The ethics of majoritarianism

[Liberal]

In another thread, my friend, soulmate, and sometimes nemesis (:)), SentientMeat, posted this:

@SentientMeat

Perhaps we could all have, say, a vote? And if a majority voted for some kind of collective which required some contribution to remain within that geographical area, the “libertarians” could choose to live elsewhere?

Like, say, Somalia?

I don’t think it’s a secret to anyone who’s been around here longer than two days that I’m a staunch libertarian, or classical liberal. Despite the perception from some that I’m a recalictrant lunatic, I didn’t just stumble on this philosophy one day and go, hey, that looks pretty weird, I think I’ll adopt it. Rather, it was over time, and through what I believe is a fairly thorough analysis (it is still ongoing), that I came to embrace the principle of noncoercion.

I’m certain the same is true of Sentient, and many others who defend the principle of majority rule. I know that, at least in his case, holding to this opposing principle is no more capricioius than my own. What I’m interested in in this thread is a discussion and debate about majoritarianism.

Let me be clear — NOT MAJORITARIANISM VERSUS LIBERTARIANISM, but majoritarianism in se. I don’t want this to become a “my system is better than yours” fiasco because, frankly, it is all in the end a matter of subjective choice. One man might be happier in a circumstance of complete chaos with no government at all and no rules, while another might be happier in a circumstance of complete authoritarianism and totalitarian government (especially if he is the governor!). Comparisons may be made for the purpose of clarification, but not for the purpose of changing the subject. There are already plenty of threads debating the merits of libertarianism. This is not one of them.

I can draw, and have drawn over the years, the theoretical underpinning of my philosophy, and I would like to hear the theoretical underpinning of yours. In fact, I have some specific questions that arise from Sentient’s quote above. And again, “Well, how do you justify yours!?” will be considered nonresponsive and off-topic. Feel free to start another thread about libertarianism if you wish. Here, the topic is majoritarianism. Here is where I get to ask the probing questions and present the hypotheticals, while you defend.

I invite all who are up to the task to participate.

Question 1: What is the principle upon which majority rule has its ethical authority? It doesn’t have to have a name, like the NP. Just espouse it.

Question 2: How do you demarcate (if at all) between what the majority may impose upon the minority and what it may not? In Sentient’s quote above, the majority may force the minority to abandon its property and move to Somalia. May it also force the minority to, say, have sex with pigs? If not, why not? What is the principle that establishes how much authority the majority has? And be careful if you say that it is established by prudence or some other anthropic principle, because I will ask who determines what is prudent. And if you say the majority, then we are right back where we started. What is to prevent the majority from deciding that pig fucking is prudent?

Question 3: What is the guiding principle in the case of majority minorities? For example, suppose that a majority of people in, say, California, support the legalization of marijuana while an overall majority of people in the United States oppose it. Or another example, suppose that a majority of people in Boston support gay marriage while a majority of people in Massachusets oppose it. What happens here, of course, is that there are local minorities who are getting their way, and local majorities who are suppressed. The 25% (or whatever) of Californians who oppose legalizing pot have the political advantage over the 75% (or whatever) who support it. And the gay people in Boston, representing a majority of Bostonians, would like to get married but can’t. Who is to say (or more precisely, what principle is it that says) that people in Maine or Alabama have any business telling people in California what to do?

