Who more often is the rights - the majority or minority?
“The rights that who has more rights“ (a national saying)
Actually at the majority no more rights, than at any minority. Proceeding from it, no minority can demand any priorities and privileges in relation to the majority. Interests of the majority need not smaller protection, than interests of any minority, especially if this minority tries to influence the majority aggressively. It is necessary to realize that the majority is not “crowd“, not “common people“, not gray weight as aggressive minorities try to present it, and the formed long time systematic education which collectively realizes itself in a landscape, history and culture. The majority is the greatest group of people connected by common interests and interested in development of production in the country. A lot of things depend on the majority if not everything therefore with it it is necessary to reckon, and not in a smaller measure, than with minorities or “elite“.
And what such “minority“? The minority is limited and rather small group of people united by the general origin, the general ideological installations or property of the general character that allows to oppose it to most of the people entering into more general community where also the minority enters. I would share minorities on creative and aggressive. The creative minority is actually the part of the majority integrated with the majority common interests, but the understanding need of positive changes which are not realized yet by the conservative majority always supporting preservation died about. The aggressive minority is a group of people which always is opposing itself to the majority, which is sticking out the special rights and demanding their observance due to infringement of the rights of the majority. For example, in Russia so-called “human rights activists“ are the aggressive ideological minority trying to impose to the majority the point of view on realization of basic rights and freedoms of the person so that the minorities which are aggressively opposing themselves to the majority had more rights less duties, than the majority. Therefore the aggressive minority is always not right.
Violation of the standard bans was the main strategy of aggressive minorities always, foreknowing that it will lead to destruction of society. For example, at the beginning of blossoming of liberalism in Russia they demanded to exempt culture from norms of morals and ethics. What it led to, we know: it is enough to include any program of our television. In Russia these features of outlook of aggressive minority give the grounds to define it as the destructive force seeking for destruction, and, therefore, bearing responsibility for everything, the occurred in our country, destructive processes fully. The aggressive minority actually not so disturbs that the majority thinks of it (well until the majority does not begin to demand their criminal liability for destructive actions). This minority tries to obtain not the equal rights though it constantly goes on about it. Its true purpose is always the power, in a limit - complete control over the majority and its resources. Therefore not incidentally on all destructive public actions near their organizers we surely see figures of aggressive opposition, is active them supporting (“the worse - the better“).
Unlike aggressive minorities which cannot be right by definition the creative minority operating in interests of the majority, most often, sooner or later, appears the right. Any civilized society develops due to creative minority. Creative persons under any conditions make minority in society, but it inhales new life in social system. And that usually inert majority started moving, it has to apprehend ideas of creative minority that happens when new ideas are clear and close to most of people, or, as they say, “are in the air“. Whether majority is right? Happens. But usually correctness remains behind minority. Why? Usually, when someone states original idea, many first do not perceive it, do not understand, often begin to object or deny. But there passes time, and life proves that stated new idea it was right. And then the new idea seizes most of people and begins to be realized. That is, as well as in science, the new idea passes a way in society from “it cannot be because it can never be“ through “and in it something is“ to “well who does not know it!“.
And now several statements of celebrated personalities. R. Descartes: “The majority of votes is not the incontestable certificate in favor of the truth which is hardly giving in to opening, for the reason that rather certain person, than the whole people will encounter such truth“. D. Merezhkovsky: “The majority is not always right. Will hope that it is more clever and honest people on light, than fools and swindlers; but if to fools and swindlers to add ignoramuses, then hardly the majority will be on the side clever and honest“. L. Petter: “In democracy the majority governs, and the minority specifies all the time where to twist a wheel“. Mark Twain: “If you noticed that you on the party of the majority, it is sure sign of the fact that it is time to change“.
The truth cannot be proved vote. It is proved by objective data which can be confirmed in practice, in real life. There is “a litmus piece of paper“ which allows to define who is right: if someone demands to himself more rights, than other people have them, - it is not right. Well, and it is always useful to put into practice the principle which made the person - the person: at first - think, then - do, and in any way not on the contrary. The scientific principle is also useful: “to call everything in question“ that, in general, same. So who is right and who is not right solve, dear readers, but at the same time does not prevent to involve the gray substance that in vain did not stand idle. And all to you benefits!