I am going to make an unpopular observation. Those of you who really have an idea of my life philosophy (which should be pretty obvious at this point) know how I voted on Amendment 2. I believe in liberty. Enough said on that. What I would like to point out though is the inconsistency in your reasoning about the whole why did it need 60% thing. Lets take a step back for a moment. With the understanding that this is not true for all of you, most of you seem to believe that we should have a system ruled by the majority. In other words, you want a society where we vote for the common good and thats how laws are made. Youll say, for example, enough people abused guns, so we should ban certain guns. Or, maybe you will say, enough people are offended by that religion, so they shouldnt be doing that in public. Or, for the sake of threes, enough people need financial assistance, so we should have some form of welfare net. If you accept such a society, then you should realize that setting up standards like needing 60% of the vote are perfectly reasonable. After all, you want the majority rule, dont you? 60% was not only voted on as the necessary amount for this amendment to pass, but it also affirms a much more solid majority. Do you get it, or do I need to explain more? The point is, if you want to change the way the system works, people need to change the way they think first. The goal of society shouldnt be to cater to the majority, but rather to liberate the individuals. In other words, your system of majority rules sucks and you discriminate against the smallest minority: the individual. PS: If you dont believe in that majority BS, then dont respond to this in a defensive fashion. This isnt directed at you.
Posted on: Thu, 06 Nov 2014 20:48:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015