3 ms·

You still have almost no power as an individual. It's majority rules. It's a glaring flaw of 'democracy' that prominent figures and governments have tried to wo

You still have almost no power as an individual. It's majority rules. It's a glaring flaw of 'democracy' that prominent figures and governments have tried to work around. If you perform well and have decent bargaining power, you would not be in the majority. The people who have the most to gain from a union (people who have low individual bargaining power) would likely be the most vocal and involved in the organization.

didibus 9y ago
Right, but that would also be the majority. It boils down to your fundamental values. Do you want to live in a society with minority elites that are wealthy and powerful, but also hard working and smart, but eventually degrades to lazy and complacent once their heir takes over. Or do you prefer a more uniform distribution, with smaller extremes, even though it limits how high you can go and restricts you closer to the middle at all times. These desires are at odds. Statistically, the majority would likely always prefer the latter, since the former assumes a poor majority and a rich minority. There's some values that gets closer to a combination of these, such as going with the former, but banning inheritance (or indirect form of it). Effectively reseting the playing field every once in a while. Or focusing on increasing the minimum, but keeping the distribution like in the former. Like with universal minimum income for example.