The ethics of majoritarianism

[Dunderman]

@Liberal

I reckon you’re talking about European style societies, because if you mean Asian-Indian style societies, then you are equating majoritarianism and cronyism. European population (with the exception of Muslim Albania) is declining. From 728 million in 2000, it is expected to fall to 556 million in fifty years. Meanwhile, China’s population already comprises a significant chunk of the whole earth’s, and theocratic populations are the next fastest increasing. Even Mexico is a one-party state, with the National Revolutionary Party holding power for the last 50 years. And tenuous majoritarian systems, like Russia or Chile, could fall before I hit submit. Rome was a republic for a while, and reverted. America (and its hegemonic influence) is too young to consider it the end of the historical road. It would be like capturing a random day from the stock market, and projecting a trend. Your position on this particular matter is honestly so full of holes, that I simply cannot understand why you continue to hold it. I would have changed my mind long ago.

Widespread majoritarianism is young, true, and it does have problems, true, but as a general trend it is growing. Russia wasn’t a majoritarian system, tenuous or otherwise, as little as twenty years ago, but it is now. Mexico being a one party state doesn’t mean Mexico isn’t majoritarianist. China is moving slowly, but it is moving. Japan is majoritarianist today, and wasn’t 60 years ago.

Majoritarianism barely existed at the beginning of recorded history, and now it is quite common.

When a majority is subjugated, it is because the majority goes along with it. Convenience and fear are common reasons to do so.

I disagree. It follows a compromise of the will. Within the majority, there might be strong disagreement about what flavor ice-cream people should eat: 33% might say chocolate, 33% strawberry, and 33% vanilla. It might end up requiring everyone to eat Neapolitan so that people have to buy three times as much to get what they want. To achieve the maximum amount of happiness for the maximum amount of people, you must allow every person to pursue his own happiness in his own way so long as he does not abridge the right of others to do the same.

Absolutely, inasmuch as that is possible. But what do you do when wills collide? You need some mechanism to decide what happens to the murderer Anderson and to decide whether Smith gets to dam off his section of the river, ruining it for the other four. If this mechanism isn’t majoritarianism, then what? Show me a better mechanism and I’ll abandon majoritarianism.

But how is that practical for the minority? We’ve already been over this. By imposing its will, the majority is practicing tyranny. That is no more practical than totalitarianism.

Yes, it is, as it is practical for a larger amount of people. Totalitarianism is practical for the very few that rule. Majoritarianism is practical for the maximum amount of people. I can think of no system that would be practical for everybody. In majoritarianism at least you have the chance to change the world.

[Little_Nemo]

Ignore it? I wrote a short story about it — Sarah’s Gold, about a pig farmer and his family, which you can read from my profile’s homepage.

But you have not answered your own question. The majoritarian world is chock full of homes that border pig farms, landfills, and even toxic waste dumps. This thread is about them. Why is the majority in fact ignoring the problems that you merely claim I’ve ignored?

Not that I’m surprised, Liberal, but I can’t help but notice that you chose to deny that you don’t answer questions instead of giving an answer to the question. The latter would have been more convincing than the former.

As you noted, I answered my question in terms of how it be addressed in a majoritarian system. One side would get what they want; the other side wouldn’t. You continue to claim that your system is better because both sides would get what they want. Yet you also continue to avoid explaining how both sides can get what they want when the two things they want can’t co-exist. The reason for this is plain to the rest of us; the reason you don’t answer this is because there is no answer. The impossibility of this happening is the reason your ideal of libertarianism will never work in the real world.

[erislover]

@Priceguy

When a majority is subjugated, it is because the majority goes along with it. Convenience and fear are common reasons to do so.

I think majoritarianism is always about subjugation. Everyone is in the minority of some opinion.

I like this comment as an illustration of that:

[T]he normal way to establish that a person has authority over another person involves showing that the alleged subject is likely better to comply with reasons which apply to him (other than the alleged authoritative directives) if he accepts the directives of the alleged authority as authoritatively binding and tries to follow them, rather than by trying to follow the reasons which apply to him directly.

