Socialism (Moved from Grapes of Wrath)

Hence, oppression of a minority...in a democracy.

What are collective rights?

If you disagree I have a question: Why does the state get to take disproportional amounts of our income yet we all get the same influence to decide over it?

I don't see how you are missing this, I will be as clear as I can: Those laws would be considered coercive and therefore be strictly optional in my envisioning of the role of government. A public policy beyond those that are absolutely necessary (such as a military) cannot be justly presented as non optional if individual rights are to take precedent.

I think that the best solution entails a decentralization of government in the United States so that the multiplicity of public policies would be decided by the individual states and those who had one idea might move to a state where their ideal prevails. In this way we could have an equilibrium; a diverse set of governments with a peace keeping central government, to avoid interstate conflicts. Once this decentralization occurs, the states would reserve the right to hold public policy up to a vote and if a certain percentage of the population is unhappy in one state, they can freely move to another. This way, if unreasonable seizure was threatened one could simply leave.

No, Nero, it's not. Minorities and majorities are shifting sands. You and I might agree on one issue but disagree on two others. We might be in the minority on the issue on which we agree but each in the majority on one of the others. Were you or I to be genuinely "oppressed" on one issue we might make that majority pay dearly for it on others. The idea of there being some distinct majority on any issue much less all that is so heedless of the interests of the minority as to be willing to actually oppress them is simplistic to the point of being infantile. If you genuinely believe that nonsense, you must find your society rather frightening and ominous. Just because you don't get your way some or even most of the time doesn't render you oppressed. That's pure foolishness.

Democracy is susceptible to minorities being subdued by the majority, but that does not necessarily have to be the case. By allowing for certain checks and balances, a democracy can protect itself from the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, the so-called democracies of the modern world do not have the necessary measures in place.

Indeed. The reason constitutional democracies tend to have bills or charters of rights and other consitutional guarantees of rights and freedoms is to prevent the government, acting on the whim of a notional majority, from oppressing the minority. These enactments don't merely protect the individual from the state, they afford a bulwark for minority interests against capriciousness from the majority.

Isn't democracy oppression of the minority, by definition?

No, Nero, it's not. Minorities and majorities are shifting sands. You and I might agree on one issue but disagree on two others. We might be in the minority on the issue on which we agree but each in the majority on one of the others. Were you or I to be genuinely "oppressed" on one issue we might make that majority pay dearly for it on others. The idea of there being some distinct majority on any issue much less all that is so heedless of the interests of the minority as to be willing to actually oppress them is simplistic to the point of being infantile. If you genuinely believe that nonsense, you must find your society rather frightening and ominous. Just because you don't get your way some or even most of the time doesn't render you oppressed. That's pure foolishness.

So you think a state full of right wing nutters would be able to coexist with a neighbour who was the opposite of their ideal? Why should an individual living in a country or state be forced to move because of electoral migration.What makes a country good is the diversity of views and the ability to adapt.

So you would institute the ideals of the minority on the majority as opposed to having them move?

A plain difference between these ideals is that the "right wing nutters" move in and mind their business. The person who holds the opposite ideals seeks to place rules upon the "right wing nutters".

I also like that last affirmation of moral relativism while preaching the absolute moral depravity of the supporters of the free market. The market accommodates and adapts. That is its nature.

Sorry chum but you sound more than a bit whiney.

A minority is not a static group, neither are we in only one at a time. We all are a member of many shifting groups. As a member of some of these minorities and majorities I am oppressed, while as member of others I am unfairly granted privileges at the expense of others enforced by the state.

Oppression is: "The exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner."*
Any limiting of my personal freedoms by the government (exercise of authority) is burdensome to me. I usually also see it as unjust or cruel. Even if I am forced to drive on the right side of the road, pay taxes and sort my trash that is the government oppressing me. Though some restrictions of personal freedom course I agree with.

My point was that the minority on any issue is, per definition, oppressed in a theoretical democracy.

And yes, I do find society rather frightening and ominous.
And with the way things are going I am looking forward to living in a North Korea like world.

I think you had better make your mind up about democracy either it supports the majority against the minority or vise verse.You make an opposing view ,someone answers your post, you then ignore the reply and ask the same question again.Who is imposing the views of the minority?
Who opposed the free market? me, when?
When have right wing nutters minded their own business?