Why Does Majority Make Things Ok?

Post Reply New Topic

What I mean is, regardless of what, if a majority of people want to raise the drinking age, or have socialized health care, or whatever else, they are right. Why is this? People say the government gets it's power from the people. How so? What makes it morally right? Why not because one person wanted it? What does numbers have to do with anything? (I am not advocating oligarchy, quite contrary. I am just wondering why everyone gets to decide on issues affecting my life. Why not use the division of labor when it comes to governance?)

This little thing called health insurance and corporatism is making life difficult and wrecking the economy. Billions of people will be affected. It might not matter to you but if billions of people were suddenly poor and desperate, trust me, you'd notice.

Uhm, actually I am against corporatism. My point is that why is the government legitimate just because a bunch of people agree to it? Is it moral because it is so? And what give government a monopoly on control of land from sea to shinning sea? What if I want to set up a micronation? Why can't I ?

Because centuries ago there was barely any government in the colonies and people bitched and moaned then like now. People are never happy. That's what's not being acknowledged. If the government suddenly went away all the people bitching about how much they hate it would suddenly form a new government where they are in charge. They don't hate the government, they are just jealous someone is running something besides them.

True. To me, as long as it is voluntary, I am a oh kay . I just hate how people try to dominate one another.

I guess two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner is a good thing, if you are a wolf.

Unfortunately. I just find it funny that people never question whether majoritarianism is moral .

Of course it's not always moral. Look at World War II.

Morality is a pliable concept. Its different for every person.

Governments were first invented to form a common responce to invasion.

Laws enacted by government generaly conform to either; 1/ the common good, or 2/ a majority belief.

It is unfortunate that the government keep making new laws, and trivial laws over every stupid thing a person can do.
I wish they had taken the stance "responsible for your own actions". But people refuse to be responsible, so stupid laws get created to make them responsible under the law.

No, it's "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote."

What are the alternatives to "Majority Rule"?

Anarchy?

Dictatorship?

Plutocracy?

Meritocracy?

Minority rule is the most obvious.

To each man his own. In other words, each man should decide is watering hole. Perhaps a mix of mutualism, panarchism, and market anarchism and or libertarianism municapilism. That way no one, liberal, conservative, or otherwise is aggressed against by their so called enemies.

What minority percentage should rule? 49%? 10%? 2%?

Why not just pick one person to make all of the rules, the infractions of which would be punishable by immediate death?

Who should that person be?

What minority percentage is ruling now? The top 1%.

One person, one vote. And I'm that person.

A collection of minarchist courts, keeping each other honest?

Guaranteeing the right to secede, so oppression is very difficult to do on a scale bigger than a town? Which may then be invaded by it's neighbors, because an out of control state is like an out of control fire...

A system like the Icelandic commonwealth? Except we'll have to figure out how to operate the parliament, because I don't think buying and selling seats is going to work. Maybe run it like the Internet - if you want a say, just turn up, and if you want something doing, you have to do it yourself?

Limited government works find, if you're serious about the limited part.