Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

"March factory orders plunge - Drop in demand for durable goods called sign that energy cost rise hurt economy" 
 
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, April 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A deep drop in orders for big-ticket manufactured goods provided fresh evidence Wednesday that the economy slowed last month as energy prices rose.

It left no doubt, analysts said, that the economy is going through a significant slowdown as consumers and businesses, jolted by a new surge in energy prices, cut back on purchases.

The stock market has also taken its lumps as investors have grown worried about the possibility, though remote, of a return to the stagflation of the 1970s, where soaring energy costs drive inflation higher as economic growth stalls.

The weakness so far has caused economists to slash their estimates for overall growth in the first quarter to perhaps as low as 3 percent, down sharply from the 4.4 percent increase in the gross domestic product turned in for all of 2004.

"Energy costs hurt growth outlook - Consumers cut back on other spending for 1st quarter as gas prices pinch pocketbooks"

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press
First published: Friday, April 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Pot hole, soft patch, or a plain old slump.

However you describe it, the U.S. economy, which had seemed poised to pick up speed just a month ago, has instead slowed down.

The restraint is coming from high energy prices, which figured prominently in the first-quarter's disappointing economic performance: the slowest growth logged in two years.

Expensive energy made consumers curb their spending and businesses think twice about big capital investments.

Against that backdrop, new questions are being raised about the nation's economic strength and the prospects for better job creation in the months ahead.

Stocks slid.

The broadest measure of the country's economic health, gross domestic product rose at an annual rate of 3.1 percent in the January-to-March period, down from a 3.8 percent pace in the prior quarter, the Commerce Department said Thursday.

The first-quarter GDP reading was the most sluggish since the first quarter of 2003, when the economy limped ahead at a 1.9 percent rate as a nervous country hunkered down in advance of the Iraq war.

GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States.

"The economy hit a pot hole in early 2005," said Mark Zandi, Economy.com's chief economist.

"Higher energy prices have sapped a lot of the economy's momentum."

Consumers increased their spending at a 3.5 percent rate in the first quarter, the slowest since the second quarter of 2004.

Their spending on cars and other big-ticket goods was flat.

Businesses spending on equipment and software, meanwhile, rose at a 6.9 percent rate, only a fraction of the hot 18.4 percent growth rate in the fourth quarter.

Investment in new plants and other buildings fell.

[Livyjr]

A MAN OR WOMAN WHO CANNOT IN GOOD FAITH AND CONSCIENCE UPHOLD THE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, INCLUDING THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, AND ITS DUAL REQUIREMENTS OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS OF LAW, FOR ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS REGARDLESS OF CLASS, SHOULD NOT BE A FEDERAL COURT JUDGE IN OUR AMERICA!

NO COMPROMISE, MR. REID!

http://www.congress.org to let him know!

"Frist rejects judicial nominee deal"

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press
First published: Wednesday, April 27, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Tuesday rejected compromise offers that would allow minority Democrats to continue to block judicial nominees, saying all of President Bush's past and future court choices deserve confirmation votes from the GOP-controlled Senate.

"At the end of the day, one will be left standing ... the Constitution, which allows up-or-down votes, or the filibuster," Frist said.

Democrats blocked 10 of Bush's appellate court choices through filibuster threats, which means those nominees would have to get 60 votes before they could be confirmed to lifetime seats on the nation's second highest court.

They have threatened to block again the seven that Bush renominated this year, as well as future ones they consider outside of the mainstream.

Republicans in turn have threatened to use their majority to change senatorial rules to require a simple majority vote for confirmation.

To avoid that showdown, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Tuesday that he had offered Frist a compromise.

The Nevada Democrat said part of that compromise would require Republicans to back away from attempting to ban judicial filibusters.

Sources said Reid's plan includes allowing confirmation votes for three nominees for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson -- in exchange for Henry Saad's nomination to that court being withdrawn.

Democrats also would not block confirmation of one of the four remaining filibustered nominees: Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Myers and William Pryor, although it is not clear which one would be chosen for confirmation.

But Frist, earlier in the day, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved.

[Livyjr]

"School Mistakes Huge Burrito for a Weapon"

CLOVIS, N.M. - A call about a possible weapon at a middle school prompted police to put armed officers on rooftops, close nearby streets and lock down the school.

All over a giant burrito.

Someone called authorities Thursday after seeing a boy carrying something long and wrapped into Marshall Junior High.

The drama ended two hours later when the suspicious item was identified as a 30-inch burrito filled with steak, guacamole, lettuce, salsa and jalapenos and wrapped inside tin foil and a white T-shirt.

In the meantime, more than 30 parents, alerted by a radio report, descended on the school.

Visibly shaken, they gathered around in a semi-circle, straining their necks, awaiting news.

end quotes

I wonder how many of these people voted for George W. Bush?

"'Radar anomaly' briefly forces Bush to leave Oval Office"

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press
First published: Thursday, April 28, 2005

WASHINGTON -- President Bush was rushed to a secure underground White House bunker and Vice President Dick Cheney was whisked outside the compound Wednesday because of a "radar anomaly" -- perhaps a flock of birds or pocket of rain -- that was mistaken for a plane flying in restricted airspace.

The late-morning scare was determined within minutes to be a false alarm, and business quickly returned to normal.

Later in the day, security officials sent a robotic device to investigate what turned out to be a harmless bag left along Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House.

