Dear Kaelyn,
On 2026-06-08 22:17, Kaelyn wrote:
Hi André,
I'm not exactly interested in wading into the various discussions
around GCD 008, but there is one point you mentioned in your recent
email that I find myself needing to comment on.
On Monday, June 8th, 2026 at 1:28 PM, André Batista <[email protected]>
wrote:
Did you happen to read their other post[3] linked on this one? There
they
spouse another reactionary view on law and society by claiming that
social
change is not democratic. You know, they use democracy as equal to
the
simple majority rule whereas for at least a century democracy is
understood
not as the rule of majority but as the system that provides
protections to
the minorities and those who are vulnerable.
Can you please cite your sources as to your alternate definition of
"democracy" as "a system that provides protections to the minorities
and those who are vulnerable"? Democracy is--and to my knowledge has
always been--by definition (and etymology) the rule of the majority
[1]. Even in the Merriam-Webster definition, the closest to what you
describe is definition 3, which is about a system wherein everyone is
treated equally and have the right to participate equally. Neither that
definition, nor any[2] other[3] that I have seen have indicated that
democracy is about providing protections to minorities and other
vulnerable persons. At best[3], various freedoms and rights (including
minority rights) are described as common features of democracies, not
defining characteristics or required features.
The articulation of minority rights preceeded the Extension of the
Franchise.
FWIW, each Liberal Democrat leader in the UK is presented a copy of JS
Mill's work, On Liberty.
(I think theres a joke in there somewhere).
In any case, here is some random academia - the opening page provides a
comparison between Mill and Tocqueville.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
