Well, (let me help). (smile) I mean that as a 51% rule, no matter what they/we want, and no matter what their/our values are.

US American government has gone somewhat beyond that, as a republic with a set of basic rights, rules, and procedures in the Constitution (and amendments) that is nominally, at some(s) time approved by 2/3 of the population (or proxies, states) consenting to be governed under that "social" contract. By constitutional premise then, I myself infer, anything that 1/3 doesn't really like should eventually be subject to a veto. The government should keep hands off some areas of human affairs that are not suffciently "2/3" unanimous. Religion may be a case where that operates, since we do have such diversity, even conflict in religions.

It might be interesting as well as vexing to tamper with that 2/3 constitutinal principle that we have adopted. Do legitimate modern needs justify a different proportion? I might/would be inclined to ***raise*** it, in hopes of preserving individual freedom and personal rights.

Maybe we should re-ratfy our constitution, re-invent government from time to time? Term limits and regular election campaigns provide for some renewal and freshening. This "2/3-1/3" of course leaves a grey area/no man's land where some "types" of self confident or arrogant people are willing to venture, despite the founding contract. That is, they may push and bend on the "rules", the constitution.

Angus:"I would like you to know that never have I never once in my life abandoned the idea of rewarding merit. Much as I also believe in equity in BOTH a financial and an emotional sense, I believe that equity cannot be purchased at the expense of abandoning the reward of merit because equity is a concept of relationship requiring people who have dedicated their working hours to being able to reach agreement on when it exists in their relationship, and I cannot see that dedication being initiated except in a structure that values merit by some criteria to which the community/organization/partnership is committed. "

Great. Neither should we punish *good* behavior. Napoleon of that French "Republique" opined to the effect that he could do *anything* with an unlimited supply of ribbons (award kind). Certainly, after Maslow's hierarchy of needs is fairly well satisfied, and the glass is over half full, "money" does lose its jolt.

Angus:"I confess having met with a lot of egotistical cynicality: behaviours that waste time by claiming that what I want is to be right when there is not a soul in the world who does not want to be right -- for the reason, I believe, that believing one is right frees one from having to think through again one's psychological assumptions in order to maintain equanimity."

Not a soul? I submit that a few are evil and/or don't care. In that context, then, especially, we do have to recognise "laziness" as a true vice. With some people we need look no farther than for laziness or illness. It is alternatively possible that someone just has different priorities, though. Example, in my own case, once the feed sack was full of oats, I craved some other satisfactions besides just winning. It is sort of fun to win, and pile up bigger and better symbolic baubles and toys.

In operation here at TT, with some whimsical people, is perhaps unwilingness to acknowledge a failed argument, and the bizarre behaviour that we "all" can find occasion to express. Anyway/also, some sharp poking at the musty embers seems to be desirable if there is actually going to be some heat at all in the TT hearth.

Angus:"I notice that Remi has taken up station as an umpire in this thread, although why he has accorded you round 1, I don't know. "

Actually, traditionally, I verrry rarely get what I see as clear overt positive strokes at TT, and I don't know either in this recent case what specific behavior was so meritworthy. I was making some consicious effort to disagree with you gently and agreeably. Here again, I think that allowance for Remi-whimsy is merited.