In a Democracy Should All Opinions be Equally Considered?

I think for a democracy to function effectively, everyone should have a vote, and probably be required to vote. It's only fair that everyone be permitted to at least voice their opinion. But that's not quite what you asked. If you consider an opinion as the expression of an idea, then no - not all ideas are created equal.

But who decides which ideas are better? By what criteria? And how does a group or a nation make decisions, if not by vote? Do you go with one extreme of tyranny by majority, the opposite extreme of hopefully benevolent dictatorship, or something in the middle, like paralysis by committee?

 

Poster's being treated equally yes, Opinions being treated equally no. Many show signs of being fueled by emotion. Some clearly show signs of involved research. Guess which should be considered more.

 

I am waiting for the 2012 prius plug-in, can anyone tell me when it is going to be the market thanks

 

you will always have, regardless of the topic, a number of uninformed and unsubstanciated opinions. people will believe what they WANT to believe and for the most part their minds cannot be changed, even if you hit them over the head with fact after fact.

that's MY opinion!

 

my OPINON is that it is a year away. but that's my OPINION, not fact.

 

I know, I know......

 

(Note: This opinion only holds true for the U.S.) If by "considered", you mean "heard", yes, definitely. Freedom of speech and all that. If by "considered" you mean "acted upon if the majority thinks so," definitely not. The U.S. a republic and not a true democracy, which is generally a good thing. If it were a true democracy run as written in 1776, slavery would still be legal, women still wouldn't have the right to vote, and same-sex people still wouldn't be able to marry each other.

 

R

Funny, that doesn't sound like much of a democracy. Unless of course the majority voted to deny those 'special interest groups' their basic human rights.

 

Emphasis mine. The bolded part is a very bad idea. Here's why: If you force people to vote, they will mark a box at random, or vote for the best-looking or slickest-sounding candidate.

Rather than requiring people to vote, we'd have to require them to be informed, and that may be impossible.

I believe that was his point: In a democracy, the majority is likely to treat the minority like shit, strip them of all rights and property, etc. A republic grants certain rights by law, which a democratic majority is (theoretically) not allowed to take from them.

In practice, the majority treats the minority like shit, etc.

Oh, and slavery was finally abolished because the emerging industrial capitalism in the North was more profitable using wage slavery rather than chattel slavery, and the industrial economy was more powerful than the feudal agricultural economy of the South. On a plantation, slaves must be fed and housed all year long, and it can afford to do that because there's always work to be done. Industrial capitalism has boom and bust cycles. "Free" labor can be fired during a bust, and hired again in boom times, and the industrialist does not have to feed the workers when there's no work. Lincoln and the North didn't care two cents for the rights of black folks. They just saw southern slaves as a potential work force for northern factories.

But to the topic of the OP:

My answer is no: Everyone has the right to express an opinion, but an intelligent person will not waste time "considering" opinions which are obviously ill-informed, illogical, or just plain stupid. If you are designing an airplane, are you really going to give equal consideration to the janitor and the aeronautics engineer as you consider what kind of power plant to use?

 

With rights come responsibilities. We should all be educated and informed voters.

Yes, that's how I interpreted it as well. Which speaks directly to the topic, in that it's not necessarily the right thing to do, or even a good idea, just because most people think so.

 

Good question. Democracy does not always mean meritocracy.

 

Democracy is the opposite of meritocracy.

 

However, it is often synonymous with mediocrity.

 

considered by whom?

 

Woah, the no vote is in the lead.

I get Daniel's point, though, I suppose to some degree the answer to the question relies on context.

[she waffles further] I'm not sure it's better to have a totally uninformed group of voters making big decisions which should be left to folks who know more about the issues and whose job it is to make those decisions.

Aw, heck, I'm beginning to wonder if anyone is qualified.

Maybe if we concentrated on creating a simpler world for ourselves, we'd be forced to make fewer complex decisions. Final answer.

 

Of course not.

The key word here is "equally."

Should flat-earthers be given equal footing with those that believe the earth is a globe?

Outrageous and nonsensical opinions must be discounted to their true value.

 

When it works properly, the minority gets to express their opinion, the majority gets to decide what to do. Other than getting to express an opinion, there is no guaranty that anyone will take that opinion seriously. Many opinions are pure rubbish, and deserve nothing more than a quick dismissal.

Tom

 

That's how it works on paper. In reality, Democracy is three wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.