Swiss ban Minarets

[Amazeroth]

It's not like the muslims threatened to introduce their own criminal law or to make arranged marriages obligatory, it is the muslims wanting the same right the majority already has - to build their own places of worship.

They are free to build their own places of worship, just without a minaret, which isn't an essential feature of a Mosque, which is why most Mosques in Switzerland, and indeed Europe, don't have minarets.

So they're not free to build them, they have to adhere to certain restrictions, and these restrictions are not made because of grounded fears - towers might collapse and damage the neighbour's house, or ecologic reasons, but simply because they are a sign of a different religion. It's about as noble as saying "Well, of course black guys are free to use our boardwalks, they just have to stay on the other side if we whites come along". The restriction itself could be a good thing, but not for this reason.

Anyways, if the majority decides to kick Opakidabar out of their country because they are vaguely afraid he or someone in his family might commit something sometime, would this decision be justified? According to your statement "majority rule rather than democracy", it would.

Of course a community has such a right, or rather should have a right. Its why criminals get locked up, or illegal immigrants get deported. But this has nothing to do with this subject. Muslims are not about to be kicked out, in fact there lives will continue just as before. There are something like four minarets in Switzerland. There are more than four Mosques, this isn't really about Muslims being persecuted.

Why should a community have the right to do anything, if they only have the majority to back it? If there are only so few mosques in Switzerland, then the only reason to ban minarets would be to persecute them, even if they don't get kicked out.

Just because Nazis were assholes does not mean building the autobahns was a bad thing. As a party UDC is questionable, but this ban is a good thing.

Boy would you get shunned for this if you lived in Germany. (Not that you'd deserve to be)

But the Swiss democracy is what we all should aim for. Representative Democracy is not needed anymore, but before we get to real direct democracy the Swiss model is the best thing. No opposition in the parliament, let the people be the opposition. If they disagree on something and get up 100000 names, a referendum will be held and the result of that is final. That is democracy. No lobbying, no bullshit, no political elite deciding on everything, only peoples will. Just like in the old glory days of plebeians voting in the marketplace.

No, that's ochlocracy. It is a system more or less bereft of any mechanisms that ensure that even the majority has to respect the rights of the individual. If there are no mechanisms, you just establish a rule of force. Apart from that, any state, regardless if it is a democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, will cease to work, if those who decide what happens don't have the knowledge to understand the consequences of their actions, or even what they vote on. Even if the people may be better educated than in earlier history, they still won't know how to vote on a law, for example, that deals with cross-border leasing, liabilities between a broker and his clients on the stock market, or even the common liability rules. You wouldn't have a decision reflecting what the majority deems right, you would have a decision that reflects how well the agitators behind the law would have managed to manipulate the voters.

If I went to live in Muslim nation and got kicked out because of being Christian (or to put it closer to this situation - if I was forbidden to build cathedrals and could build only common church) I would understand, now here you can trust me 100%. I would never go to another nation and disrespect their traditions - that would be suicide (at least to the nation in Muslim world).
Of course if I was kicked out of Latvia for being Latvian by someone (hypothetical newly formed majority of Muslims or say if Russians send in another million of them), well I would be pissed off

As to question in general about majority saying me what to do and me obeying it, well that is just a way life is. It is about collective agreement. If you can do something to change the collective agreement, devote your life to it and succeed, that is another story - story of heroic leader changing minds of people. If you just decide to tell them what to do instead... or disrespect their will... well...

For the question in general see what I wrote in response to Khaler, but why would you be pissed of if you got kicked out of Latvia, if the majority says so? Unless your thesis is "majority is right, but only if they lived where they live now for a sufficient time", you should be as understanding as you were for being kicked out of a muslim nation.

[GreekIdiot]

Overall you seem to believe that Muslims are being persecuted here.

This is fun! I’ve avoided the forums for years, but this is like having that Ganchelkas (spelling?) chap to ‘discuss’ stuff with again!

Actually no, I was more off trying to use pointless arguments in favor of some conversation that I have sadly lost interest in. You can't argue with someone who is not very different than your own views on a matter that is stupid and actually pointless to debate about.

I've enjoyed it as well. That's the main theme of particracy! Arguing! Spilling your guts onto the floor!