Bottom line: give up. It’s best for you.

[Paladud]

@Little Nemo

Not that I’m surprised, Liberal, but I can’t help but notice that you chose to deny that you don’t answer questions instead of giving an answer to the question. The latter would have been more convincing than the former.

As you noted, I answered my question in terms of how it be addressed in a majoritarian system. One side would get what they want; the other side wouldn’t. You continue to claim that your system is better because both sides would get what they want. Yet you also continue to avoid explaining how both sides can get what they want when the two things they want can’t co-exist. The reason for this is plain to the rest of us; the reason you don’t answer this is because there is no answer. The impossibility of this happening is the reason your ideal of libertarianism will never work in the real world.

Under libertarianism, 100% of the people will get what they want within the boundaries of the rule of noncoercion. Under majoritarianism, 51-99% will get what they want without such constraints - but almost certainly at the expense of the minority.

[Liberal]

@BrainGlutton

This excerpt from “Why There Will Be No Revolution in the U.S.,” by Michael Lind, in the New Left Review, 2/1/99, might be of interest to you, Liberal. From http://www.newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=article&DocID=1013:

Very interesting indeed, Brain. Thanks. I clicked through and read the entire document. The section about the Democrats’ loss of the Dixiecrats, and the consequences therefrom, was interesting also.

[Liberal]

@Paladud

Under libertarianism, 100% of the people will get what they want within the boundaries of the rule of noncoercion. Under majoritarianism, 51-99% will get what they want without such constraints - but almost certainly at the expense of the minority.

That’s actually the same thing I said. Prepare to be told you’re nonresponsive.

[Liberal]

@Priceguy

Majoritarianism barely existed at the beginning of recorded history, and now it is quite common.

I would say that it only existed at the beginning of recorded history. Nothing since ancient times has matched Athens and some of the other Greek city-states for the implementation of majoritarianism. (Which, pursuant to our discussion, was destroyed by a minority mob and a tyrant.) And these days, majoritarianism is under attack:

In recent times - especially beginning in the 1960s - majoritarianism has come under intense attack from liberal reformers in many countries: In 1963, the United States Supreme Court declared that prayer in the nation’s public schools was unconstitutional, and since then many localities have sought to limit, or even prohibit, religious displays on public property. Speakers of languages other than English have also won broader rights in the United States, as legal documents, including those pertaining to voting, have been made available in other languages, particularly Spanish. The movement toward greater consideration for the rights of minorities within a society is often referred to as multiculturalism.

This has provoked a backlash from some advocates of majoritarianism, who lament the Balkanization of society they claim has resulted from the gains made by the multicultural agenda; these concerns were articulated in a 1972 book, The Dispossessed Majority, written by Wilmot Robertson. Multiculturalists, in turn, have accused majoritarians of racism and/or xenophobia, a charge which most of them deny.

Majoritarianism

When a majority is subjugated, it is because the majority goes along with it. Convenience and fear are common reasons to do so.

Well, when an apple hits the ground, it’s because it fell or was thrown. I don’t understand your point.

Absolutely, inasmuch as that is possible. But what do you do when wills collide? You need some mechanism to decide what happens to the murderer Anderson and to decide whether Smith gets to dam off his section of the river, ruining it for the other four. If this mechanism isn’t majoritarianism, then what? Show me a better mechanism and I’ll abandon majoritarianism.

As I’ve already said, majoritarianism is creating the collisions of will. Wills collide because one will is imposed upon another. It’s like Will Smith said in MIB, “Don’t start nuttin’, won’t BE nuttin’”.

Yes, it is, as it is practical for a larger amount of people. Totalitarianism is practical for the very few that rule. Majoritarianism is practical for the maximum amount of people. I can think of no system that would be practical for everybody. In majoritarianism at least you have the chance to change the world.

