Hacker News Reader

> Thus only the people can legitimize a government, and governments exist to protect the people's rights

One of the coolest tidbits of Slovenian history is that in the early 800’s AD we had a kingdom where the coronation involved peasants giving the crown to their king and the king promising to do good by them. It was still hereditary and all that, but rather than power coming from God it came from people.

We lost that sometime in the late 900’s when the future king, now German, said “I don’t understand this peasant language, what are you talking about?” and decided to just keep ruling anyway. By then this coronation was but a quaint tradition from one corner of a larger kingdom. Sad.

It took until 1991 before we were independent again.

That is to say: it doesn’t matter that people legitimize the government if they won’t unlegitimize it back when necessary.

edit: I got the years wrong, the tradition lived longer than the 900’s but as part of larger foreign (Frankish, then Holy Roman) kingdoms.

> the coronation involved peasants giving the crown to their king and the king promising to do good by them. It was still hereditary and all that, but rather than power coming from God it came from people.

How can it be both hereditary and given by the people? Could they have choosen to give it to someone else? Did they ever? Because if not, then that is just set decoration.

In some places a priest of some sort would crown the ruler, thus signifying that they derive their legitimacy from a deity. Having a representative of the common people perform the ceremony is not devoid of meaning.

> How can it be both hereditary and given by the people?

These are medieval times. Just that power wasn’t granted/legitimized from god was a huge innovation for the times.

Here’s the ritual, from Wikipedia:

> The peasant, sitting on the Stone, was representing the people during the ceremony and he had to ask in Slovene: "Who is he, that comes forward?" Those sitting around him would reply: "He is the prince of the land".

> "Is he an upright judge seeking the well-being of the country; is he freeborn and deserving? Is he a foster and defender of the Christian faith?" the representative of the people had to ask them. "He is and he will be", they would reply.

> "By what right can he displace me from this my seat?" he had to ask them and they would reply: "He will pay you sixty denarii and he will give you your home free and without tribute".

> The peasant then had to give the duke a gentle blow on the cheek (un petit soufflet), after which the duke was allowed to draw his sword, mount the Stone and turn full circle, so as to face ritually in all directions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince%27s_Stone#Democratic_pr...

But I mean it’s not like the other kings/rulers in Europe actually got their power from God. That’s just a story we tell. Coronations are about pomp and tradition, power comes from having a local monopoly on violence.

Democracy is a process, and guarantees no results.

As the post says, Hamas was elected. And after Mubarak Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood, which was subsequently removed from power by the Army.

The idea that Democracy is superior to any other form of government is a fiction. The fact that you believe in the Magical Power of Democracy shows that you really haven't thought about it that much.

Example: if Democracy is so good, why do most judicial systems require a unanimous verdict? Shouldn't a majority vote be good enough? Why do some things require a super-majority instead of a simple majority? Why is 50%+1 a magic number?

Every political system has issues. Saying that any criticism is disparagement also shows that you don't really understand how discussions work. You should read up on the history of political systems etc so you can make better arguments.

If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get.

The majority can’t violate the rights of the minority as long as some enlightened people are empowered to enforce the Bill of Rights.

> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so. The Bill of Rights is worthless unless the courts enforce it. And judges are appointed experts in the law with absolute power within their jurisdiction. They’re as far from democracy as you can get.

Only if you define democracy as mob rule and not in the modern sense of self-determination, which includes self-determination by people in the minority.

Everything always depends on politics, but universal human rights has held up for centuries now. The people who instituted them had very little to work with - universal human rights as institutions were new in significant ways - we've been handed everything. We can certainly uphold it if we like.

(Also, judges are appointed democratically.)

But the judges are appointed by democratically elected representatives in the USA and UK.

So the judiciary is a sort of low pass filter. Filtering out fads, but responding to longer term trends in public opinion.

> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so.

If Bill can punch Bob in the face without any repercussions then nothing stops Bill from doing so. Empty truisms.

All political systems exist in a framework which put constraints on actions. And everyone who wring their hands over “checks and balances” just assert that there’s something special about “voting to erase rights” versus an “enlightened” judge making a judgement to erase rights because there are laws that they are second-class citizens or Bill punching Bob in the face. But there isn’t.

