> But, in general, just because the majority wants to do something doesn't mean it's legitimate to force everyone to accept it.

I mean, isn't that the literal definition of democracy? I tend to agree that "tyranny of the majority" can have some pretty bad outcomes, but that is what a democracy ultimately boils down to, is it not?

No, Liberal Democracy is not about forcing the wishes of the majority into everybody. It's about respecting people freedoms.

That's why countries have constitutions, that usually can not be completely replaced.

> That's why countries have constitutions, that usually can not be completely replaced.

Except, of course, by the action of a (super)majority, at least in the US.

We have chosen to not live in a pure democracy in part because of these concerns. So:

> I mean, isn't that the literal definition of democracy?

isn't relevant. A) we're not in a pure democracy, and B) no one argued that something is or would not be democracy.

Considering what the world looked like before democracy I wager the "tyranny" is worth it.

But all these rich people want to go back to a time when they could impregnate their 14 year old housekeeper.