Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Do you not see a problem with that?
> 
> Of course I do.

Then that answers the question of why we can't "have to look at each 
attempted infringement and decide if it's sufficiently worthwhile to 
make people pay for it" or, as Chambers put it, "just say that, in some 
instances, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few."

> I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common 
> sense.

The best solution is to have a Constitution and an entire branch of 
government whose purpose is to ensure that he power of the majority 
stays within the bounds of that Constitution. ==> Check!

That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow 
(encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents. The 
ultimate solution is that those too often in the minority take up arms 
or vote with their feet. ==> Not yet, I hope!

The intermediate solution is to educate the electorate on why (besides 
being a bunch of meanies who don't want us to have stuff) the founding 
fathers chose to limit the power of the majority. ==> Fail!

  -Shay

Post a reply to this message