Apart from democracies usually offering the most protections of rights, your argument is all over that place.

The power of judges is very restricted as they cannot rule against the law. They don't even need to be enlightened to do that. Their wiggle room lies in the interpretation, that is why laws need to be crafted with care.

The law in democracies is decided by parliament or directly. It can be changed, some fundamental laws are protected where you need strong majorities. The majority will does protect your rights in most cases.

And again, even with that most practical rights of people are implemented in democracies. The rule of the majority scare is mostly impotent and not very well argued.

> Democracy is superior not because some founders wrote some scripture, but because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights that include liberty,

That is a really great formulation of the imago dei, image of God, doctrine.

> and thus nobody else has the right to tell them what to do without their consent.

And this is a generalisation of a principle that is downstream of the English yeomanry, of freeborn men who can kill a knight.

To see an Anglo proclaiming the universal destiny of all humanity to follow the Anglo culture is just such a stirring thing.

Enemies of universal human rights - of freedom - throw everything they can think of at it, including this thin argument common to them: That it's just a cultural thing, like certain kinds of beer.

I don't know that the idea was invented in Anglo culture - what about the rest of Europe? What about so many other places in the world that have rights of different kinds? It seems anglocentric to think it was invented in the anglo world.

Regardless, universal human rights has been embraced by cultures all over the world, with the exceptions almost always where thugs have stopped them (and people who already have it quit and deny all their personal responsibilities to their communities). They are embraced in all of the Americas, East Asia (Japan, South Korea, China (anywhere people have an option, including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tiananmen Square; and China was democracizing before Xi), South Asia, Europe, parts of Africa, etc etc. People fight and die for freedom everywhere.

Universal rights (which include democracy) also provide freedom, peace, and prosperity on levels never seen in history.

And they are self-evident, as Jefferson says: By what argument do you get to tell people in other cultures what to do? It should be there choice, not yours; their self-determination; their freedom; their right.

"To see an Anglo proclaiming the universal destiny of all humanity to follow the Anglo culture is just such a stirring thing".

Very woke, good for you.

I guess you forgot about ancient Athens, Rome, medieval Iceland, Venice. There are many other examples:

https://franklin.uga.edu/news/stories/2022/origins-democracy...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy

We don’t really need a foundation for democracy. Maybe without it people will not get hung up on bringing mysticism to the table.

> I think the author, like many today who try to disparage democracy...

Democracy as has been used over the past decade or so (as in, such-and-such is a threat to our democracy) does a fine enough job disparaging itself.

> ... gets too caught up in the founders as scripture and old word usages.

And yet you also write—

> Democracy is superior... because of its moral and rational foundation, that all are created equal, all have universal, inalienable rights...

—which is based on scripture straight out of the founders.

Thing is, many of the founders (and the most important among them) were familiar not just with (then) present-day monarchy, taxation and war, but with ancient Athens, ancient Rome and enlightenment thinkers like John Locke. They had examples of both good and bad democracies to draw lessons from, and they realized early-on that without some binding agreement to rein in the worst tendencies of democracy, the nation wouldn't regularly self-evaluate, correct itself and prevent an implosion by majority rule.

We needn't look back as far as Jim Crow or American Prohibition or McCarthyism to see where 'majorities' can lead us. If you want, think California and its democratic super-majorities over the past decade. Or, if progressive, think of Florida and its anti-lgbt laws. You sure you want majority rule?

> The solution is human rights, as implemented in the Bill of Rights.

Which, again, is scripture out of the founders.

But let's say this solution didn't come out of the founders: who decides what human rights are? The majority? University professors? The self-selected intelligentsia? The current governors of California and Florida?

And who decides how these rights are enforced?

> which is based on scripture straight out of the founders.

No, it's based on the arguments that I presented today - the arguments are good today. That the founders also said it doesn't make it less true.

> If you want, think California and its democratic super-majorities over the past decade.

What is wrong with California? You may not agree with policies, but it's not undemocratic oppression and cruelty like the right-wing examples you list.