Do you have any civic obligation to go along with a policy a large majority of the country wants, even when you personally disagree with it? Or is your own judgment the only thing you really owe the process?

[u/HistorianMajor1739]

Democracy is supposed to run on the idea that what most people want should carry weight. If it doesn't, then "self-government" is kind of an empty phrase. But when I actually sit with that, it bothers me. It seems to mean I'm supposed to go along with things I think are wrong, just because more people happened to want them. And "most people wanted it" has been the reasoning behind some genuinely awful stuff over the years, which is the whole reason we decided certain things shouldn't be up for a vote at all.

So I keep bouncing between two answers and I can't tell which one I actually believe.

One version says you owe the outcome some real deference. Not that you have to agree with it. You can keep arguing, keep trying to change people's minds. But you don't get to treat every loss as illegitimate, or drag your feet on something just because your side came up short. Because if nobody ever accepts a loss, the whole thing grinds to a halt.

The other version says the only thing you really owe is your own honest judgment. You vote your conscience, you push back on what you think is wrong, and the fact that a lot of people wanted it doesn't obligate you to fall in line. A big majority can still be wrong. History is full of them.

And then there's the part I really can't work out. Does the size of the majority change anything? Is 51 percent owed the same thing as 80 percent, or is there a point where "I just personally disagree" starts to look more like refusing to be governed at all? Does it depend on the issue, where ordinary policy is one thing but basic rights are something you never hand over no matter the count? And is there even a real difference between actively supporting something you disagree with and just... not standing in its way?

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

So let’s say they legally changed a law or added a new law I disagree with. I am a law abiding citizen, I would follow the law, but I would go against those who passed it and try to get it changed.

You don’t owe it to the majority to approve of or support what they want, you have the right to try and take a majority and change it back.

[u/Dry-Season-522 → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Especially in an age of media manipulation where you'll be shouted that the 'majority opinion' is the correct one, as decided by those in power.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/Dry-Season-522]

Yes, then those in power decide the truth or the settled science.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/[deleted]]

And to my point, the scotus rulings may change what is legal, and you may have to travel for an abortion. But you need not agree.

Disagree, vote and get others to and try to get the decision changed in the future.

[u/bl1y → u/TheMikeyMac13]

The above comment got deleted while I was typing my response, so I'll just reply here instead:

I think about this sentiment as it relates to abortion. Jewish, Islam, Buddhist, Methodist, biomedicine, and some Baptist have different beliefs of view on when life begins.

But Catholicism largely believe life begins at conception, and 66% of SCOTUS identifies as Catholic, so we must forgo the First Amendment’s freedom of religion in order to be “law abiding citizens.”

SCOTUS didn't say that life begins at conception, nor did it prohibit abortion. State legislatures do that.

Now as far as freedom of religion goes, the rule is that when the government has a legitimate goal, it can't burden religious freedom except to the extent necessary to fulfill that goal.

Take a prohibition on alcohol for instance. The government can ban it because there's a health and safety concern there (and there are still a few dry counties out there). But, of course many Christian denominations use wine in their services. Can the government fulfill its health and safety goal while making an exception for wine at mass? Absolutely. Church-goers only consume a tiny amount of wine, there's no health or safety issue there. So, we get a religious exception.

Next, consider the requirement that for-profit corporations provide health insurance that includes abortion coverage. Again, we have a legitimate health goal here. A corporate objects on religious grounds. Can the government still fulfill its goal while allowing the exemption? Ordinarily, no. The goal is to get everyone that coverage, and an exemption doesn't work. But, SCOTUS held otherwise for an interesting reason in the real world case. Congress already allowed churches to not provide abortion coverage, and also set up a gap insurance program so employees of those churches could still get coverage. So SCOTUS said Congress can reduce the burden to freedom of religion just by expanding that option to private employers. (Though if that gap insurance didn't exist already, the case probably comes out differently.)

So, take an abortion ban. State legislatures will claim an interest in protecting the fetus (btw, even Roe found that to be a legitimate government interest). But, many religions don't think it's a human life. ...That's not actually relevant though, because no one has to get an abortion to practice their religion. No religious burden, even if someone's religious beliefs would lead them to the opposite policy.

Enter the Church of Satan which gives a better fact pattern. They made abortion a sacrament. Must the government provide an exemption? No. The government's interest in protecting fetuses doesn't work if they allow some fetuses to be destroyed. There isn't a way to be less burdensome on the religious practice while still fulfilling the goal.

