Re: [WDDM] Regarding the social network site

[ROY DAINE <rdaine(at)btinternet.com>]

My mistake.

The government I mentioned was in fact this group acting, like a kibbutz, as a direct democracy and making a majority decision. I still disagree with the decision, though I accepted that 'society's' right to make it.

Now I'm a smoker, in the UK. Our government banned smoking in certain places, because my right to smoke infringed upon others' right to be free of smoke. It also concerned our economy, via health provision issues.

While I disagree with parts of the law, if our government functioned as a DD and the law had been decided by the majority, I would have accepted the majority decision, because that is the duty of a minority in a democracy. (Equates to your 'sincerity')

The onus would be on me, to then persuade a majority to my point of view, if I chose to do so.

I have to restate my objection to the issue of eating meat being a function of government, other than in extreme circumstances, as explained previously.

Roy

Georges Metanomski <zgmet(at)yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- ROY DAINE <RDAINE(at)BTINTERNET.COM> wrote:
>
> > I also fundamentally disagree with the decision of
> > a kibbutz to stop eating meat, based on a majority
> > decision.
> >
> > Deciding what people should eat, other than in an
> > extreme situation , where the survival of the
> > society is in jeopardy, is and should not be the
> > province of government. That really is an example of
> > 'tyranny of the majority'.
> ===========================
> G:
> Misunderstanding. Nothing to do with any kibbutz.
> It happened in a Britanny fishermen village, where
> several youngsters concerned by the
>  global problems
> formed a discussion group investigating among others
> the pollution and the 3d World starvation.
>
> The outcome of the discussion pointed to meat
> consumption as being by far the most important
> source of both problems.
>
> Being sincere, they decided to stop contributing
> to both disasters and to give up meat.
>
> Nobody forced anybody and there was no "government"
> involved.
>
> Everybody is free to give up smoking, right? But
> there, the governments exercises strong pressure and
> nobody seems to protest. Now, our discussion appeared
> to show that meat is, globally seen, by orders of
> magnitude more noxious than smoking. So why should
> a few sincere youngsters have not the right to
> give it up?
>
> The whole meant as example of sincerity: If you find
> something wrong, don't just accuse others, but give
> it up in your own life.
>
> Georges.
> ================



Enhance democracy. Make your views known on every issue that concerns you.