democracy in space

>Too often democracies have
>turn into dictatorships because of democracy's very nature: rule by
>majority.
> If 20 boys and one girl take a vote on the question to have sex with the
>girl and the girl is the lone vote "no" but must submit to sex because the
>majority voted "yes" then this is unjust.

Yikes, you win the Alexis de Tocqueville Prize for the most vivid
illustration of the Tyranny of the Majority (de Tocqueville's phrase). Yes,
absolutely, anyone who lives in a democracry (or a republic) must be aware
of the dangers of that Tyranny. Voters must always be aware of the power
they hold over their fellow citizens. But voter restraint is not the only
check against that Tyranny. IMHO the best justification for a strong
independent judiciary is to right any wrongs perpetrated by the voters upon
those who can't use the vote to protect their interests.

>Also, you don't need a government to set up courts.

A good point. An excellent illustration of this comes from the Old
Testament (OK, nobody freak out yet, I'm just using it for a historical
illustration). The book of Judges describes a time in Israel's past, before
a king was chosen, when the Hebrews had no leadership except in times of
crisis. In such times Judges arose to deal with the crises, although the
term is misleading. The Judges were often generals, heroes, or reformers,
who faded back into the populace when times were peaceful again. Samson was
one. They were not unlike republican Rome's concept of the Dictator, who
was appointed by the Senate during times of war or crisis, with almost
unlimited powers, but with a definite term of service (a year). What Rome
eventually encountered was a Dictator (Julius Caesar) who was so popular
(and his ambition manipulated the populist flames) that the electorate
overrode the Senate's good advice and elected him for life. First nail in
the coffin of the Senate. That piece of history seems very likely to
repeat, given similar circumstances.

>Two noticable things that seperate common (tort) law from statist law is
>that
>resolutions are economic in nature; reinsitution rather than forceful
>punishment. Two, such fair reinsitutions are freely agreed to by
>offenders.
>Otherwise, they will suffer a loss of reputation in community's eye and
>will
>suffer being a outcast until they either leave or pay up. The goal of
>reinsitution is reunion along the community.

Economic restitution has its own drawbacks. What do you think when you hear
of a multinational corporation getting "punished" by a $20,000 fine? Do you
ever wonder why more BMWs and Mercedes speed than other cars? Could it be
that the costs of traffic tickets and increased insurance present little
financial punishment to those drivers? Have you ever seen an example of
corporate accountants figuring in the costs of fines for lawbreaking and
tort settlements into the annual budget projections as a cost of doing
business? Finding a fine that walks the fine line (pun intended) between
being a tolerable, routine cost of business (therefore is no deterrant) and
one that is a financial death knell to a person or business is tricky
business, and one easily confused by accountants, anonymous banking,
off-books transactions and gold doubloons hidden under the mattress.

As for loss of status in a community being a deterrent to crime, I can name
a dozen people I've known personally who couldn't give a flip what their
neighbors think about them. It's actually considered a virtue in some
places to be thick-skinned enough to do what you have to do (or want to do)
no matter what people might say. Not that I think that's the way it ought
to be, just the way it is.

So, financial punishment, workable but tricky, threat of loss of social
standing, quaint, but perhaps lacking in teeth for most modern folks, unless
you propose stocking your orbiting fish tank with people who are sensitive
to that kind of thing. IMHO.