If you’re in the majority. But majoritarianism is practical for the maximum amount of people only when there is unanimity.

[Liberal]

Regarding the maximal benefit for the maximal number, consider the ice-cream question. Which is more max/max between the following two scenarios?

Scenario 1:

Out of 100 people, 55 prefer chocolate ice-cream, and declare that all 100 must eat it.

Scenario 2:

Out of 100 people, the 55 who prefer chocolate ice-cream eat it; the 20 who prefer vanilla eat it; the 25 who prefer strawberry eat it.

[Little_Nemo]

Okay, Liberal seems to have passed. So I’ll throw this question to any libertarian in the thread. Read the question is aksed in post #25 and answer this question: who gets what they want - A or B?

Please, no calling out answers from the studio audience.

[Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow]

@Priceguy

Ethical justification: Majoritarianism is the system with the best chance to make the maximum amount of people maximally happy, since it follows the will of the maximum amount of people.

I would reformulate this to read it makes the fewest number of people unhappy – that is, it minimizes misery.

And I think it important to note that a lot of the flaws being brought up with majoritarianism are addressed by having a highly decentralized system of governing bodies. In the US, this is handled, at least in theory, by the concept of federalism – that the federal government is limited to certain spheres of action, and the rest is left to the states.

This is beneficial because it allows people to relocate geographically when the majoritarian impulse goes against their wishes. What works for people in New York may not work for people in Alabama, and a dissatisfied member of the minority can often find his concerns addressed by voting with his feet.

[treis]

@Liberal

Regarding the maximal benefit for the maximal number, consider the ice-cream question. Which is more max/max between the following two scenarios?

Scenario 1:

Out of 100 people, 55 prefer chocolate ice-cream, and declare that all 100 must eat it.

Scenario 2:

Out of 100 people, the 55 who prefer chocolate ice-cream eat it; the 20 who prefer vanilla eat it; the 25 who prefer strawberry eat it.

Thats a pretty shady comparison you are making there Liberal. No one in this thread is insuiating that the majority should impose its will on the minority when those wills are not in conflict. You can have vanilla while I eat chocolate but it is impossible for the river to be dammed and not dammed at the same time. The best outcome is the one that benefits the majority without disregarding the minorities opinion.

For example Priceguy’s murder example if 10% want 10 years, 15% want 15 years, 30% want 20 years, 25% want life and 20% want death what should happen to the murderer? The 10% that want 10 years can’t imprison him for just 10 years, the 15% can’t for 15 years, the 30% can’t for 20, the 25% can’t for life and the 20% can’t execute him. Only one of these options is possible. If we don’t decide by majoritiarism then how?

[Little_Nemo]

Regarding the maximal benefit for the maximal number, consider the ice-cream question. Which is more max/max between the following two scenarios?

Scenario 1:

Out of 100 people, 55 prefer chocolate ice-cream, and declare that all 100 must eat it.

Scenario 2:

Out of 100 people, the 55 who prefer chocolate ice-cream eat it; the 20 who prefer vanilla eat it; the 25 who prefer strawberry eat it.

How about this one? Three people want to buy pool their money and buy a car. They only have enough money to buy one car. But they don’t agree on what kind of car to get; two of them want to get a Toyota and the third wants to get a Ford. What is the solution to their problem?

Scenario 1 (the majoritarian solution): They take a vote on it and buy a Toyota.

Scenario 2 (the make-believe libertarian solution): No one coerces anyone else. Each person gets the car they want. The fact that they don’t have enough money to do this is ignored. Libertarianism is proven superior to majoritarionism.

Scenario 3 (the real world libertarian solution): They end up walking.

[treis]

Thats a pretty shady analogy too Little Nemo. Presumably the one that wants a Ford will find two other people who want Fords and buy a Ford. The other two can find another one who wants a Toyota and they get a Toyota. If there are no other people than they will come to mutually agreeable bargain. Maybe the Ford guy will throw in some more money or perhaps get a discount. But to say that they will just throw their hands up and say ‘Fuck it’ is not true.