There have been similar alarms before, sparked by a blip on a radar screen that looks like an aircraft venturing into the area around the White House that is off-limits to aircraft.

In November 2003, the White House was briefly evacuated while Air Force fighter jets were scrambled to investigate a tripped radar alert that also triggered fears -- also groundless -- of an airspace violation.

Bush was in Britain at the time.

This time, though, Bush was in the Oval Office when radar picked up something.

Helicopters were sent to check it out and found there was no errant aircraft, said Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland Security Department spokesman.

Before that could be confirmed, though, the Secret Service leaped into action.

Wednesday evening, pedestrians were cleared from Pennsylvania Avenue as authorities investigated a bag that was lying unattended by a fence along the north side of the White House.

A robotic device rolled up to the bag and shook it.

Nothing inside was deemed a security threat.

[Livyjr]

"Energy costs hurt growth outlook - Consumers cut back on other spending for 1st quarter as gas prices pinch pocketbooks" 
 
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press
First published: Friday, April 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Pot hole, soft patch, or a plain old slump.

However you describe it, the U.S. economy, which had seemed poised to pick up speed just a month ago, has instead slowed down.

The first-quarter GDP reading was the most sluggish since the first quarter of 2003, when the economy limped ahead at a 1.9 percent rate as a nervous country hunkered down in advance of the Iraq war.

"Working families finding door closed - Home prices outpace wages as ownership becomes difficult, studies show"

By SIOBHAN McDONOUGH, Associated Press
First published: Friday, April 29, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The American dream of having a job and owning a tidy home is becoming a fantasy for more people.

Housing prices are outstripping wage increases in many areas, meaning more people are either spending above their means or living in dilapidated conditions, according to a pair of studies being released today by the Center for Housing Policy, a coalition pushing for more affordable housing.

It's generally accepted that a family should not spend more than 30 percent of its income on housing to ensure there is enough money for other necessities.

But in a recent six-year period, the number of low- and middle-income working families paying more than half their income for housing has increased 76 percent.

In 2003, 4.2 million working families spent more than half their income on housing, up from 2.4 million in 1997.

The problem is even more acute for immigrant working families: They are 75 percent more likely than native-born working families to pay more than half their income for housing.

Barbara Lipman, the research director for the center, said a full-time job doesn't guarantee families a decent, affordable place to live.

"The problem seems to be impervious to economic conditions because the number of working families in this situation has grown during the boom-boom '90s and early 2000s," she said.

One out of every eight families in the United States -- or 14 million -- had critical housing needs in 2003, defined as either paying more than half of income for housing or living in run-down quarters.

The center found homeowners now are more likely than renters to have critical housing needs -- 55 percent of the 14 million are people who own their homes.

Meanwhile, the median-priced home in 2003 was $176,000, up more than 11 percent from 2001.

During this time, national median salaries went up only 4 percent for licensed practical nurses (to $33,000), 3 percent for elementary schoolteachers ($43,000) and 7 percent for police officers $45,000).

And even though some people buy houses farther out that are more affordable, their commuting costs increase and consume a chunk of their savings.

The group found that for every $1,000 families saved on housing by moving some place cheaper farther out, they're only $225 ahead because their transportation costs go up so much.

For renters, the center found a worker needed to earn $15.21 an hour in 2003 to have a two-bedroom apartment that did not consume more than 30 percent of income.

But the national median wages of retail sales workers and janitors, for example, were under $9 an hour.

The findings indicate that housing problems are far from limited to central cities.

Most homeowners with critical housing needs lived in the suburbs.

For renters, more than half lived in central cities.

Lipman said communities need to allow developers to increase the density for market rate housing.

In exchange, the developers have to allow for a certain amount of houses to be sold at affordable rates.

[Livyjr]

As for me, I was in Viet Nam!

I was physically there, actually there, seeing things, doing things, and talking to people who were from there, about us!

SO!

I have my own knowledge of Viet Nam, and in truth, that war started when the U.S. gave the Vietnamese back to the French at the end of WWII, as though the Vietnamese were nothing more than nothing at all!

That ill-fated decision in the 1940's cost a lot of American lives afterwards, and for what?

"30 years later, Vietnam still divides - War resonates in nation's political, military and cultural debates even as personal memories fade"

By MICHAEL TACKETT and TIM JONES, Chicago Tribune
First published: Saturday, April 30, 2005

WASHINGTON -- At one end of the National Mall, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., is walking into the Capitol for a vote, with students on the steps instantly recognizing him and calling out his name.

At the other end, in his 18th year of manning a POW-MIA booth, Chris Horstman sits in obscurity.

Between them lies the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the dark, brooding, "V"-shaped wall that begins with Jessie Calba on slab 70E and ends with John H. Anderson on slab 70W, commemorating the more than 58,000 war dead.

The wall descends below street level and stands in contrast to the nearby soaring tribute to World War II service.

Today the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, and Vietnam remains a catch-all metaphor for this nation's most troubled period in the last half-century, still evoking anger, ambiguity and resignation.

While memories of the conflict recede, the war continues to affect the nation's politics, military strategy and culture.

Last week, in Kansas City, Mo., 54-year-old Vietnam veteran Michael Smith waited in line 90 minutes for the chance to spit on Jane Fonda.

That is one side of the divide.

Earlier this month, the family of Sheldon Burnett of New Hampshire was able to bury his remains -- found last year in Laos -- at Arlington National Cemetery, after learning of his disappearance 34 years ago.

That is another.

