[tpaine]

Me: You want to decide what rules and restrictions apply to the rest of us, and we won't let you. We have, and defend, a representative democracy in which we can participate. As a result, we can admire success, admit and work to overcome our weaknesses, compete and win sometimes, lose other times. But there are these that we will not do: Let someone cast aside our represenative democracy and impose his controlling will on us. Let someone decide for himself whether he will or will not obey the laws we make and apply.

Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

[Whilom]

Why do you insist on saying we live in a 'representive democracy'? You seem to be ignoring the fact that our government is guaranteed by the constitution to be republican in form. -- And that the rule of constitutional law overrules the will of the majority.

Because we do live in a representative democracy; that's the framework the Constitution provides -- we elect representatives and they act, accountable to us. Constitutional law is indeed the law of the land. But when there are disputes about the meaning of the Constitution, how are those disputes decided? Not by an individual. Not by a self-selecting person or group of "superior intelligence." Instead, by the political and judicial framework provided by the Constitution. As they should be. Therefore, if an individual proclaims that he is an "individualist" hewing to the "objectivist" philosophy and that he will decide for himself what provisions of the Constitution mean, he probably can proclaim all he wants, but if he acts on that, flouting the established law, he's likely to be apprehended and punished. That's all I meant.