4 ms·
'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the
by nautilius 5y ago
'Majority rule' doesn't imply fair or good. Would you find it a cause worthy of your support to repeal men's voting rights if the 50.7% of the population in the U.S. who are women are for it? Much more extreme examples come to mind, but you get my point.
There's even a snappy quote: "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." James Bovard
- oh_sigh 5y agoSure - the suffix to "majority rule" is commonly "and minority rights". But my point wasn't even that majority rule is ideal, but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. The important point I was trying to make is that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning - it is merely that they exercise their right to vote their conscience.
- nautilius 5y ago> but simply that it is an accepted system in our society for resolving disparate viewpoints on governance. But it is not, as my example shows. There's a lot more to it. That's the entire point. > that there isn't some shadowy system for how landlords can control zoning I don't think anyone is arguing it is in any way shadowy, it's done very openly. There is sufficient discussion in the media about the practice of voting in the US, so I will not repeat that. Also, take the Bay Area as an example - how large would you guess is the fraction of immigrants working in Tech? And mind you, even a green card does not allow you to vote. All of these people are excluded from the process. Ironic, if you think about how this whole country started on 'no taxation without representation'.