[netbioserror]

Why should the minority be beholden to the political view of the majority because of the geographic distribution of the majority?

[brookst]

Because it’s the majority, which is true regardless of geographic distribution?

If 10 people want A, and 3 people want B, how does geographic distribution even enter into the equation?

Are you suggesting that the minority should rule because of the