[SentientMeat]

Interesting weekend’s worth of posts, but I’ll backtrack to where I left off.

I’m afraid, friend Lib, that I cannot leave go of this consideration of property ownership, since it is IMO the crucial issue at the heart of decision-making (majoritarian or otherwise). What is a polygon of “owned land” on a map but a region in which the decision of what happens on that land is ultimately the owner’s?

If we accept the premise of “ownership”, what we are saying is that when we are on “someone else’s property” we obey the rules they have set forth, or we leave. The consequences of “trespass” may even involve violence, or at least physical coercive force, and yet we are still presented with a choice of not placing oneself within that polygon on a map.

Now, this arrangement largely “works” (ie. it is the equilibrium to which society has come to largely accept), but it is not the final arbiter of what goes on in whichever polygon. One may not murder, rob nor otherwise apply or threaten force to one’s guests (or even accidental trespassers) even when they are on “your property”: there are laws which transcend property ownership. How is this the case? It’s my land! Is somebody coming into my land uninvited and handcuffing me not a grave violation of my property ownership? Does it not show that I don’t really “own” the land, when it comes down to it?

Precisely: you “own” the land only insofar as somebody else can come in and coercively force you from it despite a piece of paper saying it’s “yours”. Ownership is based on coercive force.

So let us further our consideration of this man and “his” land. Let us say that he enters a business partnership with two other “landowners”, on the understanding that any decisions which have some consequences for the business as a whole are taken on a majoritarian basis. One landowner could not simply set up a pig-fucking farm on “his” portion of land since such an establishment might well have serious consequences for his partners. And if the two partners wanted to establish pig-fucking as their core market? The minority partner still has the choice of leaving the partnership. And even then, the land only “belongs” to each landowner insofar as the police don’t come and whisk them off it in a trice.

So, scale this up. One small group of well-armed men arrive on a vast expanse of land and place a flag saying “ours!” Those already living there, with their spears and blowpipes, find that their claim of “ours!” is only a strong as the weapons they hold. After some centuries, the descendants of those spear-holders find that they live in a house with a garden they can call “ours”, but that “ownership” is not absolute. You can do almost anything on your land, but there are still diktats you must follow even there. These diktats have been decided on a majoritarian basis by the people who really “own” the polygon on a map labelled “The United States of America”: Americans. And those Americans whose land you might like to think you “own” but which, in reality, you merely rent, have voted to set that rent: Taxation.

@Lib

So if you are defining property as force, you will never be rid of it.

Perhaps not for centuries or millennia or, I sadly agree, perhaps not ever. But until then, let those 240 million people who really own the land you live on make their decision by majority vote.

To continue the trade in quotes:

The government is us; we are the government, you and I … Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it. - Teddy Roosevelt.

[Dunderman]

@Liberal

Well, when an apple hits the ground, it’s because it fell or was thrown. I don’t understand your point.

My point is that since subjugation of the majority happens because the majority goes along with it, majority rule is still in effect.

As I’ve already said, majoritarianism is creating the collisions of will. Wills collide because one will is imposed upon another. It’s like Will Smith said in MIB, “Don’t start nuttin’, won’t BE nuttin’”.

I don’t agree. What happens to the murderer Anderson? Who decides?

If you’re in the majority. But majoritarianism is practical for the maximum amount of people only when there is unanimity.

It’s practical for the maximum amount of people, compared to any other system.

Regarding the maximal benefit for the maximal number, consider the ice-cream question. Which is more max/max between the following two scenarios?

Scenario 1:

Out of 100 people, 55 prefer chocolate ice-cream, and declare that all 100 must eat it.

Scenario 2:

Out of 100 people, the 55 who prefer chocolate ice-cream eat it; the 20 who prefer vanilla eat it; the 25 who prefer strawberry eat it.

