“Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stone-washed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the library. And — since women are a majority of the population — we'd all be married to Mel Gibson.”

Parliament of Whores (1991)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 3, 2021. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those i…" by P. J. O'Rourke?
P. J. O'Rourke photo
P. J. O'Rourke 185
American journalist 1947

Related quotes

Pope Benedict XVI photo

“If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?”

Theodore Sturgeon (1918–1985) American speculative fiction writer

Title of story about the incest taboo and social pathologies in the anthology Dangerous Visions (1967) by Harlan Ellison.

Doug Hall photo

“The other judges were all in suits and fancy clothes, and they didn't want to jump on a trampoline, or ride the go-cart in the dirt. I did every demo possible to see if the things would do what they were promising they would do.”

Doug Hall (1944) American television personality

Denver Post Doug Hall of "Inventor" invents a lot, but not the truth http://www.denverpost.com/entertainment/ci_3645379

Lil Wayne photo

“Mel Gibson flow, Lethal Weapon, 'book 'em Danny!”

Lil Wayne (1982) American rapper, singer, record executive and businessman

I'm Me
Official Mix tapes, The Leak (2007)

William Shakespeare photo
Joan Slonczewski photo

“If every planet in the Patriarchy refused to be ruled, we all would be free.”

Part 6, “The Last Door” - Chapter 15 (p. 363)
A Door into Ocean (1986)

Ilana Mercer photo

“If women with the same skills as men were getting only 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, men would have long-since priced themselves out of the market.”

Ilana Mercer South African writer

"Barack Against the Boys," http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_view.php?editid1=489 WorldNetDaily.com, March 13, 2009.
2000s, 2009

Calvin Coolidge photo

“Majorities are notoriously irresponsible. After irreparable damage had been done the only remedy that the people would have would be the privilege of trying to defeat such a majority at the next election. Every minority body that may be weak in resources or unpopular in the public estimation, also nearly every race and religious belief, would find themselves practically without protection, if the authority of the Supreme Court should be broken down and its powers lodged with the Congress.”

Calvin Coolidge (1872–1933) American politician, 30th president of the United States (in office from 1923 to 1929)

1920s, Ordered Liberty and World Peace (1924)
Context: Somewhere must be lodged the power to declare the Constitution. If it be taken away from the Court, it must go either to the executive or the legislative branch of the Government. No one, so far as I know, has thought that it should go to the Executive. All those who advocate changes propose, I believe, that it should be transferred in whole or in part to the Congress. I have a very high regard for legislative assemblies. We have put a very great emphasis upon representative government. It is the only method by which due deliberation can be secured. That is a great safeguard of liberty. But the legislature is not judicial. Along with what are admitted to be the merits of the question, also what is supposed to be the popular demand and the greatest partisan advantage weigh very heavily in making legislative decisions. It is well known that when the House of Representatives sits as a judicial body, to determine contested elections, it has a tendency to decide in a partisan way. It is to be remembered also that under recent political practice there is a strong tendency for legislatures to be very much influenced by the Executive. Whether we like this practice or not, there is no use denying that it exists. With a dominant Executive and a subservient legislature, the opportunity would be very inviting to aggrandizement, and very dangerous to liberty. That way leads toward imperialism. Some people do not seem to understand fully the purpose of our constitutional restraints. They are not for protecting the majority, either in or out of the Congress. They can protect themselves with their votes. We have adopted a written constitution in order that the minority, even down to the most insignificant individual, might have their rights protected. So long as our Constitution remains in force, no majority, no matter how large, can deprive the individual of the right of life, liberty or property, or prohibit the free exercise of religion or the freedom of speech or of the press. If the authority now vested in the Supreme Court were transferred to the Congress, any majority no matter what their motive could vote away any of these most precious rights. Majorities are notoriously irresponsible. After irreparable damage had been done the only remedy that the people would have would be the privilege of trying to defeat such a majority at the next election. Every minority body that may be weak in resources or unpopular in the public estimation, also nearly every race and religious belief, would find themselves practically without protection, if the authority of the Supreme Court should be broken down and its powers lodged with the Congress.

Jasper Fforde photo
Fyodor Dostoyevsky photo

“If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral, everything would be lawful, even cannibalism.”

Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821–1881) Russian author

Book II, ch. 6 (trans. Constance Garnett)
Pyotr Miusov, summarizing an argument made by Ivan at a social gathering
The Brothers Karamazov (1879–1880)

Related topics