Vietnam sparked huge protests on America's college campuses.

Today's college students can hardly relate.

"I really don't have any connection with it," said 19-year-old University of Minnesota freshman Kelsey Murphy, from Lakeville, Minn.

She also cannot recall whether her parents, who are in their 40s, ever discussed the war.

The mere mention of the word "Vietnam" can still start an argument, and never perhaps as easily as in Washington.

But those strong feelings seem to erode with time and distance.

For most young Americans, in particular, Vietnam is just another grainy montage in the study of U.S. history, known to them more for the student protests and music the era spawned than for what happened on the battlefield.

McCain has lived that ambiguity and triumphed over it.

A veteran celebrated for his heroic role as a prisoner of war in Hanoi, McCain said he had hoped the country had moved on.

But when the issue surfaced so prominently in the 2004 presidential campaign -- particularly with the attacks on Sen. John Kerry's service in the conflict -- he realized that it had not.

"Unfortunately, in the last presidential election we found that we have not moved on at all," McCain said.

"Thirty years, and it still divides us."

"The legacy is that this is still the second-most divisive conflict in the history of our country -- the Civil War being the first -- and unfortunately, I don't think the wounds will heal completely until those of us who fought in that time pass on."

"I hate to sound so pessimistic."

Yet pessimism is one of the clearest and cruelest bequests of the Vietnam era to the United States.

Some experts believe it started a cycle of civic disengagement, leading to a drop-off in voting and in faith in the institutions of government.

The end of the military draft and the Watergate scandal, no doubt, fueled those same trends.

And while Vietnam can still expose raw disagreements, Americans largely share the view that it was a mistake to wage war in the jungles of Southeast Asia.

"The public looking back agrees that the war was a mistake, was not a just war," said Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, which has been surveying U.S. attitudes on war for more than 50 years.

"But that doesn't mean there can't be all kinds of debates about who performed honorably or not."

"That is a different question."

As the Democratic presidential nominee, Kerry tried to make his Vietnam combat experience a central part of his personal campaign narrative, as a measure of his credentials to be commander in chief.

Instead, that set off a re-examination of his service record and his role protesting the war when he returned.

Though service in Vietnam helped to launch the political careers of Kerry, McCain and others, it by no means proved a gilded credential with voters.

Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 despite criticism that he avoided service in Vietnam.

Then George W. Bush, who secured a spot in the Texas Air National Guard that almost certainly assured he would not go to Vietnam, defeated Al Gore, who did serve, and Kerry.

Its echoes are felt at the Pentagon.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who served in combat in Vietnam and ascended the military ranks to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, often argued that the United States had to be willing to use overwhelming force before entering an armed conflict and it had to have a clear exit strategy after achieving battlefield victory.

That policy was clearly employed during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the major combat phase of the Iraq war, but critics of the Bush administration question whether officials properly crafted an exit strategy.

To Bob Herman, 68, a professor of genetics at the University of Minnesota, the legacy of Vietnam has been mostly forgotten.

"For me, it's what a big mistake the whole thing was, and I don't think we've learned a thing," Herman said.

"Now, here we are in Iraq."

[Livyjr]

"30 years later, Vietnam still divides - War resonates in nation's political, military and cultural debates even as personal memories fade" 
 
By MICHAEL TACKETT and TIM JONES, Chicago Tribune
First published: Saturday, April 30, 2005

To Bob Herman, 68, a professor of genetics at the University of Minnesota, the legacy of Vietnam has been mostly forgotten.

"For me, it's what a big mistake the whole thing was, and I don't think we've learned a thing," Herman said.

"Now, here we are in Iraq."

This morning, on the radio news, I heard just a snippet of the reply on behalf of the Democrats that Mario Cuomo gave, apparently on the radio, to the weekly address of George W. Bush.

In that snippet, Mr. Cuomo cited from James Madison's words to the fledgling nation when the Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution, about the need to have protection in OUR America from what Madison called the "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY".

Now, that is the first time I have heard another person use that phrase publicly in quite some time, and frankly, it was good to hear it said, and on the radio, to boot, presisely because of these times that we are now in, where the tyranny of the REPUBLICAN PARTY is crashing down all around us up here where I am.

I have said this before, and so, I will say it one more time; as an older American, I cannot recall another time in OUR nation's history when OUR rights as citizens in this REPUBLIC were so threatened, AND FROM WITHIN this fine nation of OURS, as opposed to any foreign threats that I can see looming on the horizon, anywhere!

SO!

I can only hope as an older American who is a disabled combat veteran that that speech by Mario Cuomo got wide distribution, although I have not yet seen anything in print about it yet this morning, and so, fear that it may not have been heard by that many common Americans when it was given, which was the case with my self, who did not hear the speech, but only that snippet on the radio news this morning!

THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY!

The scourge of OUR times, here in OUR America!

Stay tuned for further developments, as they happen!

LIVE!

Late-breaking!

LIFE, in OUR America!

[Livyjr]

THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY!

The scourge of OUR times, here in OUR America!

Stay tuned for further developments, as they happen!

LIVE!

Late-breaking!

LIFE, in OUR America!

"Cuomo warns of 'tyranny of the majority' - Republicans threaten to end judicial filibustering"

CNN
Saturday, April 30, 2005 Posted: 7:58 PM EDT (2358 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- If Republicans rewrite Senate rules to more easily end filibusters, the country will experience "exactly the kind of `tyranny of the majority' that James Madison had in mind," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said Saturday.

