Leftwing Newspaper Gone Too Far?

[SkyMutt]

Anthropology is still a very broad category. We are not talking of some sort of Hobbesian "state of nature" here, but rather of a Western civilization in the early 21st century. Your simplistic "might=right" equation is completely inadequate to describe its workings.

I'm not trying to be expansive - the reduction is deliberate. It really can be simplified in just that way.

Yes, simplified to such an extent that the analysis becomes completely inaccurate and irrelevant. If that is what you're aiming for, I congratulate you on your success.

...The majority in the United States does not have "the collective the right to do whatever it wants," and if you believe that it does, I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country.

Yes they do.
I suggest you try reading up on the laws of that country prior to the war of independence. No parliament can pass a law that binds future parliaments.

Ah, I think I see the problem here. We are not talking about " the laws of that country prior to the war of independence." It may be news to you, but that war was fought precisely to separate the colonies from the nation which was (and still is) subject to those laws. They are not applicable, and invoking them is pointless.

Cite the section of the Constitution of the United States which you believe is equivalent to your statement about parliaments and we can discuss it. Until you've done so, your argument remains irrelevant.

The same mandate of the masses which ratifies a Constitution can UNratify or create a new/different Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States was not ratified by "the masses." Again, I suggest you try reading some history.

And your quaint notions about "The Law" didnt prevent these folk from taking it into their own hands.

Your condescending non sequitur is noted as yet another in an as yet unbroken string of irrelevancies: The Boston Tea Party took place long before the Constitution of the United States was written.

...You've ignored my point about the inherent protections in the Constitution of the United States against a tyranny of the majority.

The are not inherent. They are provisional. The protection of minorities has (and needs) the assent of the majority.

The protections against the tyranny of the majority were built into the structure of the Constitution of the United States. The only way to remove them would be to destroy it. This was the intent of the people who wrote the document, as can be seen by reading the Federalist Papers.

...I would reinforce that by stating that well established legal precedent in the U. S. also thwarts a tyranny of the majority.

Legal precedent? You do know who pays the wages of the judiciary dont you? Tax-payers/voters.

The judiciary in the United States exists to interpret the Constitution, not the will of the taxpayers/voters. That is what it's appointed and paid to do. There are notable cases in which the ruling of the judiciary has been in direct opposition to the will of the majority. The precedents created by such rulings become the basis for established case law, which as I said, thwarts a tyranny of the majority.