Question 4: I suspect that, based on limited prior discussions, part of the majority’s authority will be said to arise from a confidence that the majority will be temperate and wise. After all, they are trusted to elect the representatives and governors who will rule. And in general, all good things are ultimately traced back to the majority, like caring for the poor, for example. The majority of people advocate some sort of support system for the helpless among us. In fact, I don’t know that that can even be called a majority. I believe it is a supermajority. I have yet to encounter anyone who said, “Just let 'em all die.” (Jokes and projections of arbitrary inferences upon the advocacy of freedom aside.) My question is, if the majority is so wise, so fair, so temperate, and so concerned about the poor, why is it that they will not, acting on their own volition, see to the needs of the poor? I mean, if they are willing to spend billions of dollars putting into place massive public bureaucracies to oversee this task, why would they be unwilling to spend billions of dollars putting into place massive private agencies to oversee this task? It seems to me that the agent who can make his own laws and collect additional revenues whenever he pleases would be less responsive and accountable than the agent whose very livelihood depends upon pleasing his constituents and contributors. You might argue that elected officials depend similarly upon pleasing their consituencies, lest they fail to be reelected, but even if they evaporate, the slime of their bureaucracy will remain (apologies to Franz Kafka), and those who oversee its operations typically are not elected anyway, but are career agents and diplomats who draw checks no matter who is in office. But if the businessman fails to please his clients, then his business will close, and another, more responsive business with new operators, will rise to take its place. So, if the majority can be trusted to figure out who best represents their interests, why can’t they be trusted to represent their interests themselves? Why can’t it be, “Here, Peter, here’s a dollar for Paul.”? Why must it be, “Here, Peter, here’s the authority to take a dollar from me and give it to Paul.”?

Question 5: Directly pursuant to Sentient’s quote, upon what principle does a majority have an ethical holding over a geographical area? As Thomas Jefferson has said, “A geographical division… is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle.” --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith, 1821. FE 10:191. In other words, why are a hundred people allowed to tell ten people, “Here’s the way we’re going to do things, and if you don’t like it, move to Somalia.” I mean, for one thing, the Somalians might have something to say about that. But isn’t that sentiment eerily reminiscent of “America, love it or leave it”? Or the White Supremacist call for Blacks to “move back to Africa”? It seems to me that staying in America for the purpose of improving it expresses a love for it. And most Blacks who are here are not even from Africa, so how can they move “back”? Likewise, why should a man who has improved his property by his own labor and wits be forced to sell off that property or surrender it to government at a price determined to be fair by people who did not participate in its improvement? How will his memories of teaching his son to fish in the property’s pond, or teaching his daughter to ride horses in the property’s field be assigned a monetary worth? When he looks out over the land that his family has owned for generations, he does not see what the majority sees. He sees a whole lifetime of, well, life. All the majority sees is soil samples and neighborhood housing values. What ethical principle entitles the majority to displace this man and move him to Somalia — where he has not even one memory or one iota of investment in time or labor — simply because he does not wish to bend to their demands? What entitles them to draw a polygon on a map and say, “Within these boundaries, our voices rule.”?

Naturally, more questions might arise based on responses.

[Dunderman]

I do not staunchly support majoritarianism and would in fact happily support a fascist autocracy if I believed it would be maximally good. However, given the evidence I have so far seen, I tend to lean towards majority rule being the least bad system, so I’ll try answering these questions.

@Liberal

Question 1: What is the principle upon which majority rule has its ethical authority? It doesn’t have to have a name, like the NP. Just espouse it.

Basically, someone has to get their way. Wherever there are two people, there are (at least) two wills, and one has to be chosen. So, who decides who gets their way? Either we can let some kind of minority rule (the Emperor, the rich, the white, the good Communists), or we can let the majority rule. I think it is self-evident that satisfying the needs of the many is better than satisfying the needs of the few or the one, therefore majority rule.

Question 2: How do you demarcate (if at all) between what the majority may impose upon the minority and what it may not?

Difficult question. I don’t, personally. The majority can impose whatever they want on the minority, but in most cases the majority decides to uphold a certain system of rights or morals. That’s why most democracies have difficult-to-alter Constitutions; so that there is a practical limit as to how much the majority can do. Note that the limit isn’t absolute; Constitutions can be altered.

Question 3: What is the guiding principle in the case of majority minorities?

I’m going to have to take the chickenshit way out and say “there is none”. Some people are going to be screwed under this system, but I support it because I believe fewer people are screwed under it than under any other.

Question 4: I suspect that, based on limited prior discussions, part of the majority’s authority will be said to arise from a confidence that the majority will be temperate and wise.

Since that is not why I grant the majority authority (in fact I believe, and would strongly suggest that the evidence proves me right, that the majority will often be dumb, rash and shortsighted) I’ll skip this question.

