The point is that government can only exercise power with the support of the majority, but a minority can block such action. It is not tyranny to make government take no action. Now that could be misused to prevent government from doing justice, such as when a jury acquits someone who is actually guilty of a crime, but our odds are better if we allow that to sometimes occur. And that is still not tyranny, properly speaking. It is injustice, but tyranny and injustice are not the same thing.
On 10/08/2009 01:06 AM, Sasan wrote: > While a direct democracy does indeed produce a Tyranny of the > majority, a republic only replaces that with a Tyranny of the > MINORITY. Either way, you will have Tyranny, so what's the point? -- Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------- Constitution Society 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322, Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [email protected] -------------------------------------------------------------------
