Not usually: usually in Majoritaria, all the parties named are under one set of laws, and that set of laws was determined by majority vote, and that set of laws determines John’s fate.
The exception is if Mary was travelling abroad when she was killed, and she was killed by John’s government. In this case, then yes, military intervention may occur.
Daniel
Right.
No. I’ve spelled out many times before how age of consent works in Libertaria. I cannot speak for the Land of Doom and all your other hypothetical systems.
But only at the risk of my own life and liberty. I am willing to rescue the child AND I am willing to suffer whatever consequences. It is a personal decision. One that I would hope you, as a man, would make yourself, whether in Majoritaria or Libertaria.
Scarecrows belong in corn fields, not in debates. Please defend the majoritarian model. It is what this thread is about.
That’s easy for you to say. You’re on the orgasm side of the gang bang.
If this is such a problem for you, tell you what. Respond to my last post, clear up the misunderstanding, and then I’ll butt out. It’ll be all you and Lefty. Deal?
Actually, not quite. Lib just managed to get even more offensive than when he called me Satan, by calling me a rapist. This is something for the mods to handle; I’m out.
Daniel
None in that list did.
It is an unpleasant experience to have my thread derailed by a two-on-one tag-team that has no interest in the topic. I do not dislike you, but your piling on is unseemly. Just let me say that if you were on this end, having your intellectual honor impugned by accusations of evasion in the midst of a hailstorm of rapid-fire posts, you might be a bit edgy yourself.
Okay. But I bet you $10 against a $1 that as I type, Da… er, excuse me, Left Hand of Dorkness is typing his response and asking numerous questions about submarinal animals who bear rights. He will demand answers, and will accuse me of evasion if I don’t respond. Meanwhile, I’ve already been here two hours, and my wife will be home in half and hour. Nothing new has been said that hasn’t been said before this whole time. I am being assigned beliefs I do not hold. No one is defending majoritarianism. And I am doing basic simply deductions for people who are completely capable of doing them for themselves. No one is listening, and everyone is clamoring to be the last to be heard. It is a mess.
I don’t know how you couldn’t understand what that meant. I have said consistently for the past five years that libertarianism and volunteerism are synonyms. I have also said that children are incapable of giving meaningul consent. They therefore cannot be volunteers by definition. Their very birth is a coercion. And I’ve said that many times, too.
No, they cannot be volunteers. Ever. The very essence of volunteerism is the free and volitional giving of consent.
I honestly don’t know. Whatever it was, let us put it behind us. I honestly don’t have time to go back and figure it out. Not because I don’t care or don’t like you, but because I physically can’t get it done. I’m sorry. I’m doing the best I can.
Majoritarianism does not create a conflict of wills becuase that conflict of wills already exists. Majoritarianism is merely a system of resolving these conflicts of wills on the principle of finding the solution that benefits the most people.
Just need to change one letter and we are in agreement 
. Wills collide ** then ** one will is imposed upon another. For example you want the river dammed I want it undammed our wills are in conflict. Your will is imposed on me when you dam the river and mine is imposed on you if I prevent you from damming the river.
First off its your thread and you may do what you wish with it.
Second off if you want to look at majoritarism in a vacuum you will certainly find that it sucks. Just as if you were to look at every governmental situation in history you will find that. Its your thread however if you wish to ignore the practical situation and concentrate on ethics by all means do so.
It is impossible to let every person make his own decision. Lets say I decide that we should execute Joe for murdering Frank and you decide that we should give him treatment and set him free. It is impossible for Joe to both be executed and set free. Majortarianism prevents the resolution from becoming who has the biggest gun.
“I believe in making the world safe for our children, but not our children’s children, because I don’t think children should be having sex.” – Jack Handy
No the conflict of wills is already there. I don’t want crackheads roaming around my nation while the crackheads want to smoke crack. Our wills are in conflict whether we have a majortarian government or not. All the majortarian government does is listen to what most people want i.e. no crackheads and imposes that will on the minority i.e. no smoking crack.
Oh, brother. A gang bang need not be a physical rape. Proof: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gang%20bang
I’m afraid that’s a logical fallacy. Just because its exercise is not the cause of all conflict does not mean that conflict is not created every time it is exercised. A conflict of wills occurs whenever one will is imposed upon another. If majoritarianism — which could be defined as the imposition of will by the majority — is applied, then new conflicts are created.
We are using the term two different ways. How can it be my will to take a sip of Pepsi if the bottle is setting on the desk while my fingers are typing? I might have a vague wish to take a sip, but if it were my will, the bottle would be in my hand.
