You say “problem”, I say “benefit”. If you are going to claim it is reasonable to give your agent the power to exert control over other people’s lives, I don’t think it’s too much to ask for a better justification than “we outnumber you”.
OK, let’s take that idea a little further. What is a more reasonable justification than majority vote to exert control over other peoples lives?
- That your control is legitimately for the purpose of preventing them from causing harm to other people. For example, stopping people from breaking contracts, stealing, or murdering people.
- That your control is legitimately for the benefit of the person being controlled, and not just for your own. For example, forcing a child to go to school because they’re too young and stupid to understand that not going would screw up their life.
Who decides what is legitimate?
The majority has often been wrong, very wrong. Ever heard of the tyranny of the majority?
It was to prevent egregious abuses of majority rule that the extra safeguards were placed in the US Constitution. You can’t make major revisions to it by a simple, one-time majority vote, but a multi-step process with super-majorities required.