[annalex]

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?

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.

[LSJohn]

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.

We sure agree about the 100% agreement in the formation of government, and that's what led to my statment in #7 to the effect that only small groups of people would ever be able to form a just government. If I read you correctly, in order for the formation and operation of a government to be rightful and just it must:

1) Recognize and protect inalienable (natural) rights;

2) Establish and implement laws which follow a process as set out in the founding document, which document must...

3) Enjoy 100% support from the populace over whom it proposes authority.

I agree, but outside examples similar to my island with 100 inhabitants, ain't gonna happen, and the founding of our Republic, the best ever, did not meet the criteria.

It's a brain-twister.