4 ms·

The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority, specifically the minority with the most power/voice/money. I think what you're arguing for isn't a

The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority, specifically the minority with the most power/voice/money. I think what you're arguing for isn't against tyranny of the majority, but a limit to the power of the federal government/more local government. For instance, the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis, yet the tyranny of the minority keeps blocking these efforts for their benefit. Without majority rule, we have a ridiculously dysfunctional government that doesn't represent the people.

acituan 4y ago
> The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority Being anti-majority doesn't mean pro-minority. It is about decreasing the weight of merely being in the majority as an input feature to optimal decision making. It is protecting against pseudo-relevance majority can pose as an overemphasized decision making strategy. This doesn't mean all ideas that manifest as majority is irrelevant, not at all, it is protecting against the false positives. Mind you a lack of steamrolling with majority alone forces a downstream integration of opponent thoughts. Think it like a collective intelligence architecture that is trying to make sure we don't get stuck in local optima.
- comte7092 4y ago
  That’s all well and good, but when these issues come up, people seemingly turn their brains off and repeat “tyranny of the majority” without evaluating the empirical reality of how these systems function in practice. I’m amenable tot he notion that there should be some guardrails on simple majoritarianism, but it shouldn’t follow that all anti majoritarian rules are good.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    We do have guardrails. The constitution puts various things off-limits to any sort of majoritarian process of regular governing. Should there be more things off-limits? Should there be less? Intelligent people could disagree, but the off-limits category already exists and there is a process to change what is in it.
pdonis 4y ago
> The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority That's one alternative, but not the only one. Another alternative is for the government to not have the power to tyrannize in the first place. As the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell. > the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis I don't think this is true. I think vocal minorities want these things.
- dantheman 4y ago
  If the government followed the constituion this wouldn't be problems: 1. Marijuana would never have been illegal at the federal level because an amendment wasn't passed. 2. Healthcare and any other federal welfare policies could be ennacted by passing an amendment. If there isn't broad consensus across the country to pass an amendment then states can do it independently. There is no reason a state can't have single payer healthcare, except that they don't want to pay for it and want to just add the cost to the national debt.
  - 1_1xdev1 4y ago
    You are ignoring the constitutional article granting congress the ability to make laws. Congress passed laws making weed illegal and hasn’t passed a law granting (or prohibiting) universal healthcare. States can, indeed do it independently. There’s at least 3 states with a public option
  - arrosenberg 4y ago
    > Healthcare and any other federal welfare policies could be enacted by passing an amendment. All federal welfare policies can be enacted under the commerce clause and/or the general welfare clause.
    - dantheman 4y ago
      Yeah, exactly - what can't be enacted under the commerce clause. Everything impacts commerce, growing wheat on your own land for your own use impacts commerce. It's not legitimate. Once that door was opened, it went from enumerated power to anything not prohibited.

acituan 4y ago

> The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority Being anti-majority doesn't mean pro-minority. It is about decreasing the weight of merely being in the majority as an input feature to optimal decision making. It is protecting against pseudo-relevance majority can pose as an overemphasized decision making strategy. This doesn't mean all ideas that manifest as majority is irrelevant, not at all, it is protecting against the false positives. Mind you a lack of steamrolling with majority alone forces a downstream integration of opponent thoughts. Think it like a collective intelligence architecture that is trying to make sure we don't get stuck in local optima.

comte7092 4y ago
That’s all well and good, but when these issues come up, people seemingly turn their brains off and repeat “tyranny of the majority” without evaluating the empirical reality of how these systems function in practice. I’m amenable tot he notion that there should be some guardrails on simple majoritarianism, but it shouldn’t follow that all anti majoritarian rules are good.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  We do have guardrails. The constitution puts various things off-limits to any sort of majoritarian process of regular governing. Should there be more things off-limits? Should there be less? Intelligent people could disagree, but the off-limits category already exists and there is a process to change what is in it.

pdonis 4y ago

> The alternative to majority rule is tyranny of the minority That's one alternative, but not the only one. Another alternative is for the government to not have the power to tyrannize in the first place. As the saying goes, the problem is not that politicians can be bought but that they have something valuable to sell. > the majority of the country wants universal healthcare and legalized cannabis I don't think this is true. I think vocal minorities want these things.

dantheman 4y ago
If the government followed the constituion this wouldn't be problems: 1. Marijuana would never have been illegal at the federal level because an amendment wasn't passed. 2. Healthcare and any other federal welfare policies could be ennacted by passing an amendment. If there isn't broad consensus across the country to pass an amendment then states can do it independently. There is no reason a state can't have single payer healthcare, except that they don't want to pay for it and want to just add the cost to the national debt.
- 1_1xdev1 4y ago
  You are ignoring the constitutional article granting congress the ability to make laws. Congress passed laws making weed illegal and hasn’t passed a law granting (or prohibiting) universal healthcare. States can, indeed do it independently. There’s at least 3 states with a public option
- arrosenberg 4y ago
  > Healthcare and any other federal welfare policies could be enacted by passing an amendment. All federal welfare policies can be enacted under the commerce clause and/or the general welfare clause.
  - dantheman 4y ago
    Yeah, exactly - what can't be enacted under the commerce clause. Everything impacts commerce, growing wheat on your own land for your own use impacts commerce. It's not legitimate. Once that door was opened, it went from enumerated power to anything not prohibited.