Is it wrong for great art works to be hoarded by the rich?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

The majority first has to prove it is 'the majority'.

Well... most of them have to, at least.

[JimC]

When I say that using the term "tyranny of the majority" is dangerously dismissive of democratic principles, I do not mean in the slightest that the majority is always right, either logically or morally. To think so would be absurd.

In addition, a functioning modern democracy needs more than just elected representatives making decisions, it needs a well-tuned system of checks and balances, ranging from constitutional principles which are not easily altered, the rule of law and a free press (amongst others)

I have often been in the minority in terms of particular issues. However, I am content to put my case as strongly as I wish to (including by non-violent protest if required), but then, when the day is done, accepting the wishes of the majority. Not to do so ends up with either anarchy or societal paralysis.

[Hermit]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Winston Churchill

[devogue]

And therein lies the inequity of Australian law and the cupidity and selfish nosiness of the Australian people, who refuse to acknowledge the rights of property owners do use and enjoy their property without the undue interference of the government. It's one thing to require a demolition permit, which serves to ensure that the demolition will be done properly and safely and that the property will not become a public nuisance, but it's entirely another thing to be subjected to the discretionary review of the government before deciding to demolish and replace something YOU OWN with something new.

The Duke of Marlborough owns Blenheim Palace in England. It is the only privately owned World Heritage Site and one of the glories of English architectural history:



Just to clarify your position, if the Duke woke up tomorrow morning and decided that he wanted to demolish the palace and build a green and purple ice rink in its place, you would have no problem with that?

None whatsoever. The British government has had plenty of opportunity to exercise eminent domain and place it in the public trust by seizing it and paying just compensation. If it does not care to spend the money, why should the Duke care what the government thinks. It's his, not yours, not Britain's, and certainly not the world's.

If you don't like the potential threat of demolition, then for fuck's sake just BUY IT right now.

No worries. I just wanted to be clear about your position.

[Coito ergo sum]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

Generally, Constitutions usually require much more than a simple majority vote.

Moreover, many such problems are not fixed by majority vote, because many times the majority is in favor of the status quo. That's the point.

[Coito ergo sum]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

The majority first has to prove it is 'the majority'.

That's done by vote.

What's the argument here? Does nobody understand the concept of tyranny of the majority? Lani Guinier leans far left, and was not some sort of "fascist" or right winger at all. The whole concept of tyranny of the majority is a liberal concept. The idea is that certain things ought to be exempt from majority rule, because of the oppression that results - you know - like how the majority can't tell you you can't speak your mind, or don't get a right of privacy, or can't get an abortion - the majority can fuck right off when they tell you that you have to pray to a certain god, or belong to a certain church.

What is everyone's problem with this concept? Do folks think the majority vote should be able to tell us we can't be atheists?

[mistermack]

We don't have a "Tyranny of a majority", we have a tyranny of a democracy.

We don't allow a majority to make laws. Just to elect politicians.
The general public are too stupid, lazy, busy, bigoted, to be trusted to make wise decisions en masse. Also, it would be impossible to blame anybody when things went wrong.

So we elect politicians who will hopefully be a little brighter than average, and will have the time and resources to research important decisions before they vote on them.
And they will have to face the people if they fuck up.

If the politicians vote to curb your individual rights, you're fucked. But at least they will have given it a bit of thought, and you stand a chance of voting them out at some point.

[charlou]

[Hermit]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

Generally, Constitutions usually require much more than a simple majority vote.

I was not referring to simple majorities. My preference is for decision-making via majority (of any sort, as long as it is a majority) vote rather than a minority, even if that means the decision is in my view totally wrong.

Moreover, many such problems are not fixed by majority vote, because many times the majority is in favor of the status quo. That's the point.

If the majority of voters believes that the status quo is preferable to change that is a decision it makes. Again, it is preferable to decision-making by a minority. The last referendum in Australia - whether to become a republic - has been decided by popular vote in the negative. I happen to be against having a titular head of government whose title as such is hereditary, who lives on the other side of the world and only visits our nation for a few days once every two or three decades, but so be it. No matter how much I disagree with the decision of a majority, I prefer the principle of decision-making by a majority over decision-making powers by a minority.

[Coito ergo sum]

A prime example of "tyranny of the majority" is when the majority votes to deprive gays the right to marry, or blacks and whites the right to intermarry.

Many such problems have been fixed via constitutional amendments. How do constitutional amendments come about? That's right: a majority vote. Damn that tyranny of the majority.

Generally, Constitutions usually require much more than a simple majority vote.

I was not referring to simple majorities. My preference is for decision-making via majority (of any sort, as long as it is a majority) vote rather than a minority, even if that means the decision is in my view totally wrong.

Moreover, many such problems are not fixed by majority vote, because many times the majority is in favor of the status quo. That's the point.

If the majority of voters believes that the status quo is preferable to change that is a decision it makes. Again, it is preferable to decision-making by a minority. The last referendum in Australia - whether to become a republic - has been decided by popular vote in the negative. I happen to be against having a titular head of government whose title as such is hereditary, who lives on the other side of the world and only visits our nation for a few days once every two or three decades, but so be it. No matter how much I disagree with the decision of a majority, I prefer the principle of decision-making by a majority over decision-making powers by a minority.

