>>As for how to define "reasonable," we vote. If we don't like the way the current government defines it, we have the right and the ability to turn that government out and vote in a new one. In your Czech example, those people didn't have that right. Huge difference.
>
>Yes, this is a weakness of pure democracies.
>The tyranny of the majority.
>
>A village of 100 takes a vote.
>99 people vote to take the richest guy's farm away.
>He does get his own vote after all.
>
>Does it matter if the 99 want to party with the money, or use it for some worthy cause?
>
>With apologies to Alexis de Tocqueville, it has been said that:
>A democracy ... can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury

That's where you get into the concept of a free republic.

You're right, 60% shouldn't have the power to vote away the rights of 40%. That is essentially why the Bill of Rights and Constitution exist, but the problem is that an increasingly collectivist tone in this country has led to slow erosion of rights (and a bastardization of property/economic rights)