I always took the the word "tolerance" to mean to endure something until it cannot be endured anymore, i.e. something which is bearable for a while but eventually unbearable - like carrying a heavy load - eventually one has to put it down. Similarly with house guests - no matter how fond we are of them eventually we want them to leave as we cannot tolerate having them in our homes indefinitely. However, unending "tolerance" is demanded of us by our Governments - we have to endure, indefinitely, "guests" (people who do not pay their way) who stay indefinitely, always taking and never giving back. Surely what is demanded of us is not tolerance but rather suffering - and the word tolerance is used, deliberately erroneously, instead to imply that we are being virtuous when instead we are simply giving in because we have no choice - and if we do not want to give in we are accused of not being virtuous. My point is that the word "tolerance" is misused to manipulate. What are your views?

It is said that the government officials we elect represent the people. But do they represent those who voted against them as well, in a meaningful sense? (i.e. beyond the pure legal sense)? Or do they only represent the majority that elected them?

Would the possibility of women competing on equal footing with men be thinkable without contraceptives, birth control, and access to abortion?

The media frenzy and general public outcry arising from the acquittal of Casey Anthony has raised a major ethical issue:- If "everybody believes" that Casey was the person who killed her her child, was the jury wrong in concerning itself with the legal technicalities, such as the absence of any substantial evidence linking Casey to the murder. She claimed that her father was implicated in the child's death, and the jury considered him as a completely unsatisfactory witness, and that seemed to have given rise to the "reasonable doubt" that the jury had, and which ultimately caused them to opt for acquittal.

Hi! Firstly, I'm sorry about my poor English. It's not my first language but I hope you can understand my question. Thanks. About Democracy. We know a government can't be democratic unless its laws are confirmed by majority of people. On the other hand, we know the majority can't force the society the oppressive laws. Is not that a paradox?! And what is the line which limit the majority?! For example: in a Muslim country, the majority may want all women dress veil. Does not it mean an oppression to some women who don't like veils?!On the other hand, in that society, if the law lets women dress or not dress veil, can such a law be democratic although it's not confirmed by the majority?! Please note my question is not only about veil in a Muslim society, it's about democracy and its way about such situations. When and where the democracy can ignore the majority will without losing its democratic nature?!

My question today is concerning authority. I ask: how is authority ever justified? Let me frame my question. Let us allow that "authority" in a governmental sense is to stop the subjects from being murdered, pillaged, to stop violence, to stop thiefs, to moderate economics, etc. Now let me ask you this. If, say, a murderer thinks about killing his victim, but is ultimately unable to do so due to the various laws/punishments involved, the government has been "successful." They have deterred the murderer from committing the crime because of the legislation in place. In this sense, we can say that a government replaces "freedom" with "security". Essentially, the more totalitarian a government becomes, the more "freedom" is traded for "security". However, is it not also true that in the saving of the life of the victim, we have "murdered" the free will of the murderer? Why can authority, in essense, save the existance of one individual, while condeming the existance of another, even if that existance involves violence or crime? My question comes down to the following. Why is it that the life of the victim of the murderer should be any more valuable than his freedom? Say the government were to be abolished, prisons done away with; the murderer would achieve freedom of action and murder his victim. Why is this a bad thing? The victim is essentially in this instance becoming a martyr for anarchy - if we give up government, sure many will die, be raped, pillaged, and have their possessions stolen, but is this not all beneficial for the cause of freedom? The victim should, in the end, feel privelaged that they could give up their life for the freedom of another human being. Now, it is important to note that I recognise governments provide needed services to their subjects; my question is focusing solely on crime and punishment. Jack.

Is there any good reason to be patriotic or nationalistic? Why shouldn't we just view our nations as focused socio-legal frameworks within which we can work to try to improve the condition of humanity as a whole?

If I discover someone is doing something unjust and ignore it, is it wrong for me to ignore it as 'not my business'?

Suppose a very well to do doctor was married to a very bright man who happened to be a house husband. They had no children but he worked very hard maintaining their household. One day however the wife loses her job unexpectedly and asks her husband to help pitch in and get a job. He says, "well I don't want to do that." and in reply she says, "well then maybe we should get a divorce. And he says "Well, yes you can divorce me but I am entitled to half of your earnings for during the time we were married." I don't know this for sure but my gut tells me that most women would find something very wrong with that situation. It would seem wrong because it would seem like the man is responsible for his own livelihood after the relationship terminates. In most situations however the man is the bread winner and the women is the housewife and I think most people don't have a problem with a man paying half his earned income to his divorced wife. Am I wrong in my assumption that women (and men) would balk at the idea of a woman paying a house husband a hefty divorce settlement? Am I wrong in my assumption that most people wouldn't balk if the genders were reversed? Do divorce laws imply that there are fundamental perhaps ontological differences between men and women? Are there fundamental differences in the social situation of women that would justify the difference in how I imagine most people perceive the appropriateness of paying a house husband versus a housewife? What is feminism's stance on this question? Is there something fundamental and obvious here that I missing out on?

In Kazakhstan three per cent of the population own all the land. Seventy five per cent of the laws in this country concern property Therefore, in Kazakhstan, seventy five per cent of the laws are made for three per cent of the people. Am I right in feeling that this is very unjust country?