Maxat
“The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ …”

No it doesn’t. The fact that democratic legislatures sometimes do acts that protect the rights of minorities, no more shows that democracy is based in principle on moral values higher than majority opinion, than does the fact that pirate crews may sometimes show pity for their victims. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Most politicians wouldn’t recognize a moral principle if they fell over it. The democratic process indeed selects *against* principled individuals, rewarding expedience – called compromise – as the highest virtue of politics, thus selecting for unprincipled and immoral sociopaths as a result.

If the de-criminalisation of homosexuality showed recognition of a general right - above majority opinion or prejudice - to freedom of consensual sexuality, then they would have legalized bigamy at the same time, wouldn’t they? The more accurate explanation for such occasions is nothing more principled than that enough individual legislators are currying marginal favour which they hope to aggregate to a majority in their respective electorates come election time.

Similarly, prostitution was not legalised because the legislatures recognised as a moral principle that other people’s consensual sexuality was none of their business, but because they hoped to control it more effectually in view of the rise of AIDS.

As I have shown, the democratic system cannot even evidence that any given act of government does represent a majority, or not, so even with their perverse moral theory, the majoritarians don’t even get to first base.

However there can be no question that the basal moral theory of democracy asserts the legitimacy of majority rule. The fact that democracies entrench certain rights in constitutional sections requiring a special majority to amend them, proves that such entrenched rights are the exception to the general rule, namely that the majority may infringe whatever other freedoms it feels like with impunity. The entrenched freedoms only beg the moral question why the others aren't entrenched as well.

(cont.)

Maxat
“The theory which insists that majority opinion is not a moral value explains the difference between democracy and ‘mob rule’ …”

No it doesn’t. The fact that democratic legislatures sometimes do acts that protect the rights of minorities, no more shows that democracy is based in principle on moral values higher than majority opinion, than does the fact that pirate crews may sometimes show pity for their victims. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Most politicians wouldn’t recognize a moral principle if they fell over it. The democratic process indeed selects *against* principled individuals, rewarding expedience – called compromise – as the highest virtue of politics, and selecting sociopaths as a result.

If the de-criminalisation of homosexuality showed recognition of a general right - above majority opinion or prejudice - to freedom of consensual sexuality, then they would have legalized bigamy at the same time, wouldn’t they? The more accurate explanation for such occasions is nothing more principled than that enough individual legislators are currying marginal favour which they hope to aggregate to a majority in their respective seats come election time.

Similarly, prostitution was not legalized because the legislatures recognized as a moral principle that other people’s consensual sexuality was none of their business, but because they hoped to control it more effectually in view of the rise of AIDS.

As I have shown, the democratic system does not even provide evidence that any given act of government does in fact represent a majority, or not, so even with their perverse moral theory, the majoritarians don’t even get to first base.

However there can be no question that the basal moral theory of democracy asserts the legitimacy of majority rule. The fact that democracies entrench certain rights in constitutional sections requiring a special majority to amend them, proves that such entrenched rights are the exception to the general rule, namely that the majority may infringe whatever other freedoms it feels like with impunity. In practice this amounts to nothing more principled than what politicians think they can get away with.

(cont.

As for checks and balances, the executive chiefs and the legislature’s controllers are all one in Cabinet – so much for separation of powers. And the judiciary, being state agents, are usually biased in favour of the state, as shown by the judicial trashing of constitutional protections wherever they exist(ed). The US government is scarcely recognizable from its prescription in the US Constitution. And if judgments like Australia’s “Franklin Dam” were correct, there would be no need for a Constitution – “government has power to do whatever it feels likes” would suffice.

So, even if government represented majority opinion, there is a need to appeal to values over and above it, and such values must
1. resolve to individual freedom rather than the common good else it will only lead back to the original problem
2. recognise a universal moral *principle*, that does not permit of a double standard privileging the political class to expediently exempt themselves or their pet favourites
3. be logically irrefutable.

Hoppe’s argumentation ethic satisfies those criteria. Does anyone else’s?

