This piece sounds a bit like people trying to out quiet one another. I think that I would have to hear this man typing to make a decision as to who was and who was not in the wrong. My favorite bar and place to see music in Ann Arbor used to be a place called Leopold Bros. The new green had our first CD release party there and I was able to see some fantastic shows there too. I recall seeing Andrew Bird play there with his "bowl of fire". -Fantastic show, great room! Although Leopold Bros was in downtown Ann Arbor, there were some residential properties nearby. Some of these residents complained that the noise was too loud. Unfortunately, because a couple of houses complained a fantastic venue never played live music again. From talking to the owners, I was to understand that it was really just one house that had issue with it. When does the comfort of one outweigh the enjoyment of many? Should it?
Short answer: No Long answer: We have long since reached the point in our population where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few on small scale problems. Bear in mind, this is a limited viewpoint since "the many" does not constitute entire races, populations, or even groups within a city. You can generally get a good idea of what will outweigh what by answering a few questions about it. 1. Is the activity endangering the few's personal lives and safety to an extreme degree? If there are people setting off fireworks below 20 feet, and they are SERIOUS fireworks, then yes, the few do outweigh the many. If its a group of kids skateboarding in a cul-de-sac, not really. 2. Is the activity endangering a person's health and well being? If so, then the needs of the few should be addressed, and depending on the scale this might not mean getting rid of whatever is endangering their health. If a factory has an exit near a group of homes, and trucks constantly drop gravel - accidentally - by the homes, then the roads should be rerouted or made to prevent gravel droppings, but the factory itself should not be moved. 3. Does the actual benefit provided to the many outweigh the suffering of the few. Let's just use human testing for a second. If you have a new drug that could potentially cure say, sickle-cell disease, but if it fails will kill the person involved, then is that cure moral? Well, yes. Sickle-cell is widespread, and the people who voluntarily take the drug and die are doing so with known risk. It is not the preferred outcome - everyone living - but the payoff is worth much more than their lives. If you avoid bullshit and hate, such as people who say that racial diversity is bad for a nation, then the "many over the few" actually isn't a terrible idea. Like all things, it should never be carried to its logical conclusion since its logical conclusion is usually moronic.