here are some excerpts that sum it up pretty neatly:
The basis of virtually all freedom is the right to private property.
Indeed, whenever you own something, you then are supposed to be free to do with it anything peaceful you want - "peaceful" meaning whatever doesn't violate anyone's right to do as he or she sees fit within his or her sphere of authority
In a free society, of course, people will have wishes concerning the composition of their neighborhood - whether, for example, a bunch of advertising or religious signs are to mar the view. But in a free society, the way such matters are supposed to be decided isn't by imposing the will of some on the will of the rest, even if the former are the majority. That would simply mean a version of tyranny, that of the majority, which is hardly an improvement over the tyranny of a dictator or political party.
Instead, those who want matters to be different should try to find some legal method to persuade the property owner in question to change his or her ways.
Too many Americans have become unrestrained democrats who believe that simply being in the majority renders whatever one decides to do perfectly acceptable. That this would have justified slavery at one time, or the lynch mob, or the destruction of democracy itself
Ovelix From Greece, joined Aug 1999, 639 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1069 times:
Majority is a way of deciding and practicing things but ONLY through a democratic meaning.
Many people confuse the free will and the majority's rule with "we do what we like" mentality.
In the past the "oligarchy" system was very spread. Now it has replaced by the democracy. But it seems that a few people with economical or political power, overpower the elected officials. This seems like an oligarchy system to me.
N202PA From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1551 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1050 times:
The basis of the American system of government is that the majority shouldn't be trusted all the time, for precisely the reasons mentioned above. This is why we have a republic instead of a straight democracy.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1025 times:
Sorry, but I'm confused. This "fine commentary" doesn't seem to have a point, or more accurately, an example. The crosses on private property are ok, and there seems to be a minor dispute on business sign ordinances. No signs were banned. It's hard to get excited about an issue that doesn't seem to be a problem, at least going by this articles examples. Those that did want the sign down DID find a legal way to challenge it and they lost. Now, if they burn it down in the night, THEN there's a story.............
Illini_152 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 989 times:
Nuts, he said democrats. not Democrats, there is a differance. In that context, we wasn't refering to members of the DNC, but people that believed in straight democracy, majority rule, damned the rest. And, sir, to dismiss an entire text because you disagree with one sentence, that sir, is crap.
Happy contrails - I support B747Skipper and Jetguy