Question 5: Directly pursuant to Sentient’s quote, upon what principle does a majority have an ethical holding over a geographical area?

Necessity. People living in the same geographical area will have some common interests and issues. I can’t think of another division that would be as practical.

I’d like to add that if I got my way, the geographical areas would be tiny. No Russias, Chinas or USAs. Not even Liechtensteins.

[Sevastopol]

Question 1: What is the principle upon which majority rule has its ethical authority? It doesn’t have to have a name, like the NP. Just espouse it.

Consent of the governed.

Question 2: How do you demarcate (if at all) between what the majority may impose upon the minority and what it may not? In Sentient’s quote above, the majority may force the minority to abandon its property and move to Somalia. May it also force the minority to, say, have sex with pigs? If not, why not? What is the principle that establishes how much authority the majority has? And be careful if you say that it is established by prudence or some other anthropic principle, because I will ask who determines what is prudent. And if you say the majority, then we are right back where we started. What is to prevent the majority from deciding that pig fucking is prudent?

A constitutional system requiring special majorities for particular decisions. Explains for example why the US is locked in an inescapable trap of preventable gun deaths.

Question 3: What is the guiding principle in the case of majority minorities? For example, suppose that a majority of people in, say, California, support the legalization of marijuana while an overall majority of people in the United States oppose it. Or another example, suppose that a majority of people in Boston support gay marriage while a majority of people in Massachusets oppose it. What happens here, of course, is that there are local minorities who are getting their way, and local majorities who are suppressed. The 25% (or whatever) of Californians who oppose legalizing pot have the political advantage over the 75% (or whatever) who support it. And the gay people in Boston, representing a majority of Bostonians, would like to get married but can’t. Who is to say (or more precisely, what principle is it that says) that people in Maine or Alabama have any business telling people in California what to do?

The question isn’t clear, but I think what you are getting at is the question of sovereignty in a Federated System. The people of California have a local sovereignty for (enumerated or is it residual?) issues, wheras the Commonwealth of the United States has a general sovereignty for (residual or is it enumerated?) issues, as determined by the Federal Constitution.

Question 4: My question is, if the majority is so wise, so fair, so temperate, and so concerned about the poor, why is it that they will not, acting on their own volition, see to the needs of the poor?

You’ve fundamentally misconceived the nature of democracy. It presupposes, not that people are wise and oriented to sound judgment, but that they are foolish, malevolent and self-centred. Democratic government intends that individual folly and evil is minimized by forcing competing self-interests into peaceable negotiation. It intends that coalitions of like interests will marginalize extreme and foolish ideas. Of course there is a paradox: what are the extreme ideas? Those that are marginalized.

Question 5: … **(a)**upon what principle does a majority have an ethical holding over a geographical area?
…
**(b)**Likewise, why should a man who has improved his property by his own labor and wits be forced to sell off that property or surrender it to government at a price determined to be fair by people who did not participate in its improvement?
…
**©**How will his memories of teaching his son to fish in the property’s pond, or teaching his daughter to ride horses in the property’s field be assigned a monetary worth?
…
**(d)**When he looks out over the land that his family has owned for generations, he does not see what the majority sees. He sees a whole lifetime of, well, life. All the majority sees is soil samples and neighborhood housing values…

a. It is not an ethics based system. It is a practical means of non-violent & consensual dispute resolution.

b. Sometimes the social need is greater than the individual. Railways are a classic example.

c. See ‘priceless’

d. More or less. See © above.

[Liberal]

I like the response that it is not ethically based, which makes sense to me (although there might yet arrive a majoritarian who will defend it on an ethical basis.)

But the assertion that followed that one bothered me: “It is a practical means of non-violent & consensual dispute resolution.” For one thing, the consent of the minority is definitively discarded, and therefore it cannot be a consensual anything. For another, it seems to me that whatever is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing (a tyrant might defend his actions by saying how practical they are for his purpose), and is therefore tautological and without useful information. And finally, from 13,000 troops riding into Pittsburgh, through the Trail of Tears, through the civil rights riots of the '60s, and through the detaining and torture of people merely suspected of crimes today — nonviolent is the most odd descriptor of all.

