Should government policies be decided by referendum?

[Valmy]

Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.

I don't think BB is saying that.  Injustice is never fine and dandy.  The question is what is the mechanism to correct it?  And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable.  Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?

A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.

[dps]

Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.

I don't think BB is saying that.  Injustice is never fine and dandy.  The question is what is the mechanism to correct it?  And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable.  Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?

A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.

Sure, but you don't, in theory at least, need a referendum to do that--legislation passed by an elected legislature works just fine, too.

Though that does lead to problems when there's a particular issue on which the legislature and the general public aren't in agreement.  For example, back when the West Virginia legislature abolished the death penalty in the state, most of the population probably didn't favor getting rid of it.*  The thing was, at the time, not only was West Virginia almost completely a one-party Democratic state, in most of the state, the guy who won the Democratic primary was going to be the candidate endorsed by organized labor.  People were voting for their legislators based on them being pro-labor, not on their views on the death penalty.  During most of the 80s at least*, voters as a whole were overwhelmingly in favor of reinstating the death penalty, but bills to do so couldn't even get out of committee because the judiciary committees of both houses in the legislature were still dominated by guys who had been there since the 60s and who all had safe seats in very pro-union areas.  A lot of people sort of looked on the fact that a very few old guys were blocking the legislature from even considering the issue as illegitimate.  There were jokes that there were only about 30 people in the whole state who were opposed to the death penalty, but they were all on the House or Senate judiciary committee.

*  I'm not entirely sure, because I haven't really seen any polls on the issue, but my sense is that there was more sentiment among the general public in the state against the death penalty at the time it was abolished than there was in the 1980s.  I do know that poll in the 80s showed that people in general were then strongly in favor of bringing it back.  I didn't follow state politics as closely when I lived there again in 2002-2007, but I think that's still true.

[garbon]

Yeah, it's a chicken and an egg situation. The problem with Barrister's approach is that it is all fine and dandy only if you completely disregard human lives and human tragedies that are involved in allowing the injustice to continue until the majority is against it.

I don't think BB is saying that.  Injustice is never fine and dandy.  The question is what is the mechanism to correct it?  And if you do have mechanisms that allow the will of the majority to be trumped for justice that can be dangerous and abusable.  Is fighting for justice using democratic tools really 'allowing it to continue'?

A big plus in my mind if we do use democratic tools to reform it has a legitimacy that is hard to deny.

But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.

[dps]

After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.

The majority doesn't have to be actively engaged in the injustice, though.  As long as they are willing to passively allow it, it can continue.

[garbon]

But wouldn't that probably be a situation where the majority wouldn't be that miffed if their legislators or courts decided the issue for them?

[Valmy]

But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.

Sort of.  Indeed, I am not sure how it would be possible to do it without widespread support, at least in a Democratic society.  By the time Brown vs. Board of Education came along a tipping point had already been reached (integration of the Army, Jackie Robinson, and so forth.  Anybody with a brain could see segregation was on the run.).  But that did not mean people were not engaged in it.  Injustice was still pretty widespread and pervasive in 1954 even if people were coming around by that point.

[garbon]

But at that point, the injustice is probably unlikely to be so widespread and pervasive. After all, if the majority is against some sort of injustice, unlikely that they will be engaged in it.

Sort of.  Indeed, I am not sure how it would be possible to do it without widespread support, at least in a Democratic society.  By the time Brown vs. Board of Education came along a tipping point had already been reached (integration of the Army, Jackie Robinson, and so forth.  Anybody with a brain could see segregation was on the run.).  But that did not mean people were not engaged in it.  Injustice was still pretty widespread and pervasive in 1954 even if people were coming around by that point.

I guess it depends on the type of injustice.  For instance polls showed majority in Massachusetts was against gay marriage before it was allowed by the courts and polls several months after the courts allowed it, public opinion turned even further against legal gay marriage.  Not much really happened though as I think it falls into an example of dps's where people just passively allow heterosexual marriages to be the norm and though even not in favor, don't feel that strongly to take up arms.