What about elections don't you understand? Are candidates not elected by a majority? What do you allege that exists within the consensus that supercedes the majority rule?
Majority will ends at suffrage.
A legislator represents the common good of all his constituents, and not just the majority's.
Understand?
No - he does not. HE IS ONLY ANSWERABLE TO THE MAJORITY. As that is all it takes to elect him.
You lose.
LOL.
The majority will is a
FLUID THING. It vacillates from one moment to the next. How can one be answerable to it, hmm?
And so, the legislator is answerable ONLY to the RULE OF LAW - until such time he again presents himself to the majority will as the LAW dictates.
Loosing an election is not a criminal offense. It simply means that the privilege and responsibility of representing one's constituents is no longer there.
There really is a political reality beyond your basic anarchy.
Nope, that'd be you.
The only crap "fluid" definition is this political association nonsense you keep spewing. You can't even define it with the concrete terms - and the reason for that is so you can introduce unnecessary complexity and obfuscate the facts as to avoid the root logic of the debate. Your assertions are completely and totally fallacious.
The political association is one of man's natural end. In fact, it is NECESSARY to his continued existence. One need only look at human history to see that there is NO epoch where political associations didn't exist.
Even animal social organization has rudimentary elements of the political association. The consequences of an existence without one is quite fatal.
So the minority of African American people in 1800, 1850, 1900, and 1950 were all partaking equally of the common good in your opinion?
Of course not.
And so it was necessary to reconstitute the social, political and economic order to correct this.
Even the white majority wasn't impervious to the dictates of human reason.
Again, with vague abstractions... Define political dynamics.
The process by which the body politics operate.
Define the "termpering" process. Define how "tempering" will always occur and how individuals gain the capacity to engage in it.
The logical relationship between the law and its intended end.
The law cannot be arbitrary - hence it must be designed within a basic framework of law. In this case, it is the constitution that serves as the fundamental law of the land.
As I said, the individual is BOTH subject to sovereign power and an integral part of its indivisible whole.
Define "debate" in your system.
The process by which people (who are equal) arrive at a practical or necessary truth through a logical process.
Define "consensus building."
A determination of the law that we apply to ourselves equally.
Please cite all the rules, qualifications, and prerequisites for individuals to enter into the "consensus building" process.
LOL.
You want the full course on political science?
You need to pay me for that.
Well, well, well. Finally a straightforward answer. Ok - you can ignore all the rest. I should have just scrolled down to the bottom.
One more question:
If the majority votes in legislators who pass a law mandating that no one may leave the country to avoid following a law - and that each citizen must kill one 5 year old child per month to combat overpopulation - would you follow the law and kill 5 year old children?
Well, well, well. Some light creeping in that thick skull of yours, finally.
You have just demonstrated why the majority will is NOT necessarily the sovereign will.
So, while the majority (or most anyone for that matter) is naturally averse to paying taxes, its necessity is inescapable.
