[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can I pay you to come to my home and cook me some rotten dogmeat soup?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. If I know that it will harm you, even if I know YOU KNOW it will, it leaves me in a tight spot. All of a sudden things like euthenasia come into play. Tough. I would decline on moral grounds. I also think that I should be bounded by some laws ( Im thinking of that case in germany where one guy signed a contract saying that he gives the other guy permission to kill and him eat)

[ QUOTE ]
Also, are there any things that should NOT happen even though 51% of the voters may support it?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the obvious answer is no. Majority rules I guess. This is a very deep question that I'm sure has been debated ad naseum by people a lot smarter than myself. My take is that the 50% rule is the best humans have come up with , the problem is that some voters are not as informed as others. When people are ignorant/propogandianzied than 50%+ rule can be dangerous.



[/ QUOTE ]

Another "best I could think of" = "best possible" fallacy. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is worse than tyranny of the minority or tyranny of the individual how, exactly? Unless you have unanimity there is "tyranny" of consequences for some group.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can always limit the scope of the majority's authority with a consitution.

Hey, the USA does that. What an idea. Even if the majority wanted to take away your right to a trial by jury they cannot.

natedogg