That was my OP. I asked for the ethical principle that underlies majoritarianism.
But Joe has no right to make a decision. And there is no ethical basis upon which you have one either, unless you are Frank’s family. Plus, your majority is in control of your guns. I’ve just been told that you and your government are one and the same. Quote from Teddy and whatnot.
Why not let the owner of the land on which the crackhead is standing decide for himself? If you don’t want crackheads, why don’t you just forbid them from what you own? Maybe the Crisis Assistance Ministry wants crackheads on its property so it can help them. Incidentally, your “no smoking crack” law has been credited by some with being the single most influential cause that the prisons are populated mostly by people of color.
Last post before I’m off to bed, since you seem to have such a problem with being outnumbered and treis has popped in, and besides it’s almost midnight over here and I have work tomorrow.
I take issue with your assertion that we have no interest in the topic. I take issue with your assertion that we have derailed your thread. We have defended majoritarianism, as well as anyone can without comparing majoritarianism to an alternative.
We went as far as we could, then it was impossible because, as I’m sure you understand, each system is only meaningful when compared to other systems. It is not in itself interesting whether majoritarianism sucks, it’s whether it sucks more or less than the alternatives that is interesting.
Since you are, in fact, proposing an alternative it is prudent to discuss that alternative as it compares to majoritarianism. To do that, we need full understanding of it. I cannot speak for Left Hand of Dorkness, but I was asking questions because I needed to know the answers in order to defend majoritarianism, which is the point of the thread.
The term “tag-team” is highly unpleasant to me, as it implies that we are ganging up on you by design. I can only assure you that we’re not; I would have asked the same questions alone. In fact, I would probably have preferred that situation since you’re more likely to give me the kind of answers I can understand.
Two against one is hardly a pile-on.
“Accusations of evasion”? When did I do that? “A hailstorm of rapid-fire posts”? I replied once to each of your posts and Lefty did the same, how is that a “hailstorm”? It’s barely “rapid-fire”, although I do type quite quickly, thanks.
I have myself been on the receiving ends of some true pile-ons. I once had a three-page thread in which I was the only guy on my side against what felt at the time like half of the SDMB. Yes, it’s difficult, but that’s no reason to fall apart, and dealing with two posters is a breeze in comparison.
But apparently you find it very difficult. Fine. So take some initiative in dealing with the problem instead of insulting us and implying that we’re cowards or whatever for not shutting up just because we’re not alone on our side.
I would have seen it as quite appropriate if you’d posted something like “I’m sorry, but I simply cannot keep up with two posters. Therefore, I will only answer Left Hand of Dorkness until such time as he passes the torch to someone else”. That would have been totally fine with me and if someone else would have had problems with it I would have defended it for you. Instead you called us gangbangers. If you don’t like having your honour impugned, you could start by not doing it to others.
Oh brother indeed. You described your inquisitors as being on the “orgasm side” of gangbang; I hardly think you can now plausibly claim you were making an obscure reference to intense progamming activity. You were comparing your inquisitors to rapists. Spare us the post hoc rationalization.
But wait. Mary was an anarchist who explicitly refused to sign on to any government. Why do you get to pursue justice for Mary’s death? Mary never asked you to be her protector or her avenger. As such, aren’t you initiating force against Mary’s killer?
Or can any person just engage in vigilantisim in Libertaria based on injuries done to their acquaintances, regardless of whether those acquaintances have consented to having those things done on their behalf?
I own property with a pond on it. The majority comes and tells me that I cannot dump radioactive waste in it. Fine says I becuase I have no will to dump radioactive waste into it. The majority has exercised their will yet our wills are not in conflict.
If I want to dump in my pond our wills are not in conflict merely becuase the majority has decided that it doesn’t want radioactive pond. Our wills are in conflict becuase we desire different things.
Sure in practicality every time the majority exercises its will it is in conflict with the minorities will. But that does not mean the reason for the conflict is the imposition by the majority rather the conflict is the reason for the imposition.
I am afraid that I don’t see how this responds to my point.
Sure there is. I have an legitimate interest in seeing how murders are punished in our society the same way as you do. If our wills are different then they are in conflict. Majoritarianism says that we resolve this conflict by letting the majority decide.
Becuase what you do on your property affects my property. Having a bunch of hopped up druggies looking for their next fix next door to me puts me and my property in danger. So I get with Steve, Fred, Tom and all the other people on the street and say that you cannot smoke crack on your property. Ethically speaking why is it fair that you may damage our property by reducing its value and endanger our lives?
