Hacker News Reader

Comment by renewiltord | Hacker News Reader

Well, the idea recognizes two concepts:

- We don't want the minority enforcing on the majority

- We don't want a plurality or even a majority enforcing on a minority under certain circumstances

So, for instance, even if 300 million Americans think "sfe22 should be stripped of their assets and have it given to us 300 million" that's not going to happen. Yes, that is 'tyrannical' of you to have such power but it is so nonetheless.

View on HN

Unfortunately I don’t agree. If 95% Americans want to steal my assets, something is wrong with the them (or me), and I should have probably seen it coming and leave. Why would I want to live in such extreme society anymore. If I was used to set an example that still would tell many a lot about this hypothetical america. Would a tyrant really be of any help then, maybe if it was somehow “good” to me, for a limited time but definitely does not justify its existence and cost on freedom and wealth.

Right, and that's your thesis for the world, but America lives under a different thesis, and some individual rights are protected, _even_ if 95% of people disagree.

Who decides what are individual rights? Would they be held up if 95% disagree with it? I mean it might work idk, it would just not be a democracy.

You're right. 95% is a bit much since they'd just amend the constitution and whack me. But it goes up to 66%-1 in the legislature, and I think that would correspond to ~75% in real life, so that's good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com