[Opakidabar]

For the question in general see what I wrote in response to Khaler, but why would you be pissed of if you got kicked out of Latvia, if the majority says so? Unless your thesis is "majority is right, but only if they lived where they live now for a sufficient time", you should be as understanding as you were for being kicked out of a muslim nation.

I would be pissed of by LV majority becoming such (or by previous majority allowing new majority, or by occupation force that changes ethnicity and culture), not by majority executing their rightful (at least in my eyes) decision.

No, that's ochlocracy. It is a system more or less bereft of any mechanisms that ensure that even the majority has to respect the rights of the individual. If there are no mechanisms, you just establish a rule of force. Apart from that, any state, regardless if it is a democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, will cease to work, if those who decide what happens don't have the knowledge to understand the consequences of their actions, or even what they vote on. Even if the people may be better educated than in earlier history, they still won't know how to vote on a law, for example, that deals with cross-border leasing, liabilities between a broker and his clients on the stock market, or even the common liability rules. You wouldn't have a decision reflecting what the majority deems right, you would have a decision that reflects how well the agitators behind the law would have managed to manipulate the voters.

And in case of representative democracy you would have a government that

reflects how well the agitators behind the law (Op: Party, Political Force) would have managed to manipulate the voters.

I might be wrong on mathematical logic, but is not it like that: if you prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because of voters general stupidity then you should also prefer (let's say benevolent and caring) dictatorship over democracy?

[Amazeroth]

No, that's ochlocracy. It is a system more or less bereft of any mechanisms that ensure that even the majority has to respect the rights of the individual. If there are no mechanisms, you just establish a rule of force. Apart from that, any state, regardless if it is a democracy, monarchy, dictatorship, will cease to work, if those who decide what happens don't have the knowledge to understand the consequences of their actions, or even what they vote on. Even if the people may be better educated than in earlier history, they still won't know how to vote on a law, for example, that deals with cross-border leasing, liabilities between a broker and his clients on the stock market, or even the common liability rules. You wouldn't have a decision reflecting what the majority deems right, you would have a decision that reflects how well the agitators behind the law would have managed to manipulate the voters.

And in case of representative democracy you would have a government that

reflects how well the agitators behind the law (Op: Party, Political Force) would have managed to manipulate the voters.

I might be wrong on mathematical logic, but is not it like that: if you prefer representative democracy over direct democracy because of voters general stupidity then you should also prefer (let's say benevolent and caring) dictatorship over democracy?

No, because I don't think that the general voter is stupid - in order to know what to do when my examples from above are concerned, you would have had to study the corresponding subjects - nobody is that educated. I prefer representative democracy because the single decisions are left to a parliament and/or government, and because the voters still have their influence, because they decide who gets to make these decisions.

[Khaler]

Why should they only have influence if they could have the power itself? Your general voter can be turned to support something, but isn't that what the entire party-based representative system is doing all the time? If voter can be "fooled" in direct democracy, what makes it any harder in representative democracy?

You prefer pariamentary democracy, but you didin't give us any real reason why. Why is it better for single decissions to be decided by parliament rather than direct vote?

There really is no difference in representative and direct democracy, except that direct is closer to real democracy and can not be lobbied to work for something else than the good of the people like representative democracy is. Having direct democracy does not change how nations should function, they would still have constitutions that set up certain limitations on what the popular vote can change. If they would need 5/6 of popular vote to change the "freedoms" of the minorities, just as in representative democracy, why would it be any worse? Just because people would ditch parliament does not mean they would ditch the functions and structures of the nation.

[Amazeroth]

Why should they only have influence if they could have the power itself? Your general voter can be turned to support something, but isn't that what the entire party-based representative system is doing all the time? If voter can be "fooled" in direct democracy, what makes it any harder in representative democracy?

You prefer pariamentary democracy, but you didin't give us any real reason why. Why is it better for single decissions to be decided by parliament rather than direct vote?

There really is no difference in representative and direct democracy, except that direct is closer to real democracy and can not be lobbied to work for something else than the good of the people like representative democracy is. Having direct democracy does not change how nations should function, they would still have constitutions that set up certain limitations on what the popular vote can change. If they would need 5/6 of popular vote to change the "freedoms" of the minorities, just as in representative democracy, why would it be any worse? Just because people would ditch parliament does not mean they would ditch the functions and structures of the nation.

Because in a representative democracy the representatives have the time and possibilities to inform themselves about the laws they're voting on. In a (real) direct democracy, the voters would have to vote on things they couldn't possibly know about or even understand - not because they're too stupid, but because there is too much to know.

But it's right, I haven't been precise enough - the voter in a representative democracy can be fooled as well, but in a representative democracy it is much more clear where initiatives come from or who's behind them, which makes it easier to spot attempts at manipulation.

The discussion about direct vs. representative democracy will do no good, however, if we're not clear of other things, for example if there would still be a government in this fictional state, and if there would still be a constitution. I think what was more important for me to say is that in a real democracy there are basic rights which can't be hurt even by a majority, which goes for any kind of democracy, regardless if representative or direct.

[Opakidabar]

Speaking in Nationstates (a political sim game) terminology you hold civil rights over political freedom.
If people want to oppress minorities which is civil rights violation you would rather oppress their political rights and make their votes not count. Whereas I would oppress the minorities rights if majority of people vote so.

[Amazeroth]

Speaking in Nationstates (a political sim game) terminology you hold civil rights over political freedom.
If people want to oppress minorities which is civil rights violation you would rather oppress their political rights and make their votes not count. Whereas I would oppress the minorities rights if majority of people vote so.

Yes. Although I wouldn't make their votes not count, I wouldn't let it come to a vote at all. And, of course, I wouldn't oppress political rights, because there aren't any to oppress here.

It comes down to that: either you believe there are basic human rights that a state can't be allowed to hurt, or you say that majority should always be allowed to do whatever they want. I believe in the former, you apparently believe in the latter.

[Opakidabar]

Speaking in Nationstates (a political sim game) terminology you hold civil rights over political freedom.
If people want to oppress minorities which is civil rights violation you would rather oppress their political rights and make their votes not count. Whereas I would oppress the minorities rights if majority of people vote so.

Yes. Although I wouldn't make their votes not count, I wouldn't let it come to a vote at all. And, of course, I wouldn't oppress political rights, because there aren't any to oppress here.

It comes down to that: either you believe there are basic human rights that a state can't be allowed to hurt, or you say that majority should always be allowed to do whatever they want. I believe in the former, you apparently believe in the latter.

Yeah, but if majority of people disagree with you, then what makes you think that you are right? Maybe then this particular human right is not seen as "basic" by most of people, and why is then your vision superior to the vision of millions?
And if it is, then maybe you should sell your vision to those millions instead of making dictatorial decision and not letting them vote at all.
(while what I have said may have sounded angry, it was not meant like that, just questions to think about).

[Amazeroth]

Yes. Although I wouldn't make their votes not count, I wouldn't let it come to a vote at all. And, of course, I wouldn't oppress political rights, because there aren't any to oppress here.

It comes down to that: either you believe there are basic human rights that a state can't be allowed to hurt, or you say that majority should always be allowed to do whatever they want. I believe in the former, you apparently believe in the latter.

Yeah, but if majority of people disagree with you, then what makes you think that you are right? Maybe then this particular human right is not seen as "basic" by most of people, and why is then your vision superior to the vision of millions?

Because, if you believe in basic rights at all, it is only logic that this particular right is also among them. My "vision" is not that extraordinary, but rather in accordance with most western constitutions (and most western humanist and enlightened thinkers), the European declaration of human rights, etc. And it's because if you'd follow the thoughts that make outcomes like the one in Switzerland possible consequently, you would come to a system with total disregards for the individual - which most peope are also against. The problem is, that they don't think their own opinions through, because most people wouldn't deny the existence of basic rights if you'd ask them directly about it.

And if it is, then maybe you should sell your vision to those millions instead of making dictatorial decision and not letting them vote at all.
(while what I have said may have sounded angry, it was not meant like that, just questions to think about).

Since it can be recognised by rational thinking alone that basic rights have to exist, and that if they exist, the freedom of religion has to be one of them, not recognising this is simply the wrong thing. If there were bigger breaches against those rights, genocide for example, then I would do what I can to stop it, even if that meant acting against the will of the majority. But that would be a kind of ultima ratio, in all the less alarming situations I wouldn't think that dictatorial oppression would be the lesser of two evils. In the case of smaller breaches, I would rely on education.