Obviously scenario 2 is best, and also the solution that will likely be chosen in a majoritarianist system, since no-one has any interest in dictating what flavour of ice-cream anyone else should eat. There is no conflict of wills here, and so no problem.

@Dewey Cheatem Undhow

I would reformulate this to read it makes the fewest number of people unhappy – that is, it minimizes misery.

I agree.

[Arwin]

@treis

For example Priceguy’s murder example if 10% want 10 years, 15% want 15 years, 30% want 20 years, 25% want life and 20% want death what should happen to the murderer? The 10% that want 10 years can’t imprison him for just 10 years, the 15% can’t for 15 years, the 30% can’t for 20, the 25% can’t for life and the 20% can’t execute him. Only one of these options is possible. If we don’t decide by majoritiarism then how?

Precedence? And I would let the judge decide, based among others on precedence and his expert opinion. Priority should be treatment and prevention, not revenge. If the judge believes a few years in prison will change the murderer’s mind on the concept of murder and can purge him of his guilt, fine. Sounds a bit like the Catholic idea of paying off your guilt in money or repeating Hail Maries. In reality, I’d prefer to see the murderer’s state of mind examined, and base which combination of punishment/treatment is most likely going to prevent him from doing this again. Yes, punishment as a deterrence can be weighed into this, but please only based on real research, not gut-feeling.

Btw, scenario 2 reminds me to remind you that the U.S. needs a coalition government and some real representation. Everyone seems to agree that scenario 2 is best, but few people realise that this ancient democracy the U.S. has leads to a binary party system that strongly tends to favor scenario 1. I feel a little out of place to tell you this as a foreigner, and because I’m a foreigner you’ll probably think I’m one of those arrogant know-it-alls that John Kerry probably likes to hang around, drink wine, eat cheese and talk French with, but I’m still waiting on a good answer on why it would be a bad thing.

[Paladud]

@Little Nemo

Okay, Liberal seems to have passed. So I’ll throw this question to any libertarian in the thread. Read the question is aksed in post #25 and answer this question: who gets what they want - A or B?

Please, no calling out answers from the studio audience.

That’s for the arbiters to decide, though based on more information than given in this particular hypothetical.

@SentientMeat

Precisely: you “own” the land only insofar as somebody else can come in and coercively force you from it despite a piece of paper saying it’s “yours”. Ownership is based on coercive force.

With no rudeness meant, Sentient, if you choose to define coercive force like that, your continued existence is based on coercive force by the same principle.

[Dunderman]

@Arwin

Precedence? And I would let the judge decide, based among others on precedence and his expert opinion.

And before precedence? And how is the judge chosen? Who evaluates him so we know he is in fact an expert?

Priority should be treatment and prevention, not revenge.

I agree, but that doesn’t mean everyone will. Why should you and I get to decide this matter if everyone else disagrees with us?

If the judge believes a few years in prison will change the murderer’s mind on the concept of murder and can purge him of his guilt, fine.

And the people who don’t think that it’s “fine”? What do they do?

In reality, I’d prefer to see the murderer’s state of mind examined, and base which combination of punishment/treatment is most likely going to prevent him from doing this again. Yes, punishment as a deterrence can be weighed into this, but please only based on real research, not gut-feeling.

You seem to think this is a debate about the penal system. It is not.

[Dunderman]

@Paladud

With no rudeness meant, Sentient, if you choose to define coercive force like that, your continued existence is based on coercive force by the same principle.

I would agree that it is. Coercive force is the authority from which all other authorities derive. If someone has more coercive force than someone else, they de facto wield more power. Do I like this? No. Is it the truth? Yes.

[SentientMeat]

@Paladud

With no rudeness meant, Sentient, if you choose to define coercive force like that, your continued existence is based on coercive force by the same principle.

I quite agree, in the sense that ‘rights’ are only guaranteed by the force required to prevent their violation. I argue that the property rights of some can and do come into conflict with the rights to continued existence of others, and therefore that property rights cannot be considered superior to continued-existence rights.