I’m going to wait, however, for a bit more discussion before pressing on with more questions.

[Dunderman]

@Liberal

And finally, from 13,000 troops riding into Pittsburgh, through the Trail of Tears, through the civil rights riots of the '60s, and through the detaining and torture of people merely suspected of crimes today — nonviolent is the most odd descriptor of all.

American democracy has a violent history, this is true, but that doesn’t mean majoritarianism itself carries violence with it. Here in Sweden we’ve had very few riots, all caused by small groups of extremists, and military intervention is unheard of.

[Sevastopol]

@Liberal

But the assertion that followed that one bothered me: “It is a practical means of non-violent & consensual dispute resolution.” For one thing, the consent of the minority is definitively discarded, and therefore it cannot be a consensual anything. For another, it seems to me that whatever is practical depends entirely on what you are practicing (a tyrant might defend his actions by saying how practical they are for his purpose), and is therefore tautological and without useful information. And finally, from 13,000 troops riding into Pittsburgh, through the Trail of Tears, through the civil rights riots of the '60s, and through the detaining and torture of people merely suspected of crimes today — nonviolent is the most odd descriptor of all.

Consent is not to individual policies, but to the process of dispute resolution. It is consent to disagreement being resolved by ballot box.

Practical, as an alternative to violent resolution of conflict by violent means.

Minimizing non-violent resolution of conflict.

[SentientMeat]

Question 1: What is the principle upon which majority rule has its ethical authority? It doesn’t have to have a name, like the NP. Just espouse it.

Democracy is not just ‘majority rule’, as we both understand. The principle of democracy is that of equality: of each individual having an equal share in the decisions whose consequences affect the lives of those individuals, given that any system (‘libertarian’ or not) will dramatically affect the lives of the individuals within it.

How do you demarcate (if at all) between what the majority may impose upon the minority and what it may not?

A tricky line to toe, as Mill set forth. Again, all decisions have consequences. The decision to do away with majority decisions and allow things to happen ad hoc itself has important consequences, and may itself impose conditions on a minority or a majority. We can only ask ourselves whether the democracy is representative of all, given though it can by definition never be perfectly representative of all.

In Sentient’s quote above, the majority may force the minority to abandon its property and move to Somalia.

No, it may present a choice of moving elsewhere or obeying the democratic mandate. In that instance, the choice is “pay taxes or sell your property and move where you don’t have to pay tax, visting as regularly as you please so long as a certain portion of a year is spent outside the tax area”: ethnic cleansing it isn’t.

What is to prevent the majority from deciding that pig fucking is prudent?

Nothing. The minority must resort to force to escape its fate. Again, that comes down to a form of majority-rule itself: not number of people, but effectiveness of force becomes the deciding factor. (And rest assured, I’d fight for the minority even if I was not shortlisted for porcine reconditioning myself.)

What is the guiding principle in the case of majority minorities?

All democracies have hierarchies, from local councils to regional assemblies to state parliaments and federal unions of states. Those democratic entities themselves decide the limits of each other’s power. In the Maine/California example, believe it was settled in the Act of Union which made seccession so incredbily difficult that it was effectively made impossible for evermore.

I mean, if they are willing to spend billions of dollars putting into place massive public bureaucracies to oversee this task, why would they be unwilling to spend billions of dollars putting into place massive private agencies to oversee this task?

Or, indeed, unwilling to simply not own things at all, but each knowing exactly the limits of his use of a given item or service so as not to inconvenience another? We would then not even need any expensive apparatus to mediate property privilege.

The majority may not have the wisdom to know exactly how much is ‘enough’ for the task of providing a safety net, but it has wisdom enough to see that a bureaucracy, expensive though it may be, which can plan and budget based on a quantity of money mandated by force, is currently the most realistic option of providing that safety net. I, like you, hope that humanity can one day vote to end taxation. But I will not vote to end taxation before the vote to end property has been won.

Why must it be, “Here, Peter, here’s the authority to take a dollar from me and give it to Paul.”?

