If every man's political opinion is governed by self-interest, but
self-interest consists of two parts, one of which is peculiar to the
individual, while the other is common to all the members of the
community. If the citizens have no opportunity of striking log-rolling
bargains with each other, their individual interests, being divergent,
will cancel out, and there will be left a resultant which will
represent their common interest; this resultant is the general will,
then this accumulation process can sometimes lead to harmful results
for some or even all..
http://www.garretwilson.com/books/reviews/historywesternphilosophy.html
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliHill.htm
Tyranny of wills is your prescription, the unkowing herd wherever it
may lead or the single tyrant whatever he selfishly desires? How about
instead of the court of last resort being a herd or a king, we produce
the individual's rights, negative and positive, to become the boundry
in which chaos is repelled?
A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through
a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a
harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the
interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general
population which s/he governs or controls. This mode of rule is
referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials
are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of
controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of
democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which
decisions made by a majority under that system would place that
majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be
comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as
constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of
rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to avoid the
problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
The Harm Princple Shall be The boundry; the sole purpose of law [and
State] should be to stop people from harming others.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as
entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the
individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means
used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral
coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for
which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in
interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-
protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully
exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will,
is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral,
is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or
forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will
make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be
wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for
which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the
part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right,
absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is
sovereign.
-- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
(1) It is the function of the state to protect, enhance, and implement
the natural or human rights of its citizens and to provide for just
adjudication of conflicting claims that may arise among the citizenry.
(2) There needs to be a clear distinction between offending and
harming.
(3) There needs to be a clear distinction between being easily
avoidable from unavoidable.
(4) A widespread belief that a practice is immoral or patterns of and
ways of life indicate that the offense ought rest on either side of
the distinctions presented in (2) or (3) even if true, is not itself a
reason for imposing crimminal penalties.
(5) Legal prohibition of offensive or immoral acts should be confined
to those cases where the objectional behavior is difficult to avoid.
(6) The right to individual liberty is best justified by "showing" it
to be a precondition fro the promotion and protection of personal
autonomy and a minimally decent life.
(7) Therefore the burden of proof resides on the offended individual
to "show" how the offensive behavior interferes with the above
atributes of an lifestyle of liberty.
(8) Furthermore it is the interest of an individual living the style
suggested to extrapolate the difference between these propositions and
those below itith.
(9) Through individual cases creating evolving sets of precedents
which counterbalance patterned judicial prejudice and (4) widespread
beliefs are proportionatly out of the equation of distributing
criminal justice, justice becomes an adaptable non-predjudicial
emergent phenomenon. (seeFederalistPapers-10-[factions])
(10) Once justice freely emerges with the least possible biased
influence from differing parties then and only then with the
efficiency with which differring ethical beliefs function to promote
cultural evolution, that efficiency can be the criterien to judge them
by as time changes technology and social arrangements.
(11) As in the American social contract which can mutate and adapt to
changing times smoothly by amendment and checks and balances, justice
becomes likewise an living creature with an homostaisistic self
regulation by individual feedback and adjustments to individual
liberties.
(12) Walk out and pet this creature to see if it bites today but know
it is "fit"
