Well ladies and gentlemen, it seems that my opponent is dead set on making my argument for me … I for one will not be the one to impede his momentum
in this regard.
Let us explore some of Oz's statements …
In my preceding post I stated:
"It is indeed my position that rights are a timeless set of liberties based on universal virtues and not subject to alteration or convenient
approximation. They are in fact the foundations upon which societies are built on and are not to be selectively interpreted and/or suspended to
satisfy an either perceived or real threat."
To which my opponent responded:
I beg to differ on the above points that my opponent makes. To assume that rights are based on "a timelss set of liberties" is ludicrous.
Have blacks always had the same rights as white? Have women always been allowed to vote? Have gays and lesbians always been accepted readily into
society? The answer is obviously no.
And why is that?
After all Thomas Jefferson, in response and opposition to the Divine Right of Kings
stated quite clearly in The Declaration of Independence:
And yet, as my opponent stated, and as history shows us, it has in many cases taken centuries for the inherent rights of African/Native Americans,
women, and other minorities to receive the benefit of the very rights which are inherently theirs. Heck it took a civil war just to recognize one,
centuries of activism for others, and in the case of same sex marriage the fight is still ongoing.
The rights were there upon the foundation of the nation, it was the whim and sentiment of the populace that precluded said minorities from their
This ladies and gentlemen is the crux of this debate and where my esteemed opponent has got it completely wrong. He is under the impression that
civil rights movements (women, african americans, native americans, etc.) were about acquiring rights for those respective minorities … when in fact
they were about receiving their inalienable rights as already expressed and established in the constitution and subsequent amendments, that up until
the point of redress, were denied to them by the aforementioned "tyranny of the majority."
Thus, as I stated earlier, rights are a timeless set of liberties based on universal virtues and not subject to alteration or convenient
Therefore when my opponent states:
My point is that universal liberties change, as society evolves.
He could not be more wrong!
Societies are built on evolution, not a concrete structure that has allows for a strict and linear growth. If we had no evolutionary
development, then we would still be back in the stone age killing those of different colour (simply for not being white etc) and assuming that women
were of lower intelligence and were of a lower class then men.
No societies are NOT built on "evolution" … they are built on fundamental principles and rights!
Societies of course do evolve, but they should
(as in the debate topic) evolve upon the founded principles and not pick and choose if and when
they should adhere to them according to simple majority and temporal popularity.
Now, there are times in the course of history that circumstances dictate a fresh look and potential inclusion of "new" rights to reflect new and/or
unforeseen demands on the foundation. After all, to continue on the house metaphor from my previous post, as the population grows and times change,
the foundation will inevitably need some further strengthening ...
This is NOT the same as waiting for existing rights to be recognized until the point in time where a society has, as my opponent claims, "evolved"
into being good and ready to grant existing rights to its minorities.
In the US, the vehicle through which such fundamental alterations to rights is addressed is via constitutional amendment.
Yet even the framers of the constitution recognized the perils of simple majority rule over minority rights … for The Bill of Rights and every other
subsequent amendment can only be ratified when a Supermajority
of 75% of the States support it:
The framers of the Constitution were aware that changes would be necessary if the Constitution was to endure as the nation grew. However, they
were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. On the other hand, they also
wanted to ensure that a rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population.
it must also be ratified by three-fourths of states. en.wikipedia.org...
A supermajority being:
A supermajority or a qualified majority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level or type of support which exceeds majority.
So in the example of the United States the sequence is clear … the declaration of independence/constitution express and define the rights
inalienable to the populace as part of their founding principles, they upon occasion through vehicles such as The Bill of Rights and further
amendments expound on those rights via supermajority vote and not via simple majority vote, for the framers were aware of the potential pitfalls of
allowing rights to be defined by wavering public sentiment.
The fact, as my opponent so eloquently stated, that so many of these inalienable rights took so long to be enjoyed by so many segments (minorities) of
the population is precisely because it took centuries for public sentiment to catch up and agree to RECOGNIZE said rights.
And again, as is the crux of this debate, recognition isn't the same as creation!
If it was a simple matter of majority vote, imagine all the rights that would be coming and going with each election cycle …
As I alluded to in my previous post, nowhere is this transgression more visible than in the recent striking down via popular vote of California
Proposition 8 in the 2008 elections where the right to same sex marriage was denied by altering the California constitution:
The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of Article I, to the California Constitution. The new section reads:
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." en.wikipedia.org...(2008)
Now, how does one reconcile that with "equal rights under the law" and "all men are created equal?"
It simply doesn't … the Proposition 8 initiative was passed by a final majority vote of 52.24% vs. 47.76%.
... and therein lie the the tragic trappings of simple majority rule, the tyranny of the majority, and precisely why "In any government run
election, the majority should not have the ability to vote on the rights of the minority.”
More good stuff later ... for now I leave the floor to my esteemed opponent in the hope that he continues on the argumentative path he has chosen.