> The focus on minorities seems always a bit strange to me and a bad start to argue for more civil liberties. Everyone should be equal under the law and I talk about civil liberties that are enshrined in law.
People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. You don't have a proper democracy if you have free elections - but only for the right kind of people.
The US voting system right now is designed to exclude certain kinds of people. This something most other industrialized countries don't do. That is a main reason for the low ranking in the list I linked.
> Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.
Care to qualify what kind of freedoms Germany is lacking compared to the US?
You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights. These protect you from abuse. Nothing else matters. Why shouldn't the minority suppress the majority? Thinking of Iraq here for example, where it was a religious minority. Exactly the same problem, or what do you suggest here?
In most of human history minorities have suppressed the majority. It isn't even close.
> People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy.
That sentence doesn't make sense. In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition. That applies to everyone of course.
> You secure the rights of minorities through universal human rights.
No, you just declare them that way. You secure them through actual instiutional measures.
> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.
That's an insufficient definion. Please have a look at introductory material about the topic before stating things like this. The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
> You secure them through actual instiutional measures.
Partially correct, you secure them by law which is policed by the states monopoly on violence. And any institution is forced to follow that to the letter. Otherwise you have a right to legal compensation in any constitutional state.
> The english wikipedia entry is quite good.
It states exactly what I said. Maybe substitute universal human rights, which was admittedly optimistic, with constitutional rights and you have exactly the same statements.
Otherwise, since people do vote, they could indeed strip any anyone from rights, minority or not, protective institutions or not. So some rights are off limits to change by the sovereign.
To rule a people, you need either force or consent. So better make those constitutional rights generic and accepted by everyone. Otherwise you do not have consent and are not a democracy. Autocracy and its derivations are on the other side of the pole.
It is not a better way to secure minority rights, it is the only way.
> In a democracy people are the sovereign. End of story and definition.
Out of context quote and I was not denying mob rule. The tyranny of the majority is restricted by human rights by the way (may they be universal or constitutional, doesn't matter).
People belabor the minority point because that is the cornerstone of a real democracy. You don't have a proper democracy if you have free elections - but only for the right kind of people.
The US voting system right now is designed to exclude certain kinds of people. This something most other industrialized countries don't do. That is a main reason for the low ranking in the list I linked.
> Germany has some better rankings but really lacks in freedom when compared to the US.
Care to qualify what kind of freedoms Germany is lacking compared to the US?