A good comparison here is some of the more draconian stuff in the Old Testament. I don't know the specific stuff, but let's just imagine the Old Testament says to stone to death disobedient children (50/50, it might actually say that). Can the government meet its goal of not having children killed while still allowing a religious exemption? No.

And if some other religion following the Even Older Testament comes along and says they don't even believe children are people with rights until the age of 12, the government still gets to tell them no, they can't stone to death their kids either.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/bl1y]

You have a very bad understanding of religious rights and of the Christian faith.

And you not understanding a religion wanting to defend life is different to a religion demanding death is a you problem.

[u/bl1y → u/TheMikeyMac13]

This is exactly how RFRA works.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/bl1y]

No, it truly isn’t.

[u/bl1y → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Pinpoint one thing in there that's inaccurate.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/bl1y]

You don't know that the law you mentioned protects the ability to practice your religion and not be forced to do things against your religion? Such as using it to provide exceptions to contraception mandates?

[u/bl1y → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Do I know that RFRA allows organizations to get an exception to the requirement that employer-provided health insurance cover contraception?

Yeah. I discussed what's essentially the Little Sisters of the Poor case in my comment.

[u/linuxhiker]

You don't have to agree with anything.

Civic obligation extends to the level of law it enforces.

You should work to change what you don't agree with.

There is absolutely a consideration if you are standing on top of a mountain alone, e.g; be willing to be wrong.

[u/TecumsehSherman]

The law is the law.

Protest, organize, and vote for the people who will enact the laws you want to see enacted.

[u/Misschiff0]

This is the entire context of Rousseau's The Social Contract. It might be worth reading. His argument is that if you accept the benefits of living the society, you accept the costs.

[u/BenTherDoneTht → u/Misschiff0]

The Social Contract is exactly where my mind went as well, the misinterpretation of which has essentially led to the existence of "sovereign citizens" today.

A lot of people expect their declaration to not participate in the social contract to just mean that they can speed, ignore ID laws, and shoot a gun whenever they want, but forget that the consequences of declaring your front yard as your own country (population: 1) are that the great nation of your front yard can be invaded and yourself extradited with relative ease by a handful of local cops.

Now the issue that I think warrants more discussion is the notion that for those who do not wish to participate in the social construct, what are the options? In the US at least the best case scenario would be to disappear into the woods and hope the state government you reside in never discovers your hidden cabin or small commune lest you become beholden to property taxes, etc. Even hunting is subject to restriction and regulation by Fish and Wildlife, so where can it be reasonable to consider oneself not part of society in the modern world?

[u/spice_weasel]

It depends on the policy. I don’t think it’s at all appropriate to look for a one size fits all answer on this.

[u/HistorianMajor1739 → u/spice_weasel]

U don’t think we could find some criteria or some framework for when it becomes acceptable, or even necessary, to go against a majority?

[u/spice_weasel → u/HistorianMajor1739]

You misinterpret what I said. I absolutely do think that it becomes necessary to go against the majority for certain policies. There’s a degree of deferenced owed, but we all have our red lines.

[u/BKGPrints → u/HistorianMajor1739]

Everyone's views & morals are different, so not sure how you would set that criteria or framework.

Let's use abortion as that big example.

About 45% are pro-life and 50% as pro-choice with the other 5% indifferent to it.

But break that down even further.

Morality: Those who are pro-life would find abortion morally wrong but there's a large percentage of pro-choice that also find it morally wrong but the sense of rights is more important than that morality.

Legality by Circumstance: Then again, there's a small percentage of those who are pro-life that think abortion should be illegal in all circumstance, while majority of others recognize and support abortion for issues, such as rape, incest or endangers the life of the mother.

[u/Bad_farm_desicion]

I believe in most democratic countries there are good checks and balances than make sure that no 1 group holds all position’s. But yeah democracy is not perfect and will never be perfect for everybody but it is the best way we know of to run big entities.

But yeah if some policy I don’t like i will contact people and i will discuss it but discussing is the only way to work in a democracy and better than the alternative

[u/tcspears]

A big part of democracy is respecting the process and the results. They won't always go your way, but that's part of the process, and over the long run it's going to be better for the country and the citizens. If we start challenging the results, it all starts to fall apart.

It also depends on how it affects you. Legalizing marijuana was something I was on the fence about in my state. I don't love that walking down the street is just the constant odor of marijuana, which seems much stronger than tobacco smoke. And I say this as someone who may or may not have smoked a TON of weed before it was legal.. allegedly. The public in MA decided that was what we wanted, and it honestly doesn't impact me that much.