Hazza
“yet a handful of disgruntled individuals who feel that the government is interfering with their freedoms … decide to treat themselves to raping another person anyway.
What does that sound more like to you?”

Sounds like more of your misrepresentations. Who is making that latter argument?

You have failed to understand the moral issues. There is nothing *in principle* stopping any legislature from authorizing acts which are serious crimes for everyone else – they’re doing it all the time! And it makes no *moral* difference to one being violated or subjugated, if 51% bully the other 49%, or if 50 bully 20 million.

“Democracy *IS* nothing but a system where the public rule.”

Nonsense. “The public” doesn’t rule. *The state* does. The fact that you confuse them doesn’t make the assertion true.

Besides which, there is no evidence that the state does in fact represent the majority. Unless and until you refute all the points in “Unrepresentative Government” http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/, you don’t have a feather to fly with.

"Sounds like more of your misrepresentations. Who is making that latter argument? "
And yours about publics voting to rape people most definitely wasn't.
I also noticed that you avoided answering.

And nice try- A majority voting for something a minority doesn't want is FAR more moral than say, a Libertarian subjecting others to things they don't want to help himself alone- as when the majority votes, most people stand to benefit and the negatives are fairer as the costs and benefits are incurred by everyone at the degree they would tolerate- and the minority is included in the decision-
While the libertarian building a lead paint factory next door (or using your own example, raping others) is subjecting absolutely everyone without their say in the matter at all to suffering- where almost everyone profoundly suffers so a single person can profit or exploit them- creating a system of cutthroat anarchy.

"Nonsense. “The public” doesn’t rule. *The state* does. The fact that you confuse them doesn’t make the assertion true. "
Actually you're confusing them- and coming from someone who confuses these with the Soviet Union, I'm not surprised.
In virtually direct-democratic Switzerland, the public DOES rule- they can repeal and pass legislation, with every office of authority helpless but to enforce the people's will.
Australia is barely democratic at all- no referenda, no political accountability, not even directly-elected ministers.

Does that answer your question?
(of course it does- not that this will stop you pretending otherwise and trying to skew the issue in your next post, before then making another bizarre insinuation that is the same system the USSR used to oppress people with).
Then again, coming from the person who once recommended a self-appointed lynch mob be the most just option for enforcing unwritten justice on wrongdoers, I'm not expecting much.

Maybe it's the term "morals" that's the problem. It's been used for so long and in the most oppressive manner in our society that the idea of morals trumping majority view has some serious problems.

My idea's on what's moral can be very different to yours. There is a balance in this, the balance being that all major policies should be spelt out during an election campaign. If the voting public agrees with those policies then they elect the person and or party.

If circumstances change sufficiently to warrant major changes from what was in the announced policy then there should be bi-partisan support for those changes for them to proceed before the next election. That's part of what I consider moral government.

R0bert

Hazza
Your post comprises only misrepresentation, irrelevance, spiteful personal argument, and a failure to address, or even to understand, the moral issues raised by the article, so there is nothing for me to reply to.

R0bert
“My idea's on what's moral can be very different to yours.”

But all agree that they have a right to self-ownership, don’t they? Else they couldn’t participate in the argument?

“There is a balance in this, the balance being that all major policies should be spelt out during an election campaign.”

Good luck with that. At present all and any acts of government are taken to represent the will of the people. Who would say whether a policy was major or non-major, “core” or “non-core”? And if all major policies weren’t spelt out and they passed them without bipartisan support - as with the current government - then what? Would we have a right to sue politicians on grounds of misrepresentation and have their personal assets forfeited to their victims, and have them prosecuted and imprisoned for fraud, as we can for private businesses?

If not, then how would your proposal be any improvement on the current situation? If it’s not enforceable, don’t kid yourself that politicians will do it; it’s really just wishful thinking.

“If the voting public agrees with those policies then they elect the person and or party.”

How would you know whether they agree or not? The process provides no way to distinguish one policy from another. The only thing you have to fall back on is the idea that all and any acts of government is taken to represent the will of the people, which is to return to the original problem.