The Supreme Court Prepares to End Voting Rights as We Know Them

[ColdHardTruth]

Should congressional districts be drawn so that minorities are represented in congress?

Yes, they should.

Everybody deserves representation.

 

[What if...?]

An anarchist shouldn't be arguing for majority rule, in my way of thinking.

I definitely prefer majority rule over minority rule if we’re gonna have rule.

It’s the no ruler part of the word anarchy with the “practical” qualifier.

 

[RF667799]

I definitely prefer majority rule over minority rule if we’re gonna have rule.

It’s the no ruler part of the word anarchy with the “practical” qualifier.

Majority doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

[What if...?]

Majority doesn't necessarily mean better.

But minority would definitely be worse.

Increasingly worse all the way down to monarchy, according to history.

 

[RF667799]

But minority would definitely be worse.

Not necessarily. Neither one necessarily means better or more tolerable.

 

[What if...?]

Not necessarily. Neither one necessarily means better or more tolerable.

But as my edit says.

Once minority gets to monarchy it gets about as bad as it gets.

 

[RF667799]

But as my edit says.

Once minority gets to monarchy it gets about as bad as it gets.

There's nothing says a monarchy can't be benevolent.

Basically, the idea that a majority is "better", is a fallacious appeal to popularity.

 

[What if...?]

It

There's nothing says a monarchy can't be benevolent.

Basically, the idea that a majority is "better", is a fallacious appeal to popularity.

It is true that life under a benevolent despot was actually pretty good according to history.

But that often ended when their dick son took over when they died.

And benevolent despots have been the exception to monarchical rule. Rare and usually only for the life of that ruler.

 

[NWRatCon]

Yes, they should.

Everybody deserves representation.

It is called "representative democracy". It's hard on the populace when they have no representatives.

 

[NWRatCon]

It

It is true that life under a benevolent despot was actually pretty good according to history.

But that often ended when their dick son took over when they died.

And benevolent despots have been the exception to monarchical rule. Rare and usually only for the life of that ruler.

There is no such thing as a benevolent despot. It's a contradiction in terms. Even the best of them are awful. One cannot be "kind" while suppressing opposition.