Majority rule, minority rights

Throughout history, thither has been an understanding in the midst of the disposal of democracy and its constituents. From the times where such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke put forth their respective theories of a state of spirit and companionable contract, mankind has been enthralled with the separation of presidency and the existence it controlled. John Locke proposed that there has always been a occupy for a social contract-that is an understanding between the government and the mountain for the sole precedent of protection and organization. Even in the early days of the roughly bondable Babylonian governments, the people strove for organization and protection of their property. Before that, according to Hobbies, the people of the world existed in what he called a state of nature.This state of nature existed before the population of an area realized the need for a expression and a steady way of life. They may have been fed up with the plundering of the ir land. Lock explains that the constituency gave up the rights to rape, murder, and steal in order for protection of property. With this action, the people put what they thought to be an equal balance of antecedent into the governments hands. The government, acting as a whole body, has seemed to, throughout time, take benefit of the people that it represented. This paper will attempt to show how this feeling of transc overthrowency that governments have purveyed through the history of the joined States.In 1894, there was a strike of Pullman Palace car factory workers outside of Chicago. These workers belonged to the American railroad line Union. The union decided to refuse to move trains with the Pullman Cars thus shutting devour virtually all railways in and out of Chicago. This caused much strife between the workers and the government. This was the first time that the government had to get a federal coquet injunction to make the workers go back to work. (Miller 1996) The re ason that the government infallible the injunction was because the Pullman workers were responsible for mail de stand upry. The workers ignored the injunction thus actuate President C trainand to send US troops to quell the strike.This move worked and terminate the strike. The government displayed its power against its people. It had to choose between the rights of the union to strike and the need of the population to get its mail. There were other incidents that have also displayed these tensions of government choosing between majority rule and minority rights. (Strom 1990) There was, for instance, the Red intimidate of 1919.Before the Russian Revolution, the citizens of the United States were able to believe in any(prenominal) political system they wanted. They were not just held to taking capitalism as the way to go. sensation such group was a group that came to be known as the Wobbles. This group was a band of young, radical individuals who were essentially fed up with Am erican Federation of Labor. They felt that you were owned, so to speak, by your boss.Through the readings of Karl Marx, many were led to believe that Communism was the correct travel plan for social and economic prosperity.When the Russian Revolution occurred in 1917, the United States passed a string of laws, both on the federal level and state level that prevented these Communist beliefs from seeping any further into the common American psyche. numerous of the Wobblies were consequently arrested for nonsensical reasons. Many states opted to adopt laws that made the Wobblies illegal and squeeze it to go underground. Because of the national scare of the spread of any type of Communism, the government was forced to take extreme measures to stop any part of it from spreading. This is a clear example of how tensions grew out of the governments need to chose between majority rule, (in this vitrine the common citizen), and minority rights, (in this case the Wobblies).There were other incidents that portrayed these tensions. angiotensin converting enzyme such incident being McCarthyism of the 1950s.In the mid 1940s, after the end of WWII, the United States and the other democracies of the world began moving apart from the new Russia. One reason for this was the Berlin Airlift where Russia sectioned off their part of the conquered Berlin, Germany and would not permit any other allies in. This was the start of the cold fight. The cold war was a fighting war. It was a war of the proverbial cold shoulder.In 1950, under growing public pressure, the United States passed the Internal Security deed of conveyance over President Trumans veto. This law required Communists and Communist Organizations to register with the US government. (Miller 1980) It called for deportation of Communist immigrants and prohibited the immigration of anyone who had belonged to a Communist Party. directly persons who had once been a communist, had been associated with communists, or just w ere radical, were subjected to intense investigations both close and public. Many were fired from their jobs due to this. Senator Joseph McCarthy conducted what he dubbed the Red Hunt which finally failed due to his lack of evidence and his butchering of the truth.He had gone besides far and was reprimanded by the Congress for actions that were not becoming of a senator. altogether of these actions taken by the government evoked not only its disapproval for Communism but also how its ear was always open and adjusted for the majority. These poor people were not given a chance to live private lives and practice what they believed to be true.In conclusion, it has been shown, throughout the history of the United States, that the majority of many take precedence of the minority of the few. No enumerate whose views are correct and just, a persons views should not be suppressed and condemned by many. That person should also not have to go through the persecution and overplus of thi s shunning. Those who survived it are heroes.ReferencesMiller, N. 1980. A New Solution Set for Tournaments and absolute majority take Further Graph-Theoretical Approaches to the Theory of Voting. American Journal of Political Science 24.168-96Miller, N. 1996. Majority Rule and minority Interests. In Shapiro, I. and Hardin, R. eds. PoliticalOrder Nomos XXXVIII. New York New York University PressStrom, K. 1990. Minority Government and Majority Rule. Cambridge Cambridge University Press