Because of people’s (including myself) unfortunate fetish for property: they will not give enough for all Pauls not to suffer.

Directly pursuant to Sentient’s quote, upon what principle does a majority have an ethical holding over a geographical area?

Like all other ownership: by force. Your “ownership” of your land is simply the force you or your associates have to keep other people off it. In a collective, the associates of each individual comprise the entire rest of the collective.

All the majority sees is soil samples and neighborhood housing values. What ethical principle entitles the majority to displace this man and move him to Somalia — where he has not even one memory or one iota of investment in time or labor — simply because he does not wish to bend to their demands?

Those demands for a small amount of his money which will be used to heal the sick and feed those who would otherwise starve? Why does not the man just tolerate the inconvenience of paying for what he considers to be an inefficient system and stay where he is? That fellow sounds like he has quite the martyr complex.

What entitles them to draw a polygon on a map and say, “Within these boundaries, our voices rule.”?

Ownership of property, which is based on coercion by force.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill

[hawthorne]

Liberal
I like the response that it is not ethically based, which makes sense to me (although there might yet arrive a majoritarian who will defend it on an ethical basis.)

It would be interesting to encounter such a person. Maybe they exist.

Liberal
But the assertion that followed that one bothered me: “It is a practical means of non-violent & consensual dispute resolution.” For one thing, the consent of the minority is definitively discarded, and therefore it cannot be a consensual anything.

Think clubs - you don’t have to agree that governments are clublike. The first meeting of a club might very well unanimously decide to make decisions about some matters on a majority basis because reaching unanimous agreement is costly.

“Majoritarianism” (as I understand it) means majority decision-making applied inappropriately. If we agree on goals, this is straightforward.

[erislover]

1. Q: What is the principle upon which majority rule has its ethical authority? A: Force. It is the underpinning of all systems of rule. There is no ethical authority to appeal to.

2. Q: How do you demarcate (if at all) between what the majority may impose upon the minority and what it may not? A: I don’t believe such a line can be drawn, but in hindsight of such items of imposition, or their lack, I would suggest that a small or temporary pocket of power can enact a change that the majority is not willing to make, but neither are they willing (or possibly able) to take back once it gets put in motion.

3. Q: What is the guiding principle in the case of majority minorities? A: See 1. They have a pocket of power and are willing to use it.

4. Q: I suspect that, based on limited prior discussions, part of the majority’s authority will be said to arise from a confidence that the majority will be temperate and wise. A: If people, on average, are more likely to pick the correct alternative than the incorrect one (say, 34% right/33% wrong/33% wrong), should such a choice exist, then majorities will tend to pick the proper alternative. I might be able to dig up a paper to this effect if you wish. This, if anything, is a strong argument in favor of an educated population under democracy. In fact, with that mathematical treatment in mind, it is hard to see how education is not a precondition for a well-functioning democracy. 4. (cont) My question is, if the majority is so wise, so fair, so temperate, and so concerned about the poor, why is it that they will not, acting on their own volition, see to the needs of the poor? Because there are often many more than two alternatives, so a majority will pick better than any particular individual. 4. (cont) So, if the majority can be trusted to figure out who best represents their interests, why can’t they be trusted to represent their interests themselves? This is the question every anarchist probably asks themselves.

5. Q: [ U]pon what principle does a majority have an ethical holding over a geographical area? A: See 1. Force can only be realistically applied over a geographical area.

[treis]

Ethical discussions about government are pointless as the first order of business for a new government is to morally justify itself. We have philosophical arguments for every form of government throughout history and some that have never existed. I could sit here and justify divine right monarchy, communism or a caste system among others. For nearly everyone whether they would like to admit it or not the government that they ethically justify is the one that serves them best. Now there are people that justify a government that helps the poor. However for most of these people it will not be their money spent to help the poor it will be that of the rich. For example most of those that want socialized medicine will recieve more benefit than the system will cost them while most of those oppposed the system will cost more than the benefit they will recieve.

In short all governments are based on one overriding ethic. They have the power to control a portion of land and they are willing to use it.

