Yes, and I'm glad they did, but the philosophical kicker is that some of the people didn't agree. Was it OK for them to force those already living here to thereafter live under their authority? Is it that Might makes Right, as long as it is used justly (according to whose conception of justice)?
If 100 of us are on an island and 51 of us agree that there should be no alchohol, tobacco, "nekkid pitchers," firearms, or high cholesterol foods (all of which in their own ways pose some potential detriment to self or others) is it OK to form a government approved by the 51 and forbid those things? Just about everyone agrees that our Founders were wrong on a few things. Was it unjust for them to impose "wrong" laws on those who didn't agree with them or even agree with the formation of government?
All of this is meaningless except as (for me) a thought-provoking exercise. If people can only form governments when there is 100% agreement, there will be a million+ "countries" and that ain't ever gonna happen. As the article says, those with the power to do so will form governmental structures which they perceive to serve their own, sometimes narrow, interests.
... since then it has been a slow slide into the abyss.
Sometimes not so slow.
Thanks for the reply, and FReegards.
It depends on how our island government was formed. If we 100% agreed that things are banned if a panel of three chicken slaughterers justifies the ban by looking at chicken entrails, then that's what is rightly banned, regardless of percentages that want nekkid pitchers, etc. banned. The solution to the "tyranny of the majority" quandary is that a 100% agreement should be sought to the process of lawmaking -- i.e. the island's constitution. Each specific law should be made as per the process, -- be it chicken entrails or simple majority, or whatever.