your economics textbooks are clearly outdated

what if baron replies and tells you its the 2004 edition? THEN WHAT WILL YOU DO MELWIN!?!?!? OMG U BE DONE FORE

the CIA trumps his stupid books anyway

I was spanked with moon rocks until I became submissive.

Aren't some of the "minority" claiming that the "majority" is doing this right now? What is happening? You tell me.

This is such an ambiguous question in the first place. It is more of a FUD type of scenario than anything else. Example: What if the minority tomorrow decided on a physical assault on the majority?

latest edition, I'll take fiscal analysts word over the WMD IN IRAQ word

Strawman. Whether or not any minority is claiming anything is irrelevant to the core of this argument. But nice try.

There's nothing ambiguous about it in the first place, but let me clarify. Imagine this scenario: A law is passed that says, in legalese, "Only white Christians may vote".

The physical assault scenario is another strawman. Stick to the argument.

a law like that wont ever pas in todays society, so your arguement is hard to debate.

If a law saying only white Christians could vote i would be a General in the revolution!!!!

My point by showing my ridiculous example was to show the ridiculousness of your example. From my vantage point, you are evading the original question of whether a majority should rule or not by constructing these false scenarios. A straw man attempts to change the appearance of the opposing argument. If the original question was "should majority rule?" then I do not think that I am the one constructing straw men here, especially when you draw on biases, like the following:

Only because I hate unanswered questions, I will reply to this.

First we assume that there is majority support this law. By the same token, we also assume that there is a minority which opposes the law. We also assume that somehow this law was passed.

If you are asking what will happen, I will say that I can only make the assumption that the law will be revoked. I will admit, it is hard for me to argue against a point with such false premises.

It is already clear that the majority has made poor decisions in the past. I am sure that they will in the future. I must ask my original question again. How can we better govern if not by a majority? I never said or implied that the majority opinion should not be questioned.

How will this law be revoked if the minorities no longer have a say? http://humme.dk/emot/confused.gif

How has it happened in the past? I am sure the same factors that have shaped things like equal rights would come into play.

Exactly - women have become property holders, segregation (except the confederates) has been abolished, Apple Mac's are slowly becoming paper holders...

Thru the right of public speech, public demonstration, etc. the minority has been able to shape the majority's views - a freedom granted by both the Constitution and the spilt blood of the majority. But its still the majority rules - doesn't mean its the 'right' choice or the 'best', but its the best setup we have.

M0oni9, will you father my next child? :lol:

Ah, but that's where it gets funny.

Since the majority holds absolute power, they can also outlaw public speech, public demonstrations and every kind of dissent imaginable. Even a 51% majority, according to m0oni, should be able to do this.

The fact that the US managed to pull out of the minority oppression doesn't mean that it will always happen, or even that it happens most of the time. As person of some reknown proved in the '30s.

/applaud m0oni9

We're going back and forth at this point. By this reasoning, I could say that you want the minority to have power to silence the majority, and power to create the laws of the land.

too bad women get paid less on average and are hired less on average... seems to still be in effect to me