[Liberal]

@Priceguy

Basically, someone has to get their way. Wherever there are two people, there are (at least) two wills, and one has to be chosen. So, who decides who gets their way? Either we can let some kind of minority rule (the Emperor, the rich, the white, the good Communists), or we can let the majority rule. I think it is self-evident that satisfying the needs of the many is better than satisfying the needs of the few or the one, therefore majority rule.

Your hypothetical of the two men, I think, raises the question of why each may not be free to exercise his own will. If you say that that would cause a conflict of wills, then I think not. After all, if A imposes his will on B, then B is not free to exercise his own will. Likewise, if B imposes his will on A, then A is not free to exercise his own will. So, my question is, why must there be a process to determine how best to compromise the will of one or both? Why not simply a process that ensures each may exercise his own will without imposing upon the will of the other?

Necessity. People living in the same geographical area will have some common interests and issues. I can’t think of another division that would be as practical.

But the problem is that there is no division. They draw their polygon, and with it they include the whole shebang. The unfortunate Mr. Smith who does not want to screw pigs is not divided out of their scheme.

[Triskadecamus]

The “Somalia option” is a fiction, and therein lies the true reason to accept the rule of the majority by formalized Constitutional Law. There is no part of the earth that is not controlled by the enforced will of governments. While land ownership itself is inherited ultimately from murderers, it is universal within our experience, and the descendents of those murderers are not likely to surrender it without force.

Among the various aggregate expressions of the power of murderers working together, Constitutional Democracy has the most readily available route to influence for non-murderers, of all the forms of government currently in use. Why not be an anarchist? Because anarchists can be murdered as easily as democrats, but democrats have more friends. Why not a Libertarian? Just because you inherited the fruits of murder, you don’t get to pretend to me that that is a moral right. It is the right gained by coercion already accomplished. It’s the same story for the other flavors of cooperative murder.

You got to find a way to live, and if you don’t want to be an active murderer, you have to find a way to get along with the folks who don’t mind so much. Constitutional Democracy is the least efficient way to keep the murderers occupied. I’m for it. I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The major threats are all domestic, lately.

Tris

“People are difficult to govern because they have too much knowledge.” ~ Lao Tzu ~

[Liberal]

@SentientMeat

Democracy is not just ‘majority rule’, as we both understand. The principle of democracy is that of equality: of each individual having an equal share in the decisions whose consequences affect the lives of those individuals, given that any system (‘libertarian’ or not) will dramatically affect the lives of the individuals within it.

But I haven’t said anything about democracy. Even the US is not a democracy, except in the loosest possible usage of the term.

A tricky line to toe, as Mill set forth. Again, all decisions have consequences. The decision to do away with majority decisions and allow things to happen ad hoc itself has important consequences, and may itself impose conditions on a minority or a majority. We can only ask ourselves whether the democracy is representative of all, given though it can by definition never be perfectly representative of all.

I really prefer that we do not conflate a political philosophy and a form of government. Even a monarchy could be majoritarian if the king decides to rule by taking polls.

No, it may present a choice of moving elsewhere or obeying the democratic mandate. In that instance, the choice is “pay taxes or sell your property and move where you don’t have to pay tax, visting as regularly as you please so long as a certain portion of a year is spent outside the tax area”: ethnic cleansing it isn’t.

That is reminiscent of people who say that there is no freewill because God gives people the “choice” of doing His bidding or burning in Hell. That isn’t a choice anymore than lifting your skirt is a choice when there is a knife at your throat. Moving elsewhere might mean nothing to nomadic apartment dwellers or college students in dorms, but for people who have invested all their lives into improving their homes, it is an onerous burden to bear. It is the same choice given to the Cherokee, when they were uprooted from their lands and moved a thousand miles away because they were unwilling to obey the mandate of the US government, vis-a-vis the Indian Removal Act of 1830.

The majority may not have the wisdom to know exactly how much is ‘enough’ for the task of providing a safety net, but it has wisdom enough to see that a bureaucracy, expensive though it may be, which can plan and budget based on a quantity of money mandated by force, is currently the most realistic option of providing that safety net. I, like you, hope that humanity can one day vote to end taxation. But I will not vote to end taxation before the vote to end property has been won.

