4 ms·

You could avoid that by having a government with limited powers - limited enough that the voters could not use those powers to seize others' rights and property

You could avoid that by having a government with limited powers - limited enough that the voters could not use those powers to seize others' rights and property. We had an imperfect, but still pretty good, example of that. Had. It's been eroding for a while now. But it's eroded the fastest under the current administration, which has tried very hard to overrun all the limits on power, and has succeeded far too often for me.

mothballed 11mo ago
If you have that you are 99% of the way there. Those anti-democratic limits are where the devil lies. I think that they can only stay intact indefinitely by having competition for governance. Part of a reason why I'm a proponent of polycentric law, so that a single monopoly of governance can't slowly crush the populace. Once the majority realizes they can't tyrannize the minority because the minority can run away and work under their own system of law, a balance might be found. Under such a system there is no monopolistic democracy, but people might voluntarily enter into one until they find their rights too suppressed.
- dpark 11mo ago
  > the majority realizes they can't tyrannize the minority because the minority can run away and work under their own system of law Keep going. What happens when the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government? Go down the hole deep enough and you’ll figure out why everyone who doesn’t want to be a dictator or a dictator’s lackey prefers democracy.
  - mothballed 11mo ago
    Why would the minority prefer to live under a 'democracy' when the majority have decided they would kill them because they don't acknowledge their 'legitimacy'? That's when they need to avoid monopolistic democracy the most! You present the strongest case for my argument! Under the split model they at least have a chance; the minority can bind together, form alliances, and frustrate the 'majorities' force. This is what we see on the world stage -- minority populations like USA or India form alliances and somehow survive without a world government to force the will of a vote of the majority of the world. The USA population is a minority and most are extremely happy it's not a world democracy which is what the logical conclusion of your argument leads to, based on your implied threat that minority USA would experience. Under your proposal, they all simply are voted into being democracy's 'lackey' assuming the majority don't simply vote them dead. Not to mention you're contradicting yourself in your statement -- a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. In reality even in the incredibly unlikely case minorities can't form alliances strong enough it's not worth the risk to try to crush them -- even then in the real world it's often better off for both sides to engage in trade and coexistence rather than to simply kill each other. Of course, even in democracies, war exists, and they would under all other forms of governance.
    - dpark 11mo ago
      You can read all about the actual stories of minorities rising up to fight majorities in history books. This isn’t some hypothetical we have to approach from a purely philosophical standpoint. All modern functioning democracies I’m aware of have a set of rights they have agreed everyone has a right to. This has largely been achieved through bloodshed. Your idea that we’re should devolve into feudal tribes seems quite obviously destined to result in a great deal of bloodshed. We have the term warlord to describe those who frequently end up in charge in this sort of arrangement. > a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. Nowhere did I say or imply that. Those in power usually stay in power because they have power. Numbers are only one sort of power.
      - mothballed 11mo ago
        Taiwan is considered by the Chinese to be part of China. Their strongest hypothetical allies, USA, when added to their population doesn't even come close to reaching the population of China. By all counts, they lose the popular vote of China (which again, considers Taiwan part of it). And China does not recognized their 'minority' government. Yet Taiwan still exists, all while having less military power than China. How is that? Seems to throw a bone in your whole idea that a rogue minority government in the envelope of a majority that considers them encompassing part of their country, is destined to fail or devolve into some pre-civilization caveman situation. >>> Keep going. What happens when the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government? >> a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. >Nowhere did I say or imply that. Those in power usually stay in power because they have power. Numbers are only one sort of power. And here we get to the truth of what you're saying. We can just handwave away 'numbers are only one sort of power' to mean literally anything could happen if the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government. Including, most common on the world stage, simply carrying on with trade while maintaining a tenuous balance and the occasional wars that happen even on inter or intra democracy lines. Because most often, it's not worth a violent fight. So basically, nothing of interest beyond the status quo to note here. "Go down the hole deep enough" and you’ll figure out why my assertions are true -- the world is a collection of minorities in various alliances that manage to by those means still exist.

mothballed 11mo ago

If you have that you are 99% of the way there. Those anti-democratic limits are where the devil lies. I think that they can only stay intact indefinitely by having competition for governance. Part of a reason why I'm a proponent of polycentric law, so that a single monopoly of governance can't slowly crush the populace. Once the majority realizes they can't tyrannize the minority because the minority can run away and work under their own system of law, a balance might be found. Under such a system there is no monopolistic democracy, but people might voluntarily enter into one until they find their rights too suppressed.

dpark 11mo ago
> the majority realizes they can't tyrannize the minority because the minority can run away and work under their own system of law Keep going. What happens when the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government? Go down the hole deep enough and you’ll figure out why everyone who doesn’t want to be a dictator or a dictator’s lackey prefers democracy.
- mothballed 11mo ago
  Why would the minority prefer to live under a 'democracy' when the majority have decided they would kill them because they don't acknowledge their 'legitimacy'? That's when they need to avoid monopolistic democracy the most! You present the strongest case for my argument! Under the split model they at least have a chance; the minority can bind together, form alliances, and frustrate the 'majorities' force. This is what we see on the world stage -- minority populations like USA or India form alliances and somehow survive without a world government to force the will of a vote of the majority of the world. The USA population is a minority and most are extremely happy it's not a world democracy which is what the logical conclusion of your argument leads to, based on your implied threat that minority USA would experience. Under your proposal, they all simply are voted into being democracy's 'lackey' assuming the majority don't simply vote them dead. Not to mention you're contradicting yourself in your statement -- a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. In reality even in the incredibly unlikely case minorities can't form alliances strong enough it's not worth the risk to try to crush them -- even then in the real world it's often better off for both sides to engage in trade and coexistence rather than to simply kill each other. Of course, even in democracies, war exists, and they would under all other forms of governance.
  - dpark 11mo ago
    You can read all about the actual stories of minorities rising up to fight majorities in history books. This isn’t some hypothetical we have to approach from a purely philosophical standpoint. All modern functioning democracies I’m aware of have a set of rights they have agreed everyone has a right to. This has largely been achieved through bloodshed. Your idea that we’re should devolve into feudal tribes seems quite obviously destined to result in a great deal of bloodshed. We have the term warlord to describe those who frequently end up in charge in this sort of arrangement. > a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. Nowhere did I say or imply that. Those in power usually stay in power because they have power. Numbers are only one sort of power.
    - mothballed 11mo ago
      Taiwan is considered by the Chinese to be part of China. Their strongest hypothetical allies, USA, when added to their population doesn't even come close to reaching the population of China. By all counts, they lose the popular vote of China (which again, considers Taiwan part of it). And China does not recognized their 'minority' government. Yet Taiwan still exists, all while having less military power than China. How is that? Seems to throw a bone in your whole idea that a rogue minority government in the envelope of a majority that considers them encompassing part of their country, is destined to fail or devolve into some pre-civilization caveman situation. >>> Keep going. What happens when the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government? >> a dictatorship is a minority rule yet you imply they can't exist because the majority would destroy the minority in power. >Nowhere did I say or imply that. Those in power usually stay in power because they have power. Numbers are only one sort of power. And here we get to the truth of what you're saying. We can just handwave away 'numbers are only one sort of power' to mean literally anything could happen if the majority refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the minority government. Including, most common on the world stage, simply carrying on with trade while maintaining a tenuous balance and the occasional wars that happen even on inter or intra democracy lines. Because most often, it's not worth a violent fight. So basically, nothing of interest beyond the status quo to note here. "Go down the hole deep enough" and you’ll figure out why my assertions are true -- the world is a collection of minorities in various alliances that manage to by those means still exist.