On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:50:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:57:06 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
If that's what the majority wants, then what's wrong with it?

The fact that "the majority" has no influence on what's right; and that
our constitutional principles are founded on limiting the tyranny of the
majority. That is a big reason why the United States is a republic, not
a democracy.

Bull ****. Our republic is set up exactly so that the will of the
majority of the people can prevent the tyranny of ONE (or a few)
dictator (a minority). It is exactly set that way so that the wishes
of the majority will be heard.

You are wrong here.......the consitution was set up as a republic to protect
minority rights from that of the majority's wishes, and second, to limit the
power of the federal guvmint.

Gee, then if that was true, then why were slaves not given any due
consideration for their rights until after the civil war? It would
seem that there were exceptions to this concept of guaranteed minority
rights.

When I was in school the definition given for this country's
government was stated as a "representative democracy". A form of
democracy where we elect people to represent our wishes before the
congress. Our senators and representatives are then SUPPOSED to vote
the will of their constituency.

There has been much word smithing being done as of late on the
semantics of the terms "democracy", "republic", "representative
democracy" etc.. It would seem to me that much of this is simply
being done in order to twist the words of our founding fathers into a
more liberal interpretation of what they actually meant.

Do you mean to tell me that our election process, and in the voting
in of propositions and local ordinances are not based on the results
of a majority ruling?

I think there's a disconnect in terminology here. "Rights" do not
necessarily mean the same thing as "laws" or "the will of the people"


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=42248


It makes logical sense that the needs of the majority outweighs the
needs of the few.

But it makes greater sense that the RIGHTS of the individual outweigh the
wants of the majority.

Not if they are in direct conflict with them.

Otherwise what you are basically saying is that the will of the
greater number of people is to be held hostage to the will of the
lesser. It defies logic.

Is it more logical to **** off a large group of people, or a small
one?

Certain basic rights shall be guaranteed to the minority as well as
the majority, but the majority still makes the rules. Otherwise why
have elections at all?

Rights are also not guarantees. You have the right to vote, but you
don't have the guarantee that your guy will win. You have the right to
the pursuit of happiness, but not the guarantee that you'll achieve
it. You have the right to seek gainful employment, but no guarantee
that you'll get the job you want or be able to keep it. You have the
right to challenge or protest a law or action you feel is somehow
"wrong", but there is no guarantee that the majority of the rest of
the people will agree with you, or that the action will be overturned.

If you like opera, and want the town planners to build a theater for
it, but the majority of the town would rather build a new football
stadium, guess who will win?

THAT is what I mean by majority rule.

Dave