Opinion of the following statement

[A18]

There's a difference between believing you're right and another person is wrong, and trying to force your personal values on someone else; that is, to bend and mold society by coercion, rather than persuasion.

[Gustaf]

There's a difference between believing you're right and another person is wrong, and trying to force your personal values on someone else; that is, to bend and mold society by coercion, rather than persuasion.

Are we still talking about the same issue here? I think you're bringing libertarian anti-government principles into this now, but that's kind of changing the discussion. I was making a point on why we would want to coerce ourselves, not others. There are obvious logical arguments, though perhaps not too principled, for coercing other people!

[A18]

This topic is about government. I don't think your example involves any kind of coercion.

[Citizen James]

Lacking the context of the quote, it is hard to know who "These orginizers " are, but here's my take in general terms.

I disagree with the fundemental assumption of the quote - that people are fundementally bad.  People may not be purely saintly, and may have some maliability; and of course there are some people who are  horibly corrupt  and evil - but I would consider them the exception, not the rule.

Hence the concept of social contract - the idea that the leaders are to be representitive of the people and the lawmakers accountable for the people.  The laws (ideally) are designed so that to 'ordinary' people they are just good sense and fair play, but they set limits so that the few individuals  who are less than honorable can be kept in check.  Similarly, we have  the concept of checks and ballances, so that if anti-ethical individuals do  get into goverment power, it is possible for more honorable individuals in the other branches to counter and curb abuses - not to mention the free press which is supposed to be the watchdog of the people  and bring to light any abuses or shameful behavior by those chosen to represent us.

[Emsworth]

Similarly, we have  the concept of checks and ballances, so that if anti-ethical individuals do  get into goverment power, it is possible for more honorable individuals in the other branches to counter and curb abuses - not to mention the free press which is supposed to be the watchdog of the people  and bring to light any abuses or shameful behavior by those chosen to represent us.

The system of checks and balances works very well in theory. In practice, however, it is but a sham. During extraordinary crises such as the Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Red Scare, and so forth, the system of checks and balances has proved futile. Yes, it may have worked during ordinary periods of time--but civil liberties are normally not in danger during such ordinary periods in the first place.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

I oppose majority rule in general. Why should I have to conform to the "morality" of the majorityp opulaiton(christian) if I'd rather live my life witohut having to put up with that?