Democracy is a form of government in which the sovereign power is vested in the majority, rather than being vested in a smaller group, such as an aristocracy, or in one person, e.g., a monarchy. A democracy does not necessarily seek to benefit all, indeed Mill talks about the tyrrany of the majority. So a democracy must be limited in some way that prevents such tyranny. The United States seeks to limit democracy by means of the Constitution. I would prefer to say that a democracy must be limited by morality. Given that kind of limitation, a democracy decides among the morally acceptable alternatives by the votes of the majority, either directly or indirectly. One justification of this kind of democracy is that since all of the alternatives are morally acceptable, then it seems appropriate that the decision among these morally acceptable alternatives be made by a majority of the people, rather than by some smaller subclass.

Although Hobbes, more than any other political philosopher, takes obedience to the government to be the overriding duty of citizens, he claims that citizens do not have a duty to obey a government that is ineffective, that is, does not provide protection to its citizens. If that is what you mean by ineffective, then it seems clear that the government should be replaced, at least if this can be done without causing even more harm to the citizens of that country. However, if you mean by ineffective, that it does not provide anywhere near the kind of the services that could be provided by a country with that level of resources, then Hobbes would claim that it would be wrong to replace the government. By "replacing" I mean what you mean by "strongly reorganized" or "overthrown." I do not mean by "replacing" voting against the party in power. Citizens should vote against the party in power if it is ineffective in the sense that it does not provide anywhere near the kind of the services that could be provided...

If it is illegal to share copyrighted songs and video over the internet, then it is morally wrong to share copyrighted songs and video over the internet. Not that it is always wrong to do what is illegal, but in this case, it is rational to hold that the law is a justified law, and except in special circumstances, it is immoral to violate what some impartial rational persons take as justified law. Many people under 21 think it is not wrong for them to drink alcoholic beverages even though that is against the law. However, it is rational to hold that this law is justified, and so it is immoral to violate it. Although both the law against sharing copyrighted songs and video over the internet and prohibiting drinking by people under 21 are rationally regarded as justified laws, it is also rational to hold that these laws should be changed. Rational people, even when they have the same knowledge, do not always agree about what should be done. If one strongly believes the law is a bad one and should be...