Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

I wasn't so much exaggerating as I was showing you an example. I was trying to show that if majority does not necessarily mean 'right', after all, if two people in a room were ignorant about the mathematics system and thouht 1 + 1 actually was 5, would they be correct? By your standards they would be- after all, majority rules. Your entire argument is based off of a logical fallacy- the fallacy is called appeal to popularity. Flawed logical that appeals to the 'because it is popular it is right' is incorrect. For more information about this fallacy, you can check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org... Your comment on the mathematics system being 'voted' upon, as if in a 'democracy' is laughable and ridiculous. For more information, might I suggest here. http://en.wikipedia.org... You suggest I can not force my views on a whole nation- and disapprove of the minority ruling over the majority. You misunderstand two things. Firstly, you misunderstand democracy itself. Democracy is in fact tyranny of the majority- 51% of the people have the right to decide what happens to 49% of people, in a true democracy that could mean as much as the death of a minority group, to certain groups being oppressed, to certain others being given privileges. Democracy still involves force, and people supporting that force in numbers does not justify it. You believe that a minority imposing their view on the majority is necessarily bad. If, for instance, the majority of the people in the USSR supported it while 40 million of their people were starving, would that make what they do just? No- in fact, the minority of people supporting freedom and liberty would be the just ones! I agree it is unethical to force your views on others- however, democracy just does this- it forces the view of the majority on the minority. My system would not be so much 'force', but allowing all views to be equal- everybody to be equal without fears of one group getting special advantages over another. This should be enforced by a strict constitution, one that can not exist in your idea of a democracy. Democracies and liberty stand opposed to each other, if you want people to be the most free you must allow them to be free in their actions, letting the two wolves and the sheep live their lives as they see fit, rather than as in your system, allowing the two wolves and a sheep to decide what is for dinner. You argue that if you live in a nation you should respect its law, and that thusly the law of our nation is in support of democracy- thus it is correct. In fact, you believe it is so correct to say that you can 'not see' how I would disagree with our government. Your core argument here is fallacious, and thusly bunk. This argument is an appeal to authority http://www.nizkor.org... I am not arguing about whether or not 'democracy' is actually law (although I could if I wanted), I am arguing whether or not majority SHOULD decide if political policy is implemented. Current laws have nothing to do with that, and are, in this case, fallacious to bring up. Everybody may have the same right to express their views in my system. My system would allow absolute liberty though a constitution and a very limited government rather than a democracy or thousands of representatives deciding on how we can further erode our freedoms. In your system, everybody does NOT have the right do do what they want inherently. The people decide what rights will be left alone by the government, and what rights will be taken away by the government. In your system free speech could very well be taken away. My system would allow all liberty to flourish, regardless of petty issues on whether or not people agree with it or not. People tend to be very selfish, they support things that are in their favor rather than the favor of everybody. People might support banning of homosexual sex because it makes them feel uncomfortable. They might pay no attention to the fact that they are denying the homosexuals with liberty that they must have, they are in fact oppressing via 'democracy'. Thusly, democracy is not a system that maximized liberty, and regardless of whether or not people want something it should be done. People will always 'want' privileges- it's their nature, if we allow people to get whatever they want we will have a system slightly like what we have today, movements for less and less freedom. Why would people support less and less freedom though? Because they support less and less freedom for other people, while griping about the less and less freedom they are receiving. They are hypocritical, criticizing freedoms that others wish to take away while taking away freedoms that have no effect on them, but have plenty of effect on other people. To fix this problem of the possibility of Liberty or totalitarianism, a system of Majority Rule should not be used, it is unfair and puts some people at an unfair advantage of others.