Should laws cater to the majority of a society or the minority?

Bread.

Bread.

Gold Member
Majority-focused laws, can serve to protect the rights and interests of the majority population in a society. These laws are often aimed at promoting social cohesion. Social cohesion promotes social stability, reduces crime, enhances well-being, and improves economic development. It also enables societies to better address challenges such as poverty, inequality, and social exclusion.

Minority-focused laws can have unintended negative consequences for society. While these laws aim to address historical injustices and promote equality, they can sometimes result in reverse discrimination, perpetuate stereotypes, contribute to segregation, and have unintended impacts on individual rights.
 
What about minority-focused laws such as affirmative action policies in employment or education that give preferential treatment to certain minority groups? The ones that lead to qualified individuals from non-minority groups being unfairly disadvantaged. This creates reverse discrimination from a law masked to address discrimination.


Mike62UK said:
Neither - laws should cater for all - without fear or favour
Click to expand...
This sounds good in theory but how do you apply it in practice? Like when you have certain groups of people that want to divide themselves from the "all".
 
yeah but the crimes of a minority (mass shootings, not black ppl) shouldn’t effect the rights of the majority (law abiding gun owners of all colors)

also stay out of my fuckin’ bathrooms, & sports games; u know who u are ✌🏻
 
Don’t care as long as the government officials arent exempt from these laws.

Looking at you Matt Wankcock and Cruella Braverman
 
laws should cater to the individual. if you have to take freedoms away from someone, when that someone isn’t physically harming you or stealing/ruining your property, then it’s tyranny and not law. having to tax people to fund losers is an example of a failed society and shouldn’t impact the hard work of those who are doing no harm. i’m not debating this, just leaving this argument here because i’m right and anyone else is wrong.
 
Soundz123 said:
laws should cater to the individual. if you have to take freedoms away from someone, when that someone isn’t physically harming you or stealing/ruining your property, then it’s tyranny and not law. having to tax people to fund losers is an example of a failed society and shouldn’t impact the hard work of those who are doing no harm. i’m not debating this, just leaving this argument here because i’m right and anyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...
Does this mean you are against universal basic income.
 
The laws should reflect the wishes of the majority of the population, since better forms of agreement like consensus building are not something we've achieved- we are left with the unsatisfying "majority rules"

Laws should protect minorities -or even foster tolerance, but not stray into advocacy or worse- endorsement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top