More than three months have passed after the elections and we still have no new government. It has not gone as we are used to. There will be an extra option?
the Uncertainty surrounding who gets to form the government puts the finger on something. We don’t know who has control of us at a later stage. Some of us will be disappointed, wish that the prime minister, after all, not have too great a leeway to implement its policies. That you are not all affected in their daily lives.
We let others have power over us. Given that the majority will go in line with our own, it seems practical not be a problem.
the majority, by definition, is good. We would like to believe that the majority view is the best for the individual and society. But what suits me might not suit you. And, above all, the public’s opinions and values are not static.
only five years ago, took the forced sterilisation of transgender persons, still room. The legalization of same-sex marriage was voted through until 2009. This is an example of how the public consensus can affect the individual.
The american voters who did not vote for Donald Trump in the presidential election is probably happy that the president’s power is not absolute.
regarding what is right, good and true, it is reasonable that the individual has to decide for herself, but not over the other. Extra clear this now that intolerance and populism are growing.
If the public’s values drastically change will also majoritetsbesluten to follow the line. To limit the collective’s ability to enforce its will at the expense of the other can therefore be regarded as an insurance policy.
What is right now regarded as wrong tomorrow. Values are changing, the sentiment is shifting quickly and the coats are turned over after the wind. A lot can happen in the political game.
that think they know our best? Political decisions are often packaged in ”the best of intentions”–paper. It is tempting to paternalistiskt allowing the state to impose even ”better knowledge” of the other, thus to protect the individual from himself. Especially when the power’s interests happen to align with one’s own perceptions.
To give parliament influence over a citizen’s life is a risk. Therefore it is better to that of the collective power of the stick to the questions that you must solve together.
It is difficult to let everyone have their own judiciary, for example. But in many cases do not affect the individual’s choice of surroundings. These questions can be determined individually by those who are directly affected.
with the extent to which we may lay over each other. The doors we keep closed to the policy’s influence over us? What can the majority impose on the individual?
To discuss issues is important. But to discuss the issues the policy should be allowed to have power over, is at least as central. We can’t leave walkover in the question of political restraint. We know, of course, not actually who is the government in the future.
