[kashkhan]

its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy.

The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.

[afarrell]

I've participated in such structures before. Honestly, very few people have the time to go to 5-hour-long meetings on a weekly basis.

[kashkhan]

sounds like you were in the majority.

i have been in it also, and it works just fine. i certainly do not like to be in a minority where the majority gets what it wants and the minority is steamrolled.

[maxerickson]

A significant role of government is to manage conflicts. Conflicts, by definition, lack consensus.

Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill).

How does consensus handle this?

Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bill's fence.

An answer about requiring people to be reasonable in a consensus government is not very satisfying, people aren't reasonable.

[kashkhan]

consensus works by give and take. Hal and Bill don't just have to deal only with the fence. They have many more items they need to negotiate if they are to live as neighbors.

our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.

[maxerickson]

our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.

Of course not. My point was that it doesn't give Hal a veto over anything Bill might want to do.

[794CD01]

According to a definition of legitimacy concocted specifically to apply to a few selected forms of government.