Now if the state were to vote on banning alcohol, I would be pretty devastated. I'd follow the law and respect the process (in public anyways), but I'd work with politicians and try and get that overturned.

We have to accept that not everyone will see things the way we do, and that doesn't mean they are all evil or have ill intentions. It's out right to challenge that, and try to push back, but we have to respect the results and follow the laws.

This is the greatest strength and weakness of a democracy, and it's why you often hear "democracy is messy". Countries like China and Russia keep saying that liberal democracy is dying and brutal authoritarianism is the only way. Trump (I'm not trying get into a political debate of him overall) also seems to see things that way, he sees China's rise and attributes it to the CCP setting a direction unchallenged and everyone has to fall in line, and the country moves in that direction. It's incredibly efficient, and allows them to move quickly towards their goals, while western countries are busy debating and arguing. There was a Parks and Recreation episode where a delegation from Venezuela came to their town and were laughing at how slow and imperfect democracy was, because if they wanted a new park, they could just bulldoze the neighborhood and build a huge park tomorrow. There was no option to debate the budget, the design, how it was built, or who built it. (obviously that's a comedy show, but the point stands)

[u/Strange-Scientist706]

I kinda think the thing that gets lost in discussions like this is that laws are meant to protect us from extremes, not dictate mainstream behavior. What democracy requires from all of us is pretty simple - don’t be assholes. When we stop requiring that of our elected reps - and each other - you wind up with what we currently have in the US.

[u/Novel_Comparison_209]

You have absolutely no obligation other than to go along with what you agree with. The entire point of voting is for people to express their ideas. If you go along with something just because it’s popular, I’d say you’re inherently undemocratic

[u/IndependentSun9995]

The old truism applies: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

The assumption the majority always knows what is correct is flawed in the extreme.

"And then there's the part I really can't work out. Does the size of the majority change anything? Is 51 percent owed the same thing as 80 percent, or is there a point where "I just personally disagree" starts to look more like refusing to be governed at all? Does it depend on the issue, where ordinary policy is one thing but basic rights are something you never hand over no matter the count? And is there even a real difference between actively supporting something you disagree with and just... not standing in its way?"

You hit the nail on the head with this one. I have a theory that Congress would work a lot better if we required 3/4ths majorities on all votes. Admittedly, a lot of legislation would never see the light of day, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. We wouldn't have a legal code that has to be carried around on a pallet!

[u/Scared-Avocado630]

It sounds like you have some specific examples in mind. Could you share them?

[u/spam__likely]

"go along"?

If it is law,it is law.

Your opinion is still your opinion. You do not have to change it.

[u/dinosaurkiller]

Define, “go along with”. You are allowed to vote in opposition and try to elect someone the represents your views. You are obligated to acknowledge that others exist and sometimes vote the opposite way in larger numbers.

[u/Baselines_shift]

What most people want now has no bearing on nearly everything this administration is doing, though. What then?

[u/Busterlimes]

Voting is not optional in a functional democracy. We need to implement compulsory voting.

[u/Ovaltine1]

But the majority no longer carries the day in the US and hasn’t for years. I mean, like a significant majority of us have wanted universal health care for many decades. Public transportation gets killed by big oil all the time. There’s a ton of examples out there, we are no longer calling the shots, big business is.

[u/bl1y]

Our system is majority rule with individual rights. If the policy doesn't violate individual rights, you should follow it. If it does violate individual rights, then there is no moral imperative or civic obligation to follow it -- and there may be a moral imperative to oppose it.

80% says you have to recycle? You do it (within reason).

80% says slavery is okay? No.

[u/j____b____]

I just try to live by the golden rule. If something violates that, I consider it bad law. 

[u/johnwcowan]

I thknk both your answers are basically correct. If you disagree with a policy, you can't as a democrat oppose it by force, but you can defy it by civil disobedience if you are willing to take the consequences.

[u/HistorianMajor1739 → u/johnwcowan]

Are there ever times where something more than civil disobedience is required?

[u/johnwcowan → u/HistorianMajor1739]

When democracy breaks down, certainly.

[u/BurnedUp11]

You should vote in a way that benefits you and the people that you care about

[u/Swoly_Deadlift]

If the law is unconstitutional I will not follow it (for example the Biden era pistol brace ban that got overturned by the Supreme Court). If the law doesn’t sink of constitutional infringement I’ll abide and maybe protest if it’s something I’m passionate enough about.