[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by something

In your post, you were arguing for something implicit; your argument wasn't merely supportive of a majority rule: especially the bolded part. The reason I was able to deduce this implication is simply that you admit a criteria existing ulterior to majority rule, to which majority rule is subservient. Majority rule fails to be sovereign according to this understanding, and I would argue it's subservience be dictated by the concept of liberalism.

The tenets of liberalism are the superlative political determinant, of which majority rule is merely a single mechanism. However, majority rule, unchecked, has an stagnant effect on society. You introduced the notion of "rights", and within your context seems to be the underlying notion of dignity. This notion of dignity is essential for the inclusion of minorities, which we often consider to be a fundamental and demonstrable "good" in that it engages and propagates a dialectical process.

In our social conscience exists all of this, and more, reified as liberalism. It is to what we aim our social and political goals. Majority rule is nothing more than a mechanism (albeit an flawed one) that helps us attain our goals.

And kudos to you for writing your alderman! I can always appreciate civil engagement.

I like you... You're something!