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

"How will they do this?"

"By destroying the so-called filibuster, a vital part of the 200-year-old system of checks and balances in the Senate," Cuomo said.

"The Republicans say it would assure dominance by the majority in the Senate," he said.

"That sounds democratic until you remember that the Bill of Rights was adopted, as James Madison pointed out, to protect all of Americans from what he called the `tyranny of the majority'."

"It sounds nearly absurd when you learn that the minority Democrats in the Senate actually represent more Americans than the majority Republicans do," Cuomo said.

Democrats blocked 10 of President Bush's appellate court choices during his last term by filibustering.

Bush re-nominated seven of them this term, and Democrats are threatening to block them again.

They contend those seven are two sharply conservative to fill the lifetime appointments.

Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed in the 100-member body to end a filibuster.

Republicans are threatening to use their majority to change the rules and require only a simple majority vote to end a filibuster.

"The Republican senators should instead start working with the Democrats to address all the serious problems of this country in the proper forums -- in the Congress and in the presidency -- leaving the judges to be judges instead of a third political branch controlled by the whim of the politicians in power," Cuomo said.

Cuomo, who was leading in Democratic polls in late 1991 when he pulled the plug on a possible presidential bid, lost the New York governorship in 1994 as he sought a fourth term against Republican Gov. George Pataki.

He later turned down a chance to be considered by President Clinton for a Supreme Court seat.

[Livyjr]

"Cuomo warns of 'tyranny of the majority' - Republicans threaten to end judicial filibustering"

CNN
Saturday, April 30, 2005 Posted: 7:58 PM EDT (2358 GMT)

NEW YORK (AP) -- If Republicans rewrite Senate rules to more easily end filibusters, the country will experience "exactly the kind of `tyranny of the majority' that James Madison had in mind," former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said Saturday.

Cuomo, in the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, said Senate Republicans "are threatening to claim ownership of the Supreme Court and other federal courts, hoping to achieve political results on subjects like abortion, stem cells, the environment and civil rights that they cannot get from the proper political bodies."

"How will they do this?"

"By destroying the so-called filibuster, a vital part of the 200-year-old system of checks and balances in the Senate," Cuomo said.

"The Republicans say it would assure dominance by the majority in the Senate," he said.

"That sounds democratic until you remember that the Bill of Rights was adopted, as James Madison pointed out, to protect all of Americans from what he called the `tyranny of the majority'."

"It sounds nearly absurd when you learn that the minority Democrats in the Senate actually represent more Americans than the majority Republicans do," Cuomo said.

"The Republican senators should instead start working with the Democrats to address all the serious problems of this country in the proper forums -- in the Congress and in the presidency -- leaving the judges to be judges instead of a third political branch controlled by the whim of the politicians in power," Cuomo said.

On Liberty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Tyranny of the majority)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

On Liberty is a philosophical work in the English language by 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, first published in 1859.

Composed just after the death of his wife, it is the culmination of part of a plan to record their entire philosophical conclusion.

To the Victorian readers of the time it was a radical work, advocating moral and economic freedom of individuals from the state.

Mill was not opposed to government intervention in economic affairs; as a liberal, he believed that while property owners' rights needed to be protected -- he supported private ownership of the means of production -- he considered himself a socialist, for he believed that the state had a role to play in the redistribution of wealth.

Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill in this work, and his basis for liberty, is that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

Mill is compelled to say this due to what he calls the "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things.

Mill's work could be considered a reaction to this social control by the majority and his advocation of individual decision-making over the self.

On Liberty was an enormously influential work; the ideas presented within it remain the basis of much political thought since.

Aside from the popularity of the ideas themselves, it is quite short and its themes easily accessible to the non-expert reader, even nearly 150 years later.

It has remained in print continuously since its initial publication.

Overview

Mill opens his book with a discussion about the "struggle between authority and liberty" describing the tyranny of government, which needs to be controlled by the liberty of the citizens under said government.

Without such limit to authority, the government has (or is) a "dangerous weapon".

He divides this control of authority into two mechanisms: necessary rights belonging to citizens, and the "establishment of constitutional checks by which the consent of the community, or of a body of some sort, supposed to represent its interests, was made a necessary condition to some of the more important acts of the governing power".

As such, Mill suggests that mankind will be happy to be ruled "by a master" if his rule is guaranteed against tyranny.

Mill speaks in the aforementioned section in terms of monarchy.

However, mankind soon developed into democracy where "there was no fear of tyrannizing over self".

"This may seem axiomatic", he says, but "the people who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised".

Further, this can only be by the majority, and if the majority wish to criminalise a section of society that happens to be a minority — whether a race, gender, faith, sexuality, or the like — this may easily be done despite any wishes of the minority to the contrary.

This is in his terms the "tyranny of the majority".

Tyranny of the majority is far worse than tyranny of government simply because it is not limited to political function.

Where one can be protected from a tyrant, it is much harder to be protected "against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling".

As such, people will be subject to what society thinks is suitable — and people will be fashioned as such.

The prevailing opinions within society will be the basis of all rules of conduct within society — as such there can be no safeguard in law against the tyranny of the majority.

Mill soon goes on to prove this as a negative: the majority opinion may not be the correct opinion.

The only justification for a person's preference as to their moral belief is that it is their preference.

On a particular issue people will align themself either for or against this issue; the side of greatest volume will prevail, but is not essentially correct.

