Quote:
What about the "rule of law"? How about then the definitions of the rules in the rule of law? Once defined, how is it determined they should be interpreted? Is there a single legal theory that would be the perfect one for the task? We have all sorts of legal theories in play right now, is one of them the "perfect" one for the "perfect" democracy?
How does this "perfect" democracy deal with the paradox of individual rights and group rights when put to a test?
Then the original point, and why I asked: how does the "tyranny" of the majority come to play a role, is a tyranny of a majority actually necessary in a democracy? Or is it a structural assumption? That's why I want to know what "perfect" means.
|
If people's property and lives are protected, the rule of law exists. What do you mean by group rights? I'm not sure I'd recognize any. The individual's rights are what matters. Democracy is the rule of the majority, no? Unless you get everyone to agree, the majority will always have to impose some sort of rules on others, the key is to keep that to an absolute minimum. Perfect is, of course, an absract, because people are far from perfect.