Politics: Individual Rights vs Rule of the Majority
Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth raised the Tea Party and US politics in another thread and it sparked a political discussion, so I am moving it to here: the general and off topic forum.
Originally Posted by Hamish Wilson
[inequality] is completely unethical unless you believe that every single disadvantaged person did something to justify the treatment they have received.
Ultimately our disagreement boils down to this: Please correct me if I am wrong, but I am making a genuine attempt to summarize your position in neutral language.
Your belief which would be categorized as political left is that inequality is inherently unethical because disadvantaged people often don't get the same opportunities as the advantaged. Also, significant wealth inequality creates a dangerous stratification of society.
My belief which would be categorized as political right is that if people and communities are allowed genuine choice, they will make different choices and get different and unequal outcomes. The solution of the political left is to remove inequality by removing the underlying choice. Concern about disadvantaged groups and the dangers of wealth stratification are completely valid issues, but they shouldn't override more fundamental rights of people to make choices about their own lives and communities. The left's sole justification is majority rule. Majority rule is fine in terms of giving communities the power to rule over themselves, what's problematic is that the left wants to have majority rule over other communities they are hostile towards. Hence, the left's hostility towards state, city, and community rights and push for more federal remote power as that is the only way to enforce left policy on right wing communities. Certain issues can only reasonably be handled at the federal level such as issues related to our national currency, immigration, and defense. However, on other issues such as health care and education, there's really no good reason to have one state enforce their ideas on another state from thousands of miles away. People have much more realistic engagement with local politics. The voice and actions of people have much more say with a local government than with a remote federal government. And lastly, I would like people to have the ability to vote separately on separate issues. Why do you cast one vote for a president that has such overwhelming influence on completely different domains of life such as health care, education, budget, social issues, and military. It seems counter productive to bundle all those together.