Sheeeesh!
It is not my opinion that Lib called anyone a rapist. What has happened is that the lot of you have gotten too worked up over the topic.
Having used the “gang bang” metaphor, (which I initially understood in the context of “pile on” or “brawl”–heck, you have to have attained a certain age to actually remember when gang bang really meant “mob rape” since the more violent and less sexual meaning has nearly supplanted it in many social groups), Liberal (who is old enough to remember the older meaning) was ill-advised to throw in the “orgasm” comment which clearly indicates the older sexual meaning.
However, given the heated tempers and episodic nature of these posts, I would guess that this was more likely a mixed metaphor than an accusation of rape.
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and think over this afternoon’s posts. Pick a specific theme that you want to explore and develop it. Each side would benefit by two changes in style:
[ /Moderator Mode ]
tom, could you please elaborate? Many thanks.
Daniel
Liberal, I like you. On most subjects you’re a fine person to have a discussion with. But on this one issue you can be trying. I’d like to ask you to stop and consider the following. How many threads have there been where you discuss libertarianism? And how many of them have ended with other people saying you are evading the tough questions? And how many people have said this? Isn’t it perhaps time to consider that it might be true?
I have to come to Lib’s side again. He posted a valid and interesting topic for discussion. Even added fat bold disclaimers for the usual misunderstandings.
He patiently tries to explain his views in more detail when asked. He certainly does not … “simply ignore problems like this or declare that problems like this won’t exist…” (quote from post #25). It should be obvious that he thinks through his positions with great care. And that his positions aren’t always accurately described in easy five-second stereotypical sound bites.
People fly off their handle much too easily when discussing Libertarianism. Post #25 is in fact a mild example. I basically deduced the libertarian answer to that hypothetical situation the second I saw it. I immediately thought the “kicker” line uncalled for. …“Nothing new has been said that hasn’t been said before this whole time. I am being assigned beliefs I do not hold… And I am doing basic simply deductions for people…” I often get that impression, too.
Well, I didn’t fly off the handle and I still have questions which got lost in the earlier dogpile… like how does land or residency tie in to majority rule (which Sentient Meat tried to answer before being overwhelmed by others)?
I still don’t understand this point, if anyone would care to try to fight my personal ignorance?
In the spirit of Tom’s admonition, Frankenstein’s kind defense, and GomiBoy’s follow-up, I too would like to hear more from Sentient and other defenders of majoritarianism. Specifically, I’d like to hear defenses that are more than just attacks on other systems. Comparing majoritarianism to libertarianism isn’t really helpful because (1) if those who participate in a majoritarian system are all volunteers, then it is indistinguishable from a libertarian system anyway, and (2) if the majority will is being imposed on the minority without its consent, then the NP ethic does not apply.
I think it had been established sometime back that power is not the ethic of majoritarianism since power can be held by a minority. I think some people were trying to make the point that the ethic of majoritarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number, but I believe that that has been debunked. Even within the majority itself, it can be the case that only a minority are satisfied with a vote.
It seems to me that, all things considered, the ethic of majoritarianism is compromise, where compromise is forced upon all participants, voluntary or not. The decision of the majority can easily be something that completely satisfies no one, but contains pieces of input from a variety of sources. Intrinsic in the majoritarian model is the imposition of will — not just in the sense of one person exercising one’s own will, but in the sense of forcing all participants to exercise The Will.
Both systems that have been compared here deal with such things as murder, polluting rivers, or what have you, but they have very different approaches. Majoritarianism must of necessity take an exceptions approach to government. As soon as a law is made that gives Smith (of the majority) an advantage over Jones (of the minority), a conflict of wills is created which must be mitigated by rules exceptions: e.g., Smith may pollute the river because his business would be closed and the economy would suffer otherwise (law), but there is a maximal amount that he may pollute it, up to a tolerance factor decided by committee (additional law for exception). It is believed within the system that this solution is the maximal benefit to both Smith and Jones. Smith may pollute, but not as much as he’d like. And Jones is protected from pollution to some extent, but not as much as he’d like. Hence, there is a compromise.
But that does not, in my view, constitute the greatest good for the greatest number. It is the greatest good for Smith only. His company is allowed to operate, subsidized by the misfortune of Jones. Rather than the greatest good for the greatest number, I believe that majoritarian compromise results in a lowest common denominator solution — that which is to be tolerated within a threshold.
I thought that it had been established back on the first page that the ethic of majoritarianism was equality. I confess I didn’t read the 2nd page so apologies if this argument has already been demolished but it goes like this: