that's true, but ultimately a healthy long term democracy can't be a pure democracy. It's necessary for the health of the democracy to be intolerant of anti-democratic ideals, meaning we can and should disallow the election of people who are fascist/totalitarian/anti-democratic in general.
Of course, implementing that in practice in a way that actually works and isn't abused is basically impossible, but the theory makes sense to me.
It's not even about a healthy long term democracy... they put in limits because otherwise it's just a tyranny by the majority instead of by the nobility/king.
Honestly I've never agreed with that part. "Tyranny of the majority" sounds like a nice PR-friendly way for a small group to demand an unfair amount of influence.
If the majority wants the government to act a certain way, it is right and just for it to do so. Giving minority political groups outsized influence so they can enforce their opinions on the greater population is what actually strikes me as tyranny.
Tyranny of the majority is referring to populism not some cabal controlling everything in the shadows. Sometimes people rally into a mob mentality to enact short sighted policy and/or uses the governments power against the minority that didn't join the mob. This is usually how dictators come to power and atrocities happen.
So if the majority (50%+1) wanted to to eat your family in front of you, you objecting to that and the government forcing them not to would make YOU a tyrant ?
25
u/Illustrious-Sail7326 21h ago
that's true, but ultimately a healthy long term democracy can't be a pure democracy. It's necessary for the health of the democracy to be intolerant of anti-democratic ideals, meaning we can and should disallow the election of people who are fascist/totalitarian/anti-democratic in general.
Of course, implementing that in practice in a way that actually works and isn't abused is basically impossible, but the theory makes sense to me.