Majority Rule vs Individual Rights

Which is more important?

  • Majority Rule

  • Individual Rights


Results are only viewable after voting.

dblack

Diamond Member
May 21, 2011
54,186
13,324
2,180
If you had to sacrifice one for the other, which would you choose?

Don't bore me with details. I know it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. I know it depends on the details of any given situation. I don't care. For the purposes of the pole, take as stand. In broad strokes, which is more important to you?
 
If you had to sacrifice one for the other, which would you choose?

Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

People have no problem banning things they don't personally enjoy. They have no problems restricting the liberties of those who aren't them.
 
Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.
 
Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.
 
Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

Yes, but that is a 100% deviation from you previous statement.
 
Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

Yes, but that is a 100% deviation from you previous statement.

Not at all. Spock made that choice because he believed his life was less important than the guys who clean the toilets on the Enterprise. That's his decision based on his own belief.

Another person, a more logical person, might have just grabbed the last escape pod and said, 'Suck it, Trekkies... I'm out of here'.

Spock's need ... was to be the martyr who got to go on and direct 'Star Trek III'. He fulfilled that need by getting a great death scene in 'Star Trek II'.
 
Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

I believe it was Spock, and he said it when explaining to Kirk why he accepted certain death to save the ship and its crew.

But, Spock made his choice, it wasn't forced upon him. That's the definition of personal liberty.

Yes, but that is a 100% deviation from you previous statement.

Not at all. Spock made that choice because he believed his life was less important than the guys who clean the toilets on the Enterprise. That's his decision based on his own belief.

Another person, a more logical person, might have just grabbed the last escape pod and said, 'Suck it, Trekkies... I'm out of here'.

Spock's need ... was to be the martyr who got to go on and direct 'Star Trek III'. He fulfilled that need by getting a great death scene in 'Star Trek II'.

:alcoholic:
 
Pop-culture educated liberals might not understand it but individual rights are spelled out in the Constitution. Regardless of the changing moods and attitudes of the vocal alleged "majority" we rely on Constitutional scholars to settle disputes about the Constitutionality of laws. Would you have it any other way?
 
If you had to sacrifice one for the other, which would you choose?

Whoever said, 'The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' only said it because his needs weren't in jeopardy.

People have no problem banning things they don't personally enjoy. They have no problems restricting the liberties of those who aren't them.
It couldn’t have been said better....
 
If you had to sacrifice one for the other, which would you choose?

Don't bore me with details. I know it doesn't have to be a dichotomy. I know it depends on the details of any given situation. I don't care. For the purposes of the pole, take as stand. In broad strokes, which is more important to you?

You start a thread and don't want people to give you details? Right...

Which is more important?

It's like asking which you'd prefer, to get sunburned every day or to never see the sun. Life is a balance. I like balance.
 
It seems strange that the crazy angry left that was drifting towards anarchy and socialism is suddenly worried about their Constitutional rights.
 

Forum List

Back
Top