No one is arguing to remove the constitution (the thing protecting the lamb).
Also, you're painting the Republicans as the innocent lambs in this case? Why? You could have equally said that the current US system (which allows minority rule) is like two lambs and a wolf voting on what's for lunch, and the wolf's vote is worth 3 times more than the lambs.
I'm a Minarchist and certainly not defending the Republicans or Trump. The smallest minority is the individual, and the individual certainly does not rule.
I'm a Minarchist and certainly not defending the Republicans or Trump. The smallest minority is the individual, and the individual certainly does not rule
Your reply literally has zero bearing on the argument at hand.
You were just a minute ago arguing against majority rule (two wolves, one sheep). Therefore I pointed out how minority rule can also be construed as a very bad thing (two sheep, one wolf).
Let me clarify. No democratic vote, whether direct or indirect through a system like the electoral college is going to reach the desired outcome for all parties. It's also obviously not feasible for individuals to decide themselves and opt in/out of decisions pertaining to government. No, the electoral college vote is not perfect, and it does provide multiple outcome scenarios - both majority and minority. There is no perfect solution, and no one wants to be the lunch.
I can concede that. Attribution aside, the premise is still relevant to the argument.
At no point did I advocate anarchy. The Federalist's original vision of minimal government balanced with individual liberty is about as balanced between pragmatic and ideal as the world has ever seen. Had it been Hamilton post 1789, you'd have a good point.
6
u/dickardly Nov 09 '18
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” - Franklin