Well, I guess that's a difference in philosophy then. I find myself agreeing with him that sometimes, people can be quite wrong and bad, and that's in fact a g

Well, I guess that's a difference in philosophy then. I find myself agreeing with him that sometimes, people can be quite wrong and bad, and that's in fact a greater danger than the benefit of people being right and good. And protecting society from going down the wrong path -- which often leads it towards permanent irrecoverable damage -- is as important, if not more important, than enabling people be able to so quickly fix something that temporarily solves it, but sets up the society for greater disorder in the long run. Perhaps judges could have fixed injustices faster. Or different styles of democracy could have. But they could also cause injustices faster too. Take a different example. People are in some no small measure in approval today that abortion should be legal, when it involves (in some other people's opinion) the killing of human beings. (Just to avoid any controversy /s) How would you handle that one? Is that to be given the same process as what you just proposed to cure that injustice? You see the point about having a system that does well across many issues, not just one, right?