under permanent threat from the majority and therefore required power etc., i.e., the right to rule to protect themselves from this majority which just might take away or abridge that power and wealth.

I actually do agree with you that this is an utterly perverse use of the idea of rights and protecting minorities but this logic has been used in many societies including in much of Europe in the 19th century in defence of Aristocratic wealth and power.

 

[AmyStrange]

Wow!

At first, I thought you were going to write about minorities like blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and LGBTs, but I enjoyed reading this very much.

Very well written, by the way, and thank you for giving me a different perspective to think about.

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.)

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Well I did give two examples. John C. Calhoun's very silly ideas about "Minority" rights which basically were little more than a defence of slavery and the right of Slave owners to more or less rule.

The other example was in the late Roman Republic the wealthy Roman Aristocrats demanding the "right" to rule in order to protect themselves from having their power and wealth threatened by the majority.

I meant examples of "guarding the rights of minorities turns into minority rule and tyranny". So far you have supplied "late Roman Republic wealthy Roman Aristocrats", and a 19th century pro-slavery senator from South Carolina (surprise surprise).

The gist of your argument seems to be that 'too frequently' a minority considers that they have a 'right' to rule over the majority, on the basis that if they didn't their 'rights' (number 1 being the right to rule) would be trampled on by the majority. There are of course many examples of that throughout history. So much so that the phrase 'Minority Rights means a Minority Rules' is almost a tautology - when 'minority' means the rulers themselves.

But as I pointed out, that is not the normally accepted meaning of 'minority'. Wealthy aristocrats and slave-owning US senators certainly were in the minority numerically. But they were not vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized - in fact quite the opposite. So what I am asking for is evidence of 'too frequent' arguments for ruling over the majority on the basis that they would otherwise be vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized. John C. Calhoun might just sneak in if you look at his words sideways, but wealthy Roman Aristocrats?

I suspect the vast majority of rulers justified their status for other reasons, such as birthright, wealth, political power, physical strength, popularity or even (gasp) actual ability to lead. Though I will concede that if you define 'all too frequently' as two cases separated by a period of ~2000 years, no more examples are necessary.

 

[Pacal]

I meant examples of "guarding the rights of minorities turns into minority rule and tyranny". So far you have supplied "late Roman Republic wealthy Roman Aristocrats", and a 19th century pro-slavery senator from South Carolina (surprise surprise).

The gist of your argument seems to be that 'too frequently' a minority considers that they have a 'right' to rule over the majority, on the basis that if they didn't their 'rights' (number 1 being the right to rule) would be trampled on by the majority. There are of course many examples of that throughout history. So much so that the phrase 'Minority Rights means a Minority Rules' is almost a tautology - when 'minority' means the rulers themselves.

But as I pointed out, that is not the normally accepted meaning of 'minority'. Wealthy aristocrats and slave-owning US senators certainly were in the minority numerically. But they were not vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized - in fact quite the opposite. So what I am asking for is evidence of 'too frequent' arguments for ruling over the majority on the basis that they would otherwise be vulnerable, disadvantaged or marginalized. John C. Calhoun might just sneak in if you look at his words sideways, but wealthy Roman Aristocrats?

I suspect the vast majority of rulers justified their status for other reasons, such as birthright, wealth, political power, physical strength, popularity or even (gasp) actual ability to lead. Though I will concede that if you define 'all too frequently' as two cases separated by a period of ~2000 years, no more examples are necessary.

Well I did mention that in the 19th century defenders of property / aristocratic privilege did use ideas about "minority" rights in Europe to defend their right to rule etc. In fact the hysteria they sometimes exhibited over the majority taking away their power and privilege was sometimes amusing. They often seemed to think themselves has under perpetual siege by the majority at any moment poised to take away their wealth / power. This attitude was common among English Aristocrats in the 19th century among others.

And yes if you read Cicero his constant whining about what a threat the "masses" also called the Populares, were to the Optimates (i.e. "Good Men" - wealthy Aristocrats), were a constant refrain of his political writings. Cicero most definitely did view the wealthy and powerful Aristocrats has a potentially marginal group at least under threat by the "mob".

In fact this refrain was also heard in the Middle Ages in Europe about the need to keep the mass down because they are or could be a threat to the wealth and power of the powerful wealthy was also constant refrain. During the early 16th century during the so-called German Peasant war was also heard this refrain. Does it really require masses of evidence to indicate that the wealthy and powerful have feared the majority taking away their power and wealth?

And has I indicated before I do regard this idea of "Minority rights" has perverse and absurd. The fact that it is largely delusional doesn't mean this type of idiotic thinking has not been unpleasantly common historically. The idea of the mass being a perpetual threat to the wealthy and powerful and thus needing to be kept down is sadly common. Of course the delusional nature of this notion is rather obvious, but it serves the purpose of turning the powerful into "victims", actual or potential, and thus increases their sense of virtue.

As for John Calhoun. Well he did use, very often, the rhetoric of "minority rights" to defend tyranny and privilege. So no - you don't have to look at his stuff sideways to see that. That his arguments in this regard are specious is obvious.

And if you want another example of this use of "minority rights" used to justify power and privilege - just look at Apartheid South Africa. The "minority rights" of the Afrikaners were used to justify, excuse this disgusting system.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Calling those with the most wealth and political power a minority because they are the top .1% seems rather at odds with every other way people define political/ethnic minorities.

 

[shuttlt]

Calling those with the most wealth and political power a minority because they are the top .1% seems rather at odds with every other way people define political/ethnic minorities.

That's because you are used to a neo-Marxist oppressor/oppressed way of talking about the world rather than a Machiavellian way of talking about it where you are mainly interested in the practical problems of power.

 

[dudalb]

That's because you are used to a neo-Marxist oppressor/oppressed way of talking about the world rather than a Machiavellian way of talking about it where you are mainly interested in the practical problems of power.

I dislike Marxism a lot, but I also dislike a total amoral approach to power.
That way lies the Gulag and Auschwitz.