@mewmew Because the pigs told the coyotes that the wolves tried to steal their lambs, and told the wolves that the coyotes tried to steal their lambs.

@mewmew @Galena Have to ask, what brought it to mind?

@wolfie @Galena terrible, terrible YouTube comments

@wolfie @Galena (also being hungry)

@mewmew @Galena Probably should eat something then. Perhaps lamb?

@wolfie @mewmew Or pork.

@Galena @mewmew Also good

@wolfie @Galena it's a dictatorship over here

@mewmew @Galena Ahhhhhhh

Well, now I’m curious as to what you find objectionable in the idea contained therein?

@wolfie @Galena the idea that since majority rule is bad, minority rule is better.

@mewmew @Galena Were that the case, I think you might be right but I don’t think that’s the idea the quote is really trying to get across. There are those who tend to think that simply because the majority agree on a thing, whatever the thing may be, it is good and justified and thus should the law or rule or whatever.

In such a situation, you do have effectively two wolves debating the lamb as to the question of dinner. In fact, the quote in question is more about the protection of the minority from the majority which is necessary to prevent the majority from simply voting way the minority’s rights, property or what not.

When people say that unlimited and unbounded democracy is formalized mob rule, they’re not wrong. Which is not to say a direct or full democracy cannot work. It just must be limited to prevent the majority from either screwing over the minority or even eventually screwing themselves over. This is all a long way of saying that simply because a thing was voted on and approved, does not make it moral, justified or anything inherently good. Know what I mean?

@wolfie @mewmew Just let the lamb own a gun. If the wolves try to eat it, he can shoot them.

@Galena @mewmew Until the hypothetical wolves vote away the lamb’s gun. Which they would in such a hypothetical situation

Still, like the idea

@wolfie @mewmew Which is why we should abandon democracy and embrace individualist anarchism

@wolfie @Galena sure. We need general rules that protect everyone - but putting the minority in charge isn't a good way to get there.

@mewmew @Galena This is is true. However, tyranny of the majority is a very real threat that has to be protected against. Like most things, it’s a balancing act

@wolfie @mewmew @Galena this is why we're a constitutional republic they're not supposed to be able to even vote away guns without 70%+ approval.

@icedquinn @Galena @mewmew

Personally, I’d argue that some things flat shouldn’t be up for a vote ever regardless of how much of the majority agrees. The reason for this is quite simple. Anything that can be voted away eventually will be, given enough time. The right of self-defense, of which owning guns is ultimately merely a subset or expression of such, arguably should be such a thing that’s not up for a vote. Free Speech and Expression as well. The majority should not be allowed to vote away the rights of the minority and given enough time, they will

@wolfie @Galena @mewmew they aren't taking the liberties with amendments, they are simply ignoring the social contract entirely.

this is done through arduous word play and debating what the definition of "is" is.

ex. in EFF v. NSA the NSA argued "unreasonable" doesn't really apply because if we're violating "everyone's" rights then did we really treat "you" in an unreasonable way? It's normal for us to spy on everything so therefore its reasonable we spied on you.

Or speech via well "this" isn't really "speech" because it has no artistic value, so if its not "speech" then its not "really" covered, knowing full well the first amendment says nothing about what qualifies as speech and only that it shall not be abridged.

I would argue the intentionally onerous margin required for passing an amendment, coupled with society simply refusing to obey it, means it was working as intended.

@wolfie @Galena @mewmew although most societal spheres aren't massive confederacies so you don't need as many safeties to prevent uprisings i'd suppose. in the two wolves and a lamb it's pretty much up to the virtue of the wolves or the lamb's posession of recreational nukes that decides how it ends.

@icedquinn @Galena @mewmew

There is that. Though from time to time, uprising of various types are likely necessary to the well functioning of the proverbial machine

@icedquinn @Galena @mewmew

I would argue the intentionally onerous margin required for passing an amendment, coupled with society simply refusing to obey it, means it was working as intended.

Do you mean to say that society refusing to comply with their restrictions, combined with the difficulty of changing things via amendment (while still allowing it for truly important things) means the process as designed was working as intended?

As to the rest, I partly blame the courts. They’ve honestly failed us for various reasons over the decades. I also blame us though. Far too many people have been interested in voting in politicians who make them big promises but aren’t interested in defending rights or even respecting them. In some cases, it’s even worse in that their promises will actively infringe on rights or lead to the same and then they vote them in O.o