Quote:
Originally posted by cyc
Like myself and Boyd have said on these Treaty threads again and again, if the majority want to convince people of the rightness of their position, offer some rational arguments. That you happen to be the majority or that you happen to strongly believe in whatever are not enough. Face it, most of "us" would cry like hell if the sorts of injustices done to Maori were done to us.
|
Why do the arguments have to be rational? It seems to me a contradiction - giving power to representatives of people who are elected on emotion, not rationality.
Allowing those elected to make judgements based upon the needs and ideas of those who elected them.
Then, critiquing said judgements based on logic. Surely it is more logical to critique such judgements in the same light (illogically) - how can you hold them to a higher standard than what you have already set out as an optimum form of government?