As with every rule, there must be an exception:

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

This is the first mention in On Liberty of the so-called harm principle.

The only limiting factor of liberty in Mill's view should be harm, although not just any harm, but specifically physical harm.

If a person is harmed then their sovereignty over self no longer exists since sovereignty is after all the foundational position of power; this is Mill's justification of the harm principle.

Children and those who cannot take care of themselves are allowed to be interfered with beyond the harm principle as they may well harm themselves unintentionally; such children and those who cannot take care of themselves do not, and cannot, have sovereignty over self.

Furthermore, Mill states that one may accept despotism over barbarians if the end result is their betterment; this implies that barbarians are of "nonage" and cannot be sovereign over self.

As soon as people are capable of deciding for themselves they should then be given liberty from authority.

To illustrate his point Mill uses Charlemagne and Akbar the Great as examples of such compassionate dictators who happen to control, or even "help", "barbarians".

At this point he divides human liberty when in private into its components or manifestations:

The freedom to think as one wishes, and to feel as one does.

This includes the freedom to opinion, and includes the freedom to publish opinions known as the freedom of speech, the freedom to pursue tastes and pursuits, even if they are deemed "immoral," as long as they do not cause harm, the "freedom to unite" or meet with others, often known as the freedom of assembly.

Without all of these freedoms, one cannot be considered to be truly free.

It is important to note, however, that Mill makes it clear throughout On Liberty that he "regard[s] utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions."

This he inherited from his Utilitarian upbringing under his father James Mill, a follower of Jeremy Bentham.

Because of this, the specific justifications he gives for each of the freedoms listed above rests not on any form of natural rights but rather on the fact that he believed these freedoms would bring positive consequences for society.

He has been criticised on this basis (by, among others, the 20th century political philosopher Isaiah Berlin, famous for his distinction between positive liberty and negative liberty) for not truly valuing liberty, and prizing above it diversity, equality and social progress.

Additional resources

Wikisource has the full text of On Liberty

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty"

Categories: 1859 books | Philosophy books

[Livyjr]

On Liberty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Tyranny of the majority)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

On Liberty is a philosophical work in the English language by 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, first published in 1859.

Perhaps the most memorable point made by Mill in this work, and his basis for liberty, is that "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign".

Mill is compelled to say this due to what he calls the "tyranny of the majority", wherein through control of etiquette and morality, society is an unelected power that can do horrific things.

Mill's work could be considered a reaction to this social control by the majority and his advocation of individual decision-making over the self.

[b]On Liberty was an enormously influential work; the ideas presented within it remain the basis of much political thought since.[/b]

Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html

Definition : A phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics.

Tocqueville argues that there is little toleration of difference of opinion in democratic societies.

Unlike in aristocratic societies, public opinion is seen as authentic rather than ascribed, and therefore has a great deal more moral force.

Political and Moral Power of the Majority

In America, the government is exposed to the whims of the majority.

Particularly in the legislature, which is elected at short intervals, representatives must act on public opinion in order to stay in office.

Furthermore, "the moral authority of the majority is partly based on the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than a single individual, and that the number of legislators is more important that their quality".

Yet another principle ensures the moral power of the majority.

It is that "the interests of the many are to be preferred to those of the few".

Crushing Independence of Thought

A danger of democracy is that it can crush independence of thought:

"I know of no country in which, speaking generally, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America [...]

As long as the majority is still undecided, discussion is carried on; but as soon as its decision is irrevocably pronounced, everyone is silent, and the friends as well as the opponents of the measure unite in assenting to its propriety "

In Europe, a person at odds with a repressive government can usually find shelter somewhere.

If their opinion is at odds with an aristocratic government, then they can usually find security with the general populace.

If it is at odds with the populace, the opposite is true.

The censure delivered on dissenters is much harsher in democratic societies than in aristocratic societies.

In aristocratic societies one is tortured and punished but one's soul escapes.

In democratic societies, "the body is left free and the soul enslaved":

"The sovereign can no longer say, 'You shall think as I do on pain of death': but he says, 'You are free to think differently from me, and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but if such be your determination, you are henceforth an alien along your people'."

"You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow-citizens, if you solicit their suffrages; and they will affect to scorn you, if you solicit their esteem."

"You will remain among men, but you like an impure being; and those who are mostly persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn."

Yielding Rather than Participating

Given this overwhelming moral power of "majority opinion", its ability to ostracise, and its tendency to enforce conformity, it is possible that the average person may simply abdicate responsibility for taking part in political debate and accept majority opinion as his own.

De Tocqueville argues that this is a fault of democracy in general, rather than democracy in America.

Too Much Power

Tocqueville states that "unlimited power is itself a bad and dangerous thing."

"Human beings are not competent to exercise it with discretion."

Only God, in his perfection, is fit to exercise such power.

When absolute command is conferred on any power, there is a germ of tyranny.

The main problem with the democratic insitutions of the United States comes their irresistible strength.

"I am not so much alarmed at the excessive liberty which reigns in that country as at the inadequate securities which one finds there against tyranny."

If a party is wronged, the only entity that one can turn to is the majority.

The majority controls the legislature, the executive and courts.

Danger of the Tyranny of the Majority

"If the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force."

Tocqueville cites Madison's Federalist 51, where Madison states his opinion on faction.

He states that it is of paramount importance to protect the weak against the strong, and prevent the oppresion of fractious majorities.

