Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> But that's still not precisely what we're arguing about. The precise 
>> thing we're arguing about is how to decide /when/ the rights of he 
>> many should outweigh the rights of the few. You believe the majority 
>> should decide when the majority's rights should impede upon the 
>> minority's. That's where I can't see your logic. I believe with the 
>> system you propose, two people will too often (always?) elect to eat 
>> the third.
> 
> Why can't we just say that, in some instances, the rights of the many 
> outweigh the rights of the few, and in others the rights of the 
> individual are paramount?

Because the individual doesn't have any say in the "why can't we just 
say..." The Constitution is his only defense against the many.

> 
> I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done in 
> this specific instance.

If this were allowed, *every* specific instance would lead to majority 
benefit at the cost of minority rights.

"""
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only 
exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse 
from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes 
for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury 
with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal 
policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the 
world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
  -Alexander Tytler (unverified)
"""

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message