Once again, since no one is proposing such myths, you going back once again to the "those don't really exist" argument. Are you not understanding that no one is arguing about myths and "pure freedom", again, just like our little chat about "pure socialism, or pure free market, or absolute truth"? I do realize that some, even mainstream libertarians, do bring up such nonsence...but please inject them into my arguments.Freedom is a pesky word isn't it? You see, when there is government, certain freedoms are (by definition) removed - anything else would be an absence of government (aka anarchy) which is a myth and doesn't exist.
And I already informed you that a majority rules approach can and does also allow for "tyranny of the majority". Which you did not address with the above, you simply made a general statement about political activism. Understand, tyranny of the majority occurs even if you strictly allow eveyone to stand up for the rights they believe in....is the entire point.Democracy allows people to stand up for the rights they believe in so that government can protect those rights
Assume I know the basics please. You also appear to be missing the entire point about freedom.... this of course comes at the cost of freedom as every time you tell someone "you can't kill", for example, you are stripping that person's freedom to act in the way they choose, while at the same time protecting others rights to live their lives with a lower chance of being murdered ... do you see what I am getting at?
Once again, if freedom is only valued because of a majority, it doesn't meet any meaningful defintion of freedom.
If 100 people are free to vote, and 99 vote to hang one, beacuse he has big feet, by your reasoning that would be freedom. I don't care who stands up for his big-feet rights, or not. It doesn't make it a free society in any *meaningful* way. And I do assume you want to have a meaningful discussion.
As to murder being reasonable to prohibit it's not simply because a majority wants to (and yes a minority does NOT want to!), but because it is a necessary physical premise to being individually free, having ANY rights, having any expression, all fundametnals to the idea of democracy and life, liberty, etc. You can't logically petition for protection from government if you are dead. If you build a hierarchy of fundametnal rights, that's at the top. Likewise, it's protected.
Individual freedoms always collide with other individual freedoms in society. However, simply saying a majority wins the argument as to which freedoms you observe and which you do not, is your argument. And it's been shown to be absurd.
You have some other argument to make about this?