Madison argues that the real danger is the tyranny of the legislature, which is so exposed to the whims of the majority.

An Example of the Tyranny of the Majority

In the chapter "The Unlimited Power of the Majority", De Tocqueville cites two examples of the tyranny of the majority.

During the war of 1812, a newspaper in Baltimore had taken the opinion of the other side, and "excited the indignation of the inhabitants".

The mob attacked printing presses, the militia was called out, but did not respond.

The only way of saving those threatened was to throw them into prison.

The prison was then forced upon and the editors killed.

The guilty were acquitted.

The other example is that of black voters.

The blacks were ostensibly allowed to vote, but De Tocqueville is told that they "volutarily abstain from making their appearance" at the voting booth, because they are afraid of being maltreated.

"The law is sometimes unable to maintain its authority without the support of the majority".

The majority, De Tocqueville concludes, have the right not only to make the laws, but to break them as well.

It is only another instance of the importance of mores and values.

References

Democracy in America, Volume I, Chapter XV.

[jeffmoskin]

The Donkey Raffle

A hillbilly, young Kenny, moved to Texas and bought a donkey from Donald, a nearby farmer for $100.00. Farmer Donald agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. The next day he drove up and said, "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died." Kenny replied, "Well, then, just give me my money back." The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Kenny said, "OK, then, just bring me the dead donkey."

Farmer Donald asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Kenny, "I'm going to raffle him off."

Farmer Donald said, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Kenny said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later, Farmer Donald met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Kenny said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $998.00."

Farmer Donald said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Kenny said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the CEO of Enron.

[Abu Beacon]

The Donkey Raffle

A hillbilly, young Kenny, moved to Texas and bought a donkey from Donald, a nearby farmer for $100.00.  Farmer Donald agreed to deliver the donkey the next day. The next day he drove up and said,  "Sorry son, but I have some bad news, the donkey died." Kenny replied, "Well, then, just give me my money back." The farmer said, "Can't do that. I went and spent it already."

Kenny said, "OK, then, just bring me the dead donkey."

Farmer Donald asked, "What ya gonna do with him?"

Kenny, "I'm going to raffle him off."

Farmer Donald said, "You can't raffle off a dead donkey!"

Kenny said, "Sure I can. Watch me. I just won't tell anybody he is dead."

A month later, Farmer Donald met up with Kenny and asked, "What happened with that dead donkey?"

Kenny said, "I raffled him off. I sold 500 tickets at two dollars a piece and made a profit of $998.00."

Farmer Donald said, "Didn't anyone complain?"

Kenny said, "Just the guy who won. So I gave him his two dollars back."

Kenny grew up and eventually became the CEO of Enron.

Great story!

It's like the saying - " When all you have in your life is lemons - Make lemonade.

A.B.

[Livyjr]

Tocqueville and the Tyranny of the Majority

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/980.html

Definition : A phenomenon characterised by a homogenity of public opinion, caused by the peculiar psychological dynamics of public democratic politics.

Tocqueville argues that there is little toleration of difference of opinion in democratic societies.

Unlike in aristocratic societies, public opinion is seen as authentic rather than ascribed, and therefore has a great deal more moral force.

Political and Moral Power of the Majority

In America, the government is exposed to the whims of the majority.

Particularly in the legislature, which is elected at short intervals, representatives must act on public opinion in order to stay in office.

Furthermore, "the moral authority of the majority is partly based on the notion that there is more intelligence and wisdom in a number of men united than a single individual, and that the number of legislators is more important that their quality".

Yet another principle ensures the moral power of the majority.

It is that "the interests of the many are to be preferred to those of the few".

Crushing Independence of Thought

A danger of democracy is that it can crush independence of thought:

"I know of no country in which, speaking generally, there is less independence of mind and true freedom of discussion than in America [...]

"White House Challenges DeLay Allegations Ahead of Probe"

1 hour, 21 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House stepped up its defense of embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Sunday, disputing the merit of ethics allegations against the House majority leader ahead of an expected congressional probe.

While White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said it was "a matter for the House to consider" whether DeLay violated any House rules, he added:

"We have no reason to believe that they (the rules) haven't been followed."

"We have not seen anything that would suggest that those allegations have any merit," Card told NBC's "Meet the Press," going beyond recent statements of support from President Bush.

Card made his comments after the Republican-led House of Representatives dropped new ethics rules opposed by Democrats, clearing the way for another anticipated probe of DeLay.

Admonished by the House ethics committee last year on three separate matters, DeLay, a Texas Republican, has faced new questions in the past several weeks on ties to lobbyists and foreign trips funded by outside groups.

"I don't know anyone who believes that there is necessarily merit to the allegations that have been put forward," Card said.

DeLay, who has denied any wrongdoing, said he would welcome the opportunity to put the matter before the committee and "set the record straight."

Most House Republicans have publicly supported DeLay, but at least two have suggested that he step aside as leader, at least until the ethics questions are resolved.

Bush showed support for DeLay last week by making a rare public appearance with him at a Social Security event in Texas.

They then flew back to Washington together aboard Air Force One.

DeLay, widely admired among Republicans for his skill at rallying votes, has been a key force behind a number of Bush's legislative victories, such as a new prescription drug benefit for older Americans and curbs on class-action lawsuits.

"He's been a strong leader for this president."

"He's been very productive in getting things done," Card said of DeLay.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, in a recent interview with USA Today, predicted DeLay would keep his job.

