Hacker News Reader

Comment by areyoucrazy | Hacker News Reader

  The downside are populistic decisions like the Swiss minaret referendum...

Oh, you liberals. You hide behind democracy when, in fact, you are a bunch of tyrants who would like to jam your ideas of immigration, multiculturalism, socialism etc. down the people's throats whether they like it or not.

Why are you labeling direct democratic decision by majority of people as bad/downside? It seems that when people do something you like, then democracy is great, but if they do something you disagree with, then it's bad.

View on HN

Yes, I agree. However you should have seen the propaganda bills. http://www.dici.org/en/news/switzerland-poster-campaign-for-...

Just this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Now as a staunchy Swiss I accept this outcome. I have to. The people have spoken. I just bemoan the construction regulation in the constitution. This goes against my juridicial instincts.

1999 we Swiss cleaned the constitution. It's the third constitution since 1848, and I am not happy to see weird rulings tainting the core regulations. It's like programming: after some time the source code gets messy.

Because its all fun and games until the "majority" suddenly realize they can just say "oh, and also, how about we vote to take all the money of that 10% here".

There is such a thing as tyranny by the minority, and tyranny by the majority. The second is in fact much easier to do, since the first requires a modicum of power & ability for someone to keep himself in that position.

The minaret thing is irrelevant, as a minaret thing, but relevant as a right to construct the things you damn like thing upon your private property.

I'm also of the conviction that everybody should do whatever they want if they don't hurt/bother anybody else. However, a consequence of this is that people will have to waive certain freedoms if the majority is bothered by them, like building whatever they'd like on their private property.

Sure, let's say not being allowed to build minarets because people don't like that is bullshit.

But let's also imagine I buy some land in front of the kindergarden your children go to and build a giant wall showing hardcore porn movies all day. Now probably you and the majority of people living there wouldn't like me to do that, but it's my damn right so gtfo.

It's a slippery slope both ways (minarets, gay people can't kiss in public, porn walls) and I have no idea how to draw the line between what the majority wants and the invasion of personal freedom. More importantly, neither the majority nor any elected officials should be allowed to draw that line (almost by definition), so it seems it's a catch 22 situation.

There is no right to construct the things you damn like upon your private property in most of Europe. There are a lot of zoning laws, safety laws, standards, etc. Generally, even if fairly loose places like the UK, each locality gets to veto the construction of something if they don't like it.

Also, the idea of private property, here or anywhere else, is highly tenuous. Have you looked into how much you actually own that property? Try not paying your property taxes for a few years and see who really owns your so-called private property.

"Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism.

> "Real" in "Real estate" doesn't stand for reality, it stands for royalty. Your private property is granted by royal decree, and can be withdrawn by the same mechanism.

That etymology doesn't sound very "real"?

"Real estate, the exact term, is first recorded 1660s, but in Middle English real was used in law in reference to immovable property, paired with, and distinguished from, personal."

Wow, you might actually be right - so I was wrong. I think I got that idea from "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Kyosaki. Well, it's never too late to learn you were wrong. http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/66379/whats-the-l...

Democratic countries should live or die on the decisions they make. I think that is the ultimate freedom.

On the whole, most developed countries have broad consensus on core issues. I don't believe gap between left and right is large enough to destroy a country, there is a lot of common ground.

Everyone is a minority and under "tyranny by the majority" in one way or another.

Your rights, any right, ends when the rights of others start.

You want to build things you damn like? Better those things not to create noise that enters my private property, and my private ears.

My right not to be disturbed is more important than your right to build whatever you want.

All predators, humans included, have this thing called "territory". When someone comes from outside the country and starts filling the ambient noise with her sounds, they are actually claiming ownership of everything.

“A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” - Gary Strand

A free for all democracy is no different from tyranny by the majority.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com