Two thoughts and a coffee
Does tyranny of the minority actually exist? I think that no, it does not, and that the phrase is actually a linguistic or rhetorical device created by the majority to sanitize and justify the otherization of minority actions or ideas. I came to this thought when thinking about how opponents of same sex marriage claim that same sex marriage (SSM) detracts from or destroys one-man-one-woman (OMOW) marriage. Precisely how SSM destrows OMOW marriage has never been explained to me, only asserted. I think that since same sex couples are rather unlikely to engage in OMOW marriage in the first place, the cardinality of the set of people that do or potentially engage in OMOW marriage is unaltered by the state validating the existence of the set of people who want to engage in SSM. Since nothing is subtracted from the OMOW set, I say there is no tyrrany [except the tyrrany of the state against it's citizens who want to marry a partner of their choice.]
How does local government square with the idea of strong national defense? Noopy and I think they're antithetical. I think that strong national defence can only be justified by the existence of the Other, who will lay wanton destruction to Our land unless we have a deterrent in the form of strong national defence.
Man, coffee makes you think! When Paul Erdos said "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems" he was not joking.
How does local government square with the idea of strong national defense? Noopy and I think they're antithetical. I think that strong national defence can only be justified by the existence of the Other, who will lay wanton destruction to Our land unless we have a deterrent in the form of strong national defence.
Man, coffee makes you think! When Paul Erdos said "A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems" he was not joking.