[Livyjr]

"White House Challenges DeLay Allegations Ahead of Probe"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House stepped up its defense of embattled Rep. Tom DeLay on Sunday, disputing the merit of ethics allegations against the House majority leader ahead of an expected congressional probe.

While White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card said it was "a matter for the House to consider" whether DeLay violated any House rules, he added:

"We have no reason to believe that they (the rules) haven't been followed."

"We have not seen anything that would suggest that those allegations have any merit," Card told NBC's "Meet the Press," going beyond recent statements of support from President Bush.

"I don't know anyone who believes that there is necessarily merit to the allegations that have been put forward," Card said.

Bush showed support for DeLay last week by making a rare public appearance with him at a Social Security event in Texas.

They then flew back to Washington together aboard Air Force One.

DeLay, widely admired among Republicans for his skill at rallying votes, has been a key force behind a number of Bush's legislative victories, such as a new prescription drug benefit for older Americans and curbs on class-action lawsuits.

"He's been a strong leader for this president."

"He's been very productive in getting things done," Card said of DeLay.

White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, in a recent interview with USA Today, predicted DeLay would keep his job.

Has anyone in OUR America figured out yet that Tommy Delay is nothing but a pip-squeak outside of his congressional district down there in Texas?

Yes, America, that is right!

Tommy Delay is a Congressman for a district in Texas, and that is that!

If you live in Ohio, say, or California, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

For that matter, IF you live in his congressional district down there in Texas, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

Any at all?

And if you answered yes, how do you personally work that math, since Tommy Delay, as a congressman, is nothing more than your representative in OUR Congress?

Or is it OUR Congress, any longer?

Is Tommy Delay now something more than merely being the representative of a smallish group of people in some congressional district down there in Texas?

Obviously, he is a "protected" and "beloved" of George W. Bush, but what does that really make him, Tommy Delay, I mean, outside of a danger to our REPUBLIC, and our democratic ideals, here in OUR America?

A question for OUR times!

Think over your answer carefully, then, for the shackles that bind you tomarrow might well be of your own forging, today!

[Livyjr]

Interesting, jeffmoskin!

Right now, I am reading "The Glorious Cause" by Robert Middlekauff, and much of what you say vis-a-vis the economic side of things goes back, and back and back in OUR own history, and actually figures in greatly to OUR own rebellion and Revolution against what was really English corruption!

And now, WE ARE ENGLAND!

Time is a loop!

Time is a loop!

Time is a loop!

Has anyone in OUR America figured out yet that Tommy Delay is nothing but a pip-squeak outside of his congressional district down there in Texas?

Yes, America, that is right!

Tommy Delay is a Congressman for a district in Texas, and that is that!

If you live in Ohio, say, or California, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

For that matter, IF you live in his congressional district down there in Texas, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

Any at all?

And if you answered yes, how do you personally work that math, since Tommy Delay, as a congressman, is nothing more than your representative in OUR Congress?

I have to say that I have been struggling with this thing of democrats and republicans in OUR America for probably fifty years now, since say, 1955, or so, and I am only now just becoming to understand what the theoretical difference is between the two, which up here, where I am, in solidly REPUBLICAN-controlled territory, is more than theoretical, at least to the REPUBLICANS, who have control, and who intend to maintain that control through any means necessary, including the infliction of violence on those who would question, or dissent!

To understand REPUBLICANS in OUR America, of course, it is necessary to have a good understanding of human nature, and how human nature has shaped OUR nation since, say, 1766, which is ten years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and may well be one of those years that just was pivotal in the affairs of the world that followed, right on down to OUR present times.

Right now, I am still making my way through "The Glorious Cause" by Robert Middlekauff, which is a well-researched book about OUR nation's founding, and I just came across a sentence in there about how, at the time of OUR split with England, before we had a federal Constitution, about how our state Constitutions did not actually give us DEMOCRACY, so much as alleged safeguards and protections against tyranny, and when I read that statement, in the context in which it was made, which is LIFE in OUR America in the mid-1700's, much became clear to me, as to where we actually are today, in terms of this divide that most certainly does exist in America, WHICH IS NOT A DEMOCRACY AT ALL, in any sense of the word, and in all senses of the word, to boot!

What really is DEMOCRACY, and why don't we have it today?

Stay tuned!

Updates as they happen!

Live!

Late-breaking!

Life, in OUR America!

[jeffmoskin]

Has anyone in OUR America figured out yet that Tommy Delay is nothing but a pip-squeak outside of his congressional district down there in Texas?

Yes, America, that is right!

Tommy Delay is a Congressman for a district in Texas, and that is that!

If you live in Ohio, say, or California, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

For that matter, IF you live in his congressional district down there in Texas, what AUTHORITY does Tommy Delay have over you?

Any at all?

Ah that this would be true. In fact, the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, which is FAT(HEAD) TOMMY'S full title, carries a lot of weight (sorry) in that legislative body (sorry again).

To add insult to injury, he's 3rd in succession to be KING (er president) if Bush and Cheney both suddenly died.

So be careful what you wish for... you could get it.

[Livyjr]

Ah that this would be true.

In fact, the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, which is TOMMY'S full title, carries a lot of weight (sorry) in that legislative body (sorry again).

To add insult to injury, he's 3rd in succession to be KING (er president) if Bush and Cheney both suddenly died.

So be careful what you wish for... you could get it.

Ah, jeffmoskin, you are the KING of SEGUES!