And yet the safety net fails. Routinely. Daily. I can, if you press me, provide cites of homeless people dying in the streets, children being abused right under the noses of child welfare agencies, Appalachian homes (shanties, actually) that still have no electricity, people begging for food, and so on, but I know that you know that they’re there. Are you sure that it isn’t more a matter of “out of sight, out of mind”? In other words, if the people have paid their taxes, then they have done their duty to the poor, and enjoy the psychological baptism of innocence as they walk by the slob slumped against a wall on the sidewalk.

Because of people’s (including myself) unfortunate fetish for property: they will not give enough for all Pauls not to suffer.

I’m going to have to say that that’s speculation. At best. Last year, sixty percent of Americans volunteered more than a hundred hours apiece in charity work, and gave more than $240 billion to domestic charitable causes alone.

Like all other ownership: by force. Your “ownership” of your land is simply the force you or your associates have to keep other people off it. In a collective, the associates of each individual comprise the entire rest of the collective.

I really would like to keep this limited to a discussion on majority rule. But quite honestly, the statement you just made applies to practically anything. I mean, your “ability” to walk is simply the force you or your associates have to keep people from crippling you. Does that mean you have no ability? Your “right” to breathe is simply the force you or your associates have to keep people from strangling you. Have you no right to take a breath? Ownership is not the force; rather, the force is the protection of the ownership. Ownership is an authority, and even were you to eliminate property ownership in that sense, there would still be someone calling the shots and using the force to make sure that all the weebles have access to the commons. So if you are defining property as force, you will never be rid of it.

Those demands for a small amount of his money which will be used to heal the sick and feed those who would otherwise starve? Why does not the man just tolerate the inconvenience of paying for what he considers to be an inefficient system and stay where he is? That fellow sounds like he has quite the martyr complex.

Maybe. But it sounds to me like the majority has a much worse case. Even giving you that the money will not be squandered on wars and haircuts, rather than healing the sick and feeding the hungry (which is a generous gift), your majority has decided that a sacrifice is called for in order to assuage their guilt. That’s what a martyr complex is all about.

Ownership of property, which is based on coercion by force.

Again, that is off-topic, and I disagree. Ownership of property is based on being born.

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill

The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society. — Thomas Jefferson

[Little_Nemo]

The fundamental grace of majoritarianism is that it generally works.

Majoritarionism has some advantages over other types of government. One is that there can only be a single majority - if one side has 51% of the support, the other side by definition does not. So issues can be decided and society can move on. In societies governed by factions or individuals, the same issues might be argued forever without resolution because there is no principle to decide which opposing viewpoint takes precedence.

Majoritarianism also works because it requires the government to have a broad support among the governed. Any regime tends to look out best for the interests of those it must answer to. If a government is only answerable to a small minority of the society it governs, it may protect that minority to the detriment of the majority. But a government that has to answer to the majority takes actions that hurt the interests of the majority it will be replaced.

[SentientMeat]

A brief reply: I’m away for the weekend.

Very well, Lib, I will suggest that majoritarianism, like property ownership, is based solely on force. If I had to appeal to some principle by which I would justify its use in coming to decisions, I would suggest negative utilitarianism, ie. that it is the method of decision which caused least suffering.

I compare the consequences of majoritarianism to the consequences of unfettered property ownership and consider that the former entails less coercion and suffering than the latter.

[Liberal]

I grant you that it works. But everything works. Whatever exists is working. For someone. Toward something. I’m not at all convinced, though, that it must be either majoritarianism or minoritarianism. It does not have to be the case that people are governed by the will of anyone else. Nor does it have to be the case that to govern means to rule. It can mean merely to have a determining influence. So, I don’t think that majoritarianism has any ethical justification simply from “working”.

[Liberal]

@SentientMeat

A brief reply: I’m away for the weekend.

Very well, Lib, I will suggest that majoritarianism, like property ownership, is based solely on force. If I had to appeal to some principle by which I would justify its use in coming to decisions, I would suggest negative utilitarianism, ie. that it is the method of decision which caused least suffering.