Well that depends. The tyranny of the majority can occur, like was pointed out by Lani Guinier in her book "Tyranny of the Majority," along racial lines, in which the majority might want separate water fountains, and schools that exclude blacks.

The reason it's easy to rely on majorities today is that the world was able to realize certain immutable principles - like equal protection under the law and freedom of speech - that are decided on an individual level, and not a majority vote level. If everything is up for a majority vote, then that means that whether someone gets a fair trial is up to the whim and vicissitude of the mob. Most societies in the west have evolved to a point where most people - the majority - would never want to deny someone a fair trial or equal protection of the laws and so we feel comfortable with the majority. However, gays in many places are suffering the tyranny of the majority because they can't get equal rights to marry.

The idea of having any rights in the first place - the whole basis for the UN Declaration on Human Rights, for example, is that that those are things the majority can't just take away from you.

It's like when Hitchens said, "My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass."
"Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate," debate at University of Toronto, (2006-11-15). Hitchens argued the affirmative position. Info here; video here.

That's what it means - the majority can't tell a minority of ONE that he can't hold an opinion, and no consensus, no majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime, can take that away. If you disagree with that , you can pick a number, get in line and kiss his, and my, ass.

[HomerJay]

It's really a meh whether it's the majority or whateva.

What's unlikely is that primitive property rights are able to cope with important things like heritage, especially as they aren't specifically mentioned.

So they need a re-write.

Much heritage stuff cannot be destroyed, regardless of primitive notions of property, it's already been outlawed.

The question of compensation is trickier because the value is based on market values.

If we identifed works of art, buildings, artifacts etc that were due to be given heritage status, we could easily say that the State will take possession of them in 1 year's time. Please make your own arrangments.

The market value of the piece would then decline rapidly as it had no investment value, although buyers may be attracted by saying they once owned it.

The final buyer, the night before sequestration, would see all their investment stripped away from them unless they sold it pronto.

As the next buyer would also face losing all their money the market value may reduce to next to nothing.

This would circumvent the need for the State to offer compensation.

[Coito ergo sum]

What aspects of property ownership are "primitive?" Can I have your car and house? Or, are you asserting some "primitive notion?"

[HomerJay]

What aspects of property ownership are "primitive?" Can I have your car and house? Or, are you asserting some "primitive notion?"

They are very primitive, aimed at solving disputes over ownership.

There's no such thing as an inalienable right to possession (if there were the merkins would be a long way down the list of people entitled to the US of A, behind the French, even).

I used shoes as a more trivial example than a car or house but in any trivial example it would be a remarkable and serendipitous happening if the rights and mechanisms established to decide the ownership of a shoe box, just also happened to allow us to manage our culture and heritage effectively. Especially as the rules for shoe boxes weren't designed or intended to manage human history.

Of course the rules for shoe box equality don't effectively manage human history and there is no reason to use them in disputes over heritage, it's a non-sequitur.

Our commitment to shoe box equality has zero impact on our commitment and demands for human history.

If we say we're taking that $100 million artwork off you for posterity, your claim that we said a shoe box was yours to do as you wish with, is perfectly valid, if a little quaint and unconnected.

[Gallstones]

In case it wasn't detected, my comment about the majority was a joke.
Sort of.
Depending on how you think about it it could be great wisdom.
Laugh. Cry. Whatever.

[Seth]

It's really a meh whether it's the majority or whateva.

What's unlikely is that primitive property rights are able to cope with important things like heritage, especially as they aren't specifically mentioned.

So they need a re-write.

Much heritage stuff cannot be destroyed, regardless of primitive notions of property, it's already been outlawed.

The question of compensation is trickier because the value is based on market values.

If we identifed works of art, buildings, artifacts etc that were due to be given heritage status, we could easily say that the State will take possession of them in 1 year's time. Please make your own arrangments.

The market value of the piece would then decline rapidly as it had no investment value, although buyers may be attracted by saying they once owned it.

The final buyer, the night before sequestration, would see all their investment stripped away from them unless they sold it pronto.

As the next buyer would also face losing all their money the market value may reduce to next to nothing.

This would circumvent the need for the State to offer compensation.

And that would be a tyrannous act. By what right would the government presume to either seize the artifact or deliberately devalue it? What is the basis for it's moral justification to do so.

Moreover, this would do nothing more than ENSURE the destruction of "heritage" items. If I owned a painting that was to be seized without compensation by the government on a date certain, I'd enjoy it till a week before that date and then use it to cook hot dogs in my grill, because its MY FUCKING PROPERTY and I can do with it as I please and fuck all the rest of you if want to steal it from me.

What you're suggesting is simple state Communism, where there is no private property at all and everything is owned by the state and is "loaned" to the proletariat at the whims and caprices of the bureaucrats, and we've already established that such systems of government are inherently tyrannous and do not work to secure individual liberty and happiness.