Old TOMMY Delay IS quite the man about town INSIDE the halls of the Congress, and that is a fact!

BUT ......

That is a statement about those people down there, is it not?

And who exactly it is on the face of this earth of OURS that they are representative of, because it sure is not me!

INSIDE CONGRESS HALL down there in Washington, D$C$, old TOMMY is the big man, but back outside, on the street, he is just another American!

We should never forget those basics of citizenship, here in OUR America, is my thought, regardless of who is exerting pressure on us to do exactly that!

[Livyjr]

I saw a friend today, and we were talking about this exoneration of ourselves in this Calipari shooting, and the interesting thing is that this person, a Viet Nam vet like myself who knows people fighting in Iraq, right now, had seen photographs of Calipari with the fatal hole in his head that were taken by American soldiers on the scene!

I don't think anything happens in combat in Iraq that is not already all around the world in a flash, a moment after, and so it was with this Calipari with the hole in his head!

A trophy shot!

A photograph of the kill!

Flashed right here to OUR America in a heartbeat, almost as it happened!

The power of digital technology!

Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, on the one hand, and on the other, give us instant confirmation that this Calipari won't be negotiationg with no more people that George W. Bush don't want nobody talking to, and especially the Italians!

Except, it was an Italian!

Good old Calipari "done the dirty" one more time too many, and so, the boy got popped!

The military internet story goes that Calipari had given the TAY-RISTS some $8 MILLION and the TAY-RISTS were going to kill Americans with that money, and well, you know, if you have been there, [sounds of light whistling, sounds of weapon discharging, GOOD NIGHT!]!

And what are the Italians going to do about it?

Stop sending us silk suits?

That's the chatter, anyway, as I hear it!

Back to you, America!

"Italy Cites 'Stress' in Agent's Shooting"

By AIDAN LEWIS, Associated Press Writer

1 minute ago

ROME - Italian investigators have concluded that stress, inexperience and fatigue among U.S. soldiers played a role in the shooting death of an Italian agent in Baghdad, according to a report released Monday.

The probe found no evidence that the March 4 killing of intelligence agent Nicola Calipari was deliberate.

Calipari was killed just after he secured the release of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena from Iraqi militants who held her hostage for a month.

U.S. soldiers fired on the Italians' vehicle as it approached the checkpoint near Baghdad's airport.

Sgrena and another Italian agent were wounded.

[jeffmoskin]

"Italy Cites 'Stress' in Agent's Shooting"

By AIDAN LEWIS, Associated Press Writer

1 minute ago

ROME - Italian investigators have concluded that stress, inexperience and fatigue among U.S. soldiers played a role in the shooting death of an Italian agent in Baghdad, according to a report released Monday.

The probe found no evidence that the March 4 killing of intelligence agent Nicola Calipari was deliberate.

Calipari was killed just after he secured the release of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena from Iraqi militants who held her hostage for a month.

U.S. soldiers fired on the Italians' vehicle as it approached the checkpoint near Baghdad's airport.

Sgrena and another Italian agent were wounded.

Death of agent not deliberate, Italian report concludes
Last Updated Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:54 EDT
CBC News

ROME - Stress, fatigue and the inexperience of some U.S. soldiers led to the shooting death of an Italian intelligence officer at a Baghdad checkpoint, Italian investigators have concluded in their own report.

But the report found no evidence that the death of Nicola Calipari on March 4 was deliberate.
Nicola Calipari (AP Photo)

Calipari was killed by gunfire coming from U.S. forces as they tried to stop a car carrying him, two other agents and a freed hostage, Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena.

Calipari died as he shielded Sgrena from the gunfire.

"It is likely that the state of tension stemming from the conditions of time, circumstances and place, as well as possibly some degree of inexperience and stress might have led some soldiers to instinctive and little-controlled reactions," said Italy's report.

* FROM APR. 29, 2005: Italy, U.S. disagree over death of Italian agent

Last Friday, the two countries, which participated in a joint investigation, said in a statement they could not come to any "shared final conclusions." They said they would be issuing separate reports on the incident.

The Italian report criticized how the scene of the shooting was preserved.

It said the car carrying Sgrena and the agents was removed before its position was marked and the soldiers' vehicles also were moved.

"That made it impossible to technically reconstruct the event, to determine the exact position of the vehicles and measure the distances, and to obtain precise data defining the precise trajectory of the bullets, the speed of the car and the stopping distance," the report said.

In a separate U.S. report released Saturday, American investigators cleared the soldiers of wrongdoing, saying they gave adequate warning for the car to stop, and fired warning shots.

The U.S. report stated the soldiers did receive training on "rules of engagement" and how to respond to threats before they came to Iraq, including further training in Kuwait and a refresher course last February.

But the report admitted that the troops, who were "traffic-blocking" when the car approached, did not have training in that prior to their arrival in Iraq. Traffic blocking differs from traffic controlling in that the purpose of blocking is to ensure that no vehicles proceed past a certain point.

The soldiers "learned and practiced" how to run blocking positions from Feb. 5-15, after relocating from Taji.

Copyright ©2005 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - All Rights Reserved

[jeffmoskin]

But the report found no evidence that the death of Nicola Calipari on March 4 was deliberate.

A lucky shot to the temple,

Right.

[Abu Beacon]

A lucky shot to the temple,

Right.

Sort of like when the cleaners forgot to leave clothes for the " detainees " at
Abu Ghraib.

It happens.

A.B.