I compare the consequences of majoritarianism to the consequences of unfettered property ownership and consider that the former entails less coercion and suffering than the latter.

Rejoin the discussion when you return, my friend. You are worth the wait. In the meantime, please remember that I don’t want this to be about one versus the other. See the bold caps in the OP. I want to examine majoritarianism as a stand-alone philosophy.

[Dunderman]

First of all, a little disclaimer: I am a little bit drunk. Not much, just a little bit. I know I should probably refrain from posting under these circumstances, but this discussion is just too damned interesting.

@Liberal

Your hypothetical of the two men, I think, raises the question of why each may not be free to exercise his own will.

If there are in fact only two people, in many cases this will not be a problem. But there are many more people than two in the world, and indeed in any country, city, village, township or county.

If you say that that would cause a conflict of wills, then I think not. After all, if A imposes his will on B, then B is not free to exercise his own will. Likewise, if B imposes his will on A, then A is not free to exercise his own will.

Exactly. And if their wills are in opposition we need some process to determine who gets superiority.

Why not simply a process that ensures each may exercise his own will without imposing upon the will of the other?

If that is possible, it is clearly the best course of action. Usually, it is not possible. People’s wills often contradict each other, especially these days when the world is so crowded.

But the problem is that there is no division. They draw their polygon, and with it they include the whole shebang. The unfortunate Mr. Smith who does not want to screw pigs is not divided out of their scheme.

I’m afraid I don’t entirely understand what you mean here. What I meant was that Mr Smith will probably be interested in the same issues as Mr Jones and Mr Brown who live in the same geographical area, and therefore should have a say in the same issues and Mr Jones and Mr Brown.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Liberal

Let me be clear — NOT MAJORITARIANISM VERSUS LIBERTARIANISM, but majoritarianism in se. I don’t want this to become a “my system is better than yours” fiasco because, frankly, it is all in the end a matter of subjective choice. One man might be happier in a circumstance of complete chaos with no government at all and no rules, while another might be happier in a circumstance of complete authoritarianism and totalitarian government (especially if he is the governor!). Comparisons may be made for the purpose of clarification, but not for the purpose of changing the subject. There are already plenty of threads debating the merits of libertarianism. This is not one of them.

This is a bit odd, since I really think systems of government can only be meaningfully evaluated when compared with alternatives.

Churchill had it right: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

[Liberal]

@Priceguy

If there are in fact only two people, in many cases this will not be a problem. But there are many more people than two in the world, and indeed in any country, city, village, township or county.

Okay, but you brought up two, and made your point using two. But my question remains no matter what number you assign. Rights clash only when some impose their will on others. So, why introduce the unnecessary entity of rights distribution schemes? In other words, isn’t it conceptually simpler to suppress imposition altogether than it is to establish a dizzying matrix of allowable and forbidden impositions, complete with exceptions, penumbras, and interstices?

Exactly. And if their wills are in opposition we need some process to determine who gets superiority.

But their wills are in opposition only if one is allowed to impose his will on the other. Why allow that imposition at all? Doesn’t majority rule actually cause a conflict in rights?

If that is possible, it is clearly the best course of action. Usually, it is not possible. People’s wills often contradict each other, especially these days when the world is so crowded.

I think you’ve just highlighted another intrinsic problem with majoritarianism. It cannot extract a consequence for the imposition of will because it, by its very nature, imposes the will of some against others.

I’m afraid I don’t entirely understand what you mean here. What I meant was that Mr Smith will probably be interested in the same issues as Mr Jones and Mr Brown who live in the same geographical area, and therefore should have a say in the same issues and Mr Jones and Mr Brown.

I have no problem with that, and it is entirely understandable that Smith, Jones, and Brown will want to decide among one another about how best to deal among themselves. The part I don’t understand is what entitles Smith, Jones, and Brown (ethically anyway) to decide among one another whether Mr. Anderson must move to Somalia, just because they’ve drawn a polygon that includes their property and his?