Therein lies the crux of the matter.
In a way it is. The penal system, after all, is one of the most fundamental pillars we put in place to make sure the freedom of the one doesn’t excessively encroach upon the liberty of another.
The goal is not just to prevent the minority to rule the majority, but also to prevent the majority from turning into a stampeding herde that runs over its minorities.
Say you needed surgery. You’ll have been judged by many before you even end up on the table. Do you question their judgment? Sometimes you will. You’ll ask a second opinion, check credentials, there will be surpervising boards, and so on. A similar system is already in place for judges.
Not all countries, not even democracies, have juries. 
I feel like I’m continuously missing your point, Arwin. First of all, are you arguing for or against majoritarianism? Second of all, by exactly what process do you want to solve the problem of what to do with criminals?
Yes there is, in this (somewhat) majoritarianist society. But that’s not what we’re discussing, and I still don’t get your point.
I don’t think you could see my point of view on the general discussion, so I don’t blame you. My post was a response to something that treis said, after all.
Personally, I hate fundamentalists. They do quite simply not understand the meaning of the word nuance. They fail to see that the complexity of the world can rarely be met with simple yes or no answers - though perhaps, if you translate it to binary, you could get close to describing it with a complex sequence of yes or no answers.
Of the people here, you, Priceguy, are closest to my own position. Och jag penser at du är et rår Svenskar for at hitta poster hitt äfter ha hittade sprit. 
(and apologies, my Swedish is rusty)
Simply put, libertarianism is great for protecting individual freedom when it is not threatened. Taken to its extreme, it is quite simply nothing. A fancy word for Anarchy. Majoritarianism is the rule of the majority. It is best suited for problems that affect more than one. But it can be as wrong as libertarianism. Neither system guarantees true justice. Hence we build a system, like some of our Democracies, where individual freedom is protected by a network of social responsibility among which social services, judiciary systems, and so on.
The point I was making to tries bears on this in so far as that neither system are necessarily able to deal justly with the issue at hand, in so far of course as justice isn’t defined as what the majority wants. Few members of a majority are well-informed enough to judge on all decisions that are made in society that affect more than one person. What the majority can, and should do, is make sure they understand and uphold a few fundamental principles they agree on. And if I do my best at summarising them, they would be:
This would be my ideal view of society. An example: (sorry I can’t think of a better one right now, must be because of Valentine’s Day)
Just an example. This does not bear any relation to me individually. Really! I promise!
The last question is always the hardest, and this is where specialists come in. Following certain standards of research and knowlegde acquirement (like you find them now in science, we could in fact consider making them part of the constitution), these can help in the ethical/judicial weighing process.
Of course, I’m dreaming here, and yet, it doesn’t seem that far related from how some countries we live in are governed. But it is always good to have clear picture of why we do certain things the way we do them, to make sure they are a conscious choice, and to make sure we keep an open eye to weaknesses that we can improve upon.
It must be, 'cause I don’t understand it. “And I <unknown verb> that you are a <unknown adjective> Swede for finding posts here after finding booze” is the closest translation I can muster.
As for the topic of the thread, it appears that we are in agreement.
unknown verb -> tenkar (I was infected by French, I suppose)
unknown adjective -> I was certain the word existed in Swedish up to this point - I very specifically remember an ex-girlfriend teaching me how to pronounce it correctly. Is my memory corrupt?
I meant something akin to ‘fremmande’ (?) -> strange.
Good, then at least we understand each other in one language we have in common.
It appears so. On the other hand it may be a dialect word that I don’t know of; there are quite a few of those in Swedish.
So you’re saying I’m a strange Swede since I am able to post here even though I’ve discovered alcohol? I don’t quite know what to make of that…
Ok, final hi-jacked, way too off-topic post from me in this thread
off-topic mode on
What’s the word for rare, as in a rare item, in Swedish? Don’t worry, I am not in a hurry to find out - you can mail it to me or PS it the next time you have something on-topic to say.
Ehm, yes, exactly! - most Swedes I met, once they started drinking, they drank until they, quite literally, dropped.
off-topic mode off
It was meant to be. I was satirizing the equal unlikelihood of Liberal’s ice-cream problem. However, the pig farm issue I used before was intended as a real world problem that needs a real world solution.
Okay, progress on this issue. But I see the need for a few more details. In the situation I described, what would happen if the pig farmer refused to concede that any issue existed that required arbitration - does his neighbour have a means to compel him to enter into a discussion? And if they do agree to an arbitration in general principle, how will the specfic details work? Obviously both sides will insist on selecting an arbitrator who, based on past decisions, they feel will decide in their favor. If two parties cannot agree on an issue between themselves, how do they arrive at an agreement on who the third party is that decides the issue?
I don’t like majoritarianism. It leads to some incredibly sucky things happening: thousands of people dying in Iraq, as one recent example. Things would be much better off if I were a dictator, and I’m completely serious as to that. I’d be a fantastic dictator.
There’s just one problem with my plan: there are other people who think they’d be equally good dictators, and they’re wrong, wrong, wrong. They’d screw everything up. But they don’t realize that.
So what do we do? We could all just leave each other alone. But that’s not going to solve the problem, because people need to be able to use things in order to survive, and who gets to decide who uses what?
You can go with a Lockean theory of property (i.e., mix your labor with some material good, and you magically gain complete control over it as long as you’re the first person to do it). But Locke’s justification depends on the fantasy that there’s an unlimited quantity of material goods out there. That ain’t gonna work.
So we gotta have some other system for deciding who gets the fruit of the field, who gets the use of the house, who can drive on the road. There’s a limited quantity of useable material goods out there, and different people have exclusive visions of how that’s going to get used.
And if I try to become dictator, so I can wisely set out rules for who gets to use what, then Joe Schmuck over there is also going to try to become dictator and set out his complete crap rules for who gets to use what. And blood is going to spill.
I don’t want blood to spill. I’m willing to give up my dictator attempt to avoid bloodshed. We have to come up with some sort of system by which Joe and I both give up our dictator ambitions.
Representational democracy is the best such system we’ve come up with so far.
And it seems to work. Other than ancient Rome’s move toward tyranny, instituted by Julius Caesar, I have a very difficult time thinking of a society that moved from a reasonably non-corrupt democracy to a dictatorship. Majority-rules is just too compelling, and people fight too hard to keep it.
Daniel
This is the key point. Two parties are in contention, but one of them, in conflicts of this type does not seek to impose its will on the other, but only to prevent the second party from imposing its will on the first. The libertarian says, “You don’t like suggestive song lyrics, marijuana, or pornography? Then fine, don’t listen to/smoke/watch it.”
I think we can take silence as assent, however grudging.
I’d imagine that consent to arbitration by a designated third party in similar scenarios is part of consent to be governed. And I don’t see an abundance of arbitrators as necessary (just how many judges do we have per capita in the US? How many would be redundant if drugs were decriminalized?) so there might not be a choice of arbitrator available in the first place.
But the libertarian has also, rather arbitrarily, chosen a set of situations where he does want to impose his will on others. Why these, and no others? What’s so special about a right to property, for example? There also has to be an age of consent or similar arrangement when it comes to, for example, participation in pornography. How is that established if not by majority rule?
Furthermore, some of the things others do affect the people that don’t do them. Steroids cause violent behaviour, which makes the world less safe for me if others use them. Why am I not then allowed to protect my right to life by banning steroids? What is so important about a bunch of body-builders wrecking their minds and bodies, that you value it above the majority feeling that little bit safer?
The question is, does the majoritarianist say the opposite? So far, none in this thread has done so. In fact, everyone here who is defending majoritarianism here knows its limits quite well. Better, I would suggest, than most libertarians appreciate the limits of libertarianism. The key here is quite simply to realise the non-exclusive importance of both, as several people have done in this thread already.
I agree with Arwin, and in fact would say that in most issues not related to property rights, I’m very libertarian. It’s just that I don’t accept property rights as being the best way to figure out who gains the right to use a particular material, and that results in a major disagreement with libertarians.
Daniel
I also agree with Arwin. I like a lot of libertarian principles; but I think they’re only going to be achieved by a majoritarian government.
Indeed, how is it decided which type of libertarianism is to be enacted in a given polygon? I don’t think there is a perfectly non-tyrannical way of deciding this, and that majoritarianism is just the least worst way of making such decisions.
Seems to be begging the question. If two parties in a disagreement can’t agree to the solution to an issue, why should we assume they can agree on other issues related to the issue? Majoritarianism doesn’t assume this; it allows people to reach mutual agreements but also provides a means for breaking deadlocks. And while it’s difficult to prove, I’d assume that the fact that this means exists is an incentive to prompt many mutual agreements which might not otherwise have been made.
As for the issue of arbitrator, I would assume they’d be more common in a libertarian society than judges are in a majoritarian one. One judge, in theory and as a practical matter, issues a single opinion that speaks for the majority. And once that opinion has been made, it applies to everyone. No arbitrator will have such a wide authority, so the same issues will keep being reheard, requiring a much larger supply of decision makers.
To use an analogy, the relationship between the states in the US is a majoritarian one while the relationship between nations in the world is a libertarian one. If California is in a dispute with Arizona, the federal government can intervene and decide the issue. That decision then applies not only to those two states but to Texas and Florida and South Dakota and all the others. But if Algeria and Tunisia have a disagreement, there’s no recognized third party to compel them to a settlement. They might resolve it peacefully or they might not. But regardless of which way it’s settled, there’s nothing to prevent the same issue from being argued again a month later by Vietnam and Laos or Columbia and Venezuela and nothing to compel these new nations into accepting the precedent of the old solution.