It's not even possible for the majority to get its way in every decision, if only because no such thing as "the" majority for every conceivable decision and policy. Nor can they possibly be formulated to have equal results. And, as pointed out, the courts must make decisions. The majority of people do have the longterm need for civil rights, therefore courts should abide by those rights, especially in cases where temporary majorities form. When a majority wishes to repress a minority, courts may in principle try to abide by the true general interest of the majority and enforce civil rights.
No, I don't think that Unionism was ever about anything but repressing Catholics. The first Protestant paramilitary as I recall was formed about two years before the Irish Republican Army. I think the Ulster rump was always about oppression and I think the only reason for kidding yourself it wasn't is the desire to go easy on the English.
Kosovo is not a country, Albanian speaking or not. It's one thing to advocate rectification of borders or special autonomy arrangements to accommodate exceptional diversity. But the only democratic issue was whether the Albanian majority country might be freer as part of Albania, and whether this improvement was great enough to justify war. This is a high standard because border rectifications may involve population transfers, which are ethnic cleansing to one degree or another. No one advocated this. I think it is gullible, to be charitable, to believe everything said about the supposed Serb operations against the Kosovars.
Given the historic connections of Kosovo province to Serbia and common life for decades in Yugoslavia, the question should not necessarily have arisen in the first place. The Kosovo Liberation Army's credentials as a genuine movement of the people have to be examined. There is ample reason to have dark suspicions that the KLA was a criminal organization, not a true popular movement. No, no one should worry about what a criminal movement says about how someplace should be part of another country. The people whose prejudices lead them to dismiss the IRA as mere criminals would be right if that's what the IRA was. Is that the unspoken assumption clouding the discussion here?
Perhaps another unspoken assumption is that a country is a compact between a group of people who "own" some territory? I believe a country is a group of people whose lives are inextricably entertwined in such fashion that they need to have a common government for the preservation of their lives. In practice, speaking a common language is often part of this, but it is not, not, required that every language have its own country.
And if you note that this implies that some countries now are too small in this interdependent world to exercise sovereignty in the old, traditional forms, then you would be correct. That is why nationalism in the old sense is backward, reactionary and detrimental to humanity in the larger sense. What new forms of government to promote peace and prosperity are needed is for this generation and posterity to create. Who says there are no wonderful challenges before us? Clinging to old ideas about self-determination regardless of realities is ideological.
No, I don't think that Unionism was ever about anything but repressing Catholics. The first Protestant paramilitary as I recall was formed about two years before the Irish Republican Army. I think the Ulster rump was always about oppression and I think the only reason for kidding yourself it wasn't is the desire to go easy on the English.
Kosovo is not a country, Albanian speaking or not. It's one thing to advocate rectification of borders or special autonomy arrangements to accommodate exceptional diversity. But the only democratic issue was whether the Albanian majority country might be freer as part of Albania, and whether this improvement was great enough to justify war. This is a high standard because border rectifications may involve population transfers, which are ethnic cleansing to one degree or another. No one advocated this. I think it is gullible, to be charitable, to believe everything said about the supposed Serb operations against the Kosovars.
Given the historic connections of Kosovo province to Serbia and common life for decades in Yugoslavia, the question should not necessarily have arisen in the first place. The Kosovo Liberation Army's credentials as a genuine movement of the people have to be examined. There is ample reason to have dark suspicions that the KLA was a criminal organization, not a true popular movement. No, no one should worry about what a criminal movement says about how someplace should be part of another country. The people whose prejudices lead them to dismiss the IRA as mere criminals would be right if that's what the IRA was. Is that the unspoken assumption clouding the discussion here?
Perhaps another unspoken assumption is that a country is a compact between a group of people who "own" some territory? I believe a country is a group of people whose lives are inextricably entertwined in such fashion that they need to have a common government for the preservation of their lives. In practice, speaking a common language is often part of this, but it is not, not, required that every language have its own country.
And if you note that this implies that some countries now are too small in this interdependent world to exercise sovereignty in the old, traditional forms, then you would be correct. That is why nationalism in the old sense is backward, reactionary and detrimental to humanity in the larger sense. What new forms of government to promote peace and prosperity are needed is for this generation and posterity to create. Who says there are no wonderful challenges before us? Clinging to old ideas about self-determination regardless of realities is ideological.
