> Debate is and will always be needed.

Sometimes. Just not with if you should have rights or not and not with the oppressed and the oppressor.

> Ok… One of these is not like the others.

All of them included violence.

> It’s troubling the you keep lumping together violent with non-violent resistance.

In Peru, these protests were often pretty violent (and that is a good thing).

> So in this amoral world view, nothing is inherently or fundamentally wrong.

I don't think you know what amoral means.

> It’s only wrong if its results are bad for the largest number of people.

And/or if it fails to minimise suffering for the most amount of people and maximise happiness for the most.

> So 1) minority rights will not exist

Yes they will. Because eliminating the rights of the minority does not actually maximise happiness.

Funnily enough you are saying this in this context, given that the current constitution and congress is very much against the rights of natives in Peru.

> justice will be determined by the subjective and arbitrary whims of whoever is in power.

idk wtf just happened in ur head that made u come to that conclusion but ok.

> Out of curiosity, what would you replace it with? S

That's up to the people of Peru, but if you ask me; Direct Democracy, Council Democracy and/or Democratic Centralism (if the latter, or maybe even the formers, under the leadership of a revolutionary mass-based party. Kinda like some of the parties in Peru rn).

> You also said yourself that the problem is people in Peru are bad at deliberative democracy.

"No I didn't"

> But what I’m saying to you is that this is not caused by the government or its institutions.

Yes it is. The history of every single government in existence has been the history of a certain class that wants to keep its power.

In the times of post-agriculture that was centred around the pacification of slaves or people that were not the chosen patriarch or whatever. Without the state/government, the contradicting interests between the slave and the slave owner would easily result in societal collapse until someone made a state that could enforce its will and pacify one of the other classes.

Under feudalism this expanded to be the king over the peasentry (and some parts of the nobility, gentry and merchants).

Under Capitalism it was to ensure the dominance of the Capitalist class as opposed to any other. Be that a feudal class in the times of the French Revolution or the working class now. In other words, the Peruvian state was and is orientated around the suppression of native rights and worker rights. especially when it uses the same structure made by the fascist Fujimori. Advocating for "respect" for institutions and trying to get rights in this context is naive at best and chauvinistic at worst.

This is just an overly simplistic view of history and government. Reducing the issues to just "individuals" and "a few bad apples" instead of looking at the systems does nothing to make sure this doesn't happen again.