LordEd wrote:Psam wrote:Democracy does not literally mean "rule of the majority". It means "rule of the people". Not "most of the people with the exclusion of a few dissidents". Not "enough of the people that it's kind of obvious that that's the right decision".
It definitely doesn't mean the few dissidents who misinterpret the constitution can decide to rule themselves and ignore the rule of the majority without leaving the country and making their own.
And, if Psam thinks it means "everyone must agree before a rule can be applied" then good luck with that as the chances of 5 people totally agreeing on a set of rules is hard enough without trying to get 35+ million people to agree.
Especially since what Psam is upset over was in place (4 years between voting) long before he was even born.
If one can not apply a particular rule or policy that may be disliked by someone in the future - then nothing would get ever get done. I'm sure serial killers are quite against a Law that says murder is wrong.
Edited to add: It's ironic in the ISS rules, it's "majority rules" as well. So I wonder how Psam rationalizes his "majority rules" as somehow being different from others "majority rules". Ahhh... right. In his "majority rules" there's no minorities, but in others, he's a minority. So that raises the question of how Psam rationalizes his "minority because he's not part of the majority" is any different then my "minority because I'm not part of the ISS majority".
Either way, Psam has backed himself into a logical corner again where his own words are self-contradictory when measured against what he argued as his court case and position.