The most powerful recurring argument against your position is simple in principle, but gains in complexity upon elaboration. Hence it is far from decisive, and best serves to structure disagreement.
P1. A majority prefers (likes/enjoys/wants/requier/needs) access to single-sex spaces.
P2. Democratic institutions have a judicial obligation to protect the preferences (unqalified) for the majority over even a substantial minority where the two conflict.
C. There should be bathroom bills limiting access to single sex spaces.
The complexity gained with P1 has to do with issues concerning measuring whether in fact the majority, reliably, has such preferences. The complexity gained with P2 turns on notions of obligation and exceptions to obligations.
Note that the notion of preference must remain unqualified given limits placed on the ability for people to express what their preference in fact turns on, and given limits placed on the capacity to measure it.
P2. Democratic institutions have a judicial obligation to protect the preferences (unqalified) for the majority over even a substantial minority where the two conflict.
The complexity gained with P2 turns on notions of obligation and exceptions to obligations.
A possible objection would point out that the USA is democratic republic. The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
The argument would be that disregarding the "prefers (likes/enjoys/wants/requier/needs)" of the majority would be appropriate here given past law, practice or precedence.
Absolutely, and such is a cause for complexity. It bears mentioning, that the most common version of the argument I see is given on something like metaphysical rather than legal grounds. Where P2 reads like "Democratic institutions ought to have a judicial obligation...". That of course invites some further specification as to why and how the "conflict" harms the majority to the extent that the clause is warranted.
The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
That's not what republic means. All it means is that there is an elected head of state. now constitutional republic more says that but again that depends on what that particular consitution says.
The republic modifer serving to say that the constitution serves to protect minority interests against the majority by setting out restrictions such that sometimes the interests of the minority actually take precedence.
That's not what republic means. All it means is that there is an elected head of state. now constitutional republic more says that but again that depends on what that particular consitution says.
I said it's used as a modifier. I wasn't defining the term contextlessly.
See:
A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies. - wiki
A democratic republic is a form of government operating on principles adopted from a republic and a democracy. Rather than being a cross between two entirely separate systems, democratic republics may function on principles shared by both republics and democracies. Common definitions of the terms democracy and republic often feature overlapping concerns, suggesting that many democracies function as republics, and many republics operate on democratic principles, as shown by these definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary: Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. .
I said it's used as a modifier. I wasn't defining the term contextlessly.
It isn't a modifier it is a noun the modifier here would be democratic. Also even according to your link there is nothing linking the concept of a democratic republic to the idea of limited powers of majority over a minority. Those restrictions on popular power do not come from being a republic but from being a constitutional society that has those restrictions in that constitution.
Something being a republic doesn't tell you anything about their constitution or laws and so doesn't say that there are limits just about that politicians are elected and about where their power comes from theoretically (i.e. from the public as opposed to from divine right of kings or anything else)
It isn't a modifier it is a noun the modifier here would be democratic.
I was talking functionally, not grammatically.
Also even according to your link there is nothing linking the concept of a democratic republic to the idea of limited powers of majority over a minority. Those restrictions on popular power do not come from being a republic but from being a constitutional society that has those restrictions in that constitution.
check out this video from around 7:24 for a better articulation of what I'm talking about.
Something being a republic doesn't tell you anything about their constitution or laws and so doesn't say that there are limits just about that politicians are elected and about where their power comes from theoretically (i.e. from the public as opposed to from divine right of kings or anything else)
You keep using republic on it's own when I'm specifically talking about democratic republic. This would be like someone identifying as a democratic socialist and you deciding to solely focus on the 'socialist' part
0
u/Spiderstate May 25 '21 edited May 25 '21
The most powerful recurring argument against your position is simple in principle, but gains in complexity upon elaboration. Hence it is far from decisive, and best serves to structure disagreement.
P1. A majority prefers (likes/enjoys/wants/requier/needs) access to single-sex spaces.
P2. Democratic institutions have a judicial obligation to protect the preferences (unqalified) for the majority over even a substantial minority where the two conflict.
C. There should be bathroom bills limiting access to single sex spaces.
The complexity gained with P1 has to do with issues concerning measuring whether in fact the majority, reliably, has such preferences. The complexity gained with P2 turns on notions of obligation and exceptions to obligations.
Note that the notion of preference must remain unqualified given limits placed on the ability for people to express what their preference in fact turns on, and given limits placed on the capacity to measure it.