4 ms·
> It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent abou
by strbean 6y ago
> It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state.
A state is only benevolent if every single citizen is benevolent? That seems like a pointless assertion.
In a democracy, in theory, the majority is what matters.
- kebman 6y agoAh, yes. The majority that forced Socrates to drink poison.
- someguyorother 6y agoIf democracy is majority dictatorship, then why do constitutions provide rights also to the minority?
- kebman 6y agoThankfully, it's because a lof of politicians have read Socrates, and taken his lesson to heart; that majority rule is indeed dictatorial, and so we should strive to also let the minorities be heard. That doesn't mean it is always fair, though. Sometimes it also leads to minorities gaining dictatorial rights when they shouldn't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]