Slashdot Mirror

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question."
- John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (1863)
http://www.utilitarianism.com/...

Most democratic counties are not protected by such a take over because it seems so unlikely. However they should be protected because democracy can be abused. That is why governments should also guarantee liberty. People need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. Read On Liberty by John Stuart Mill to see why this is important. It's liberty that is inconsistent with certain aspects of Sharia Law.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill2.htm (Bottom 1st paragraph, CH2)

J.S Mill regarding usage of the term "utilitarian." He's probably one of the 1st to use this term...

"Nor is the term thus ignorantly misapplied solely in disparagement, but occasionally in compliment; as though it implied superiority to frivolity and the mere pleasures of the moment. And this perverted use is the only one in which the word is popularly known, and the one from which the new generation are acquiring their sole notion of its meaning."

Needless to say this poses the question of "Harm" and how we as a society can protect ourselves from harm. The slippery slope that is the enforcement of morality.

Where can you make sure that any law can be passed? Do it for the protection of the innocent and impressionable children. Illinois just recently PASSED a law that will ban the sale of violent video games to minors. Obscenity laws can be found on the federal to township levels.

Does any of this make sense? Do drug laws, obscenity laws, prostitution laws, marriage laws, sex laws, liquor laws, or a slew of other laws make sense? If you ask Mill's or a number of libertarians, no. The only laws that make sense are those that protect against harm. Physical harm can be easily identified, it's the mental harm that people get so cloudy on.

If I do drugs am I harming anyone (assume that in this case that drug making, transportation, and selling is legal)? Am I harming anyone when a willing partner is ready to sell their sexual services and I take them up of the offer (assume that in this case protection is used ... etc)?

Don't get me wrong, I'm agreeing with you and not assuming you don't know about Utility, just trying to expand on your claim a little further.

The Republicans have lost their sense of history. They've used the filibuster against even higher court appointments before. It was the right thing to do then. It is the right thing to do now. The filibuster remains the last desperate refuge of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

A more paranoid theory is that they intend to take such measures to insure they need never be the minority again. However, I feel (especially given the President) that it is more appropriate to attribute their behavior to stupidity rather than malice.

Unless, of course, the hunt itself makes you happy. I'm a frugal person myself (and recommend Usenet's misc.consumers.frugal-living). But I've had a couple of friends who took frugality too far - to the point where they were valuing their personal time at an epsilon above zero.

Yes there is Pleasure and Pain but that in a more general sense dictates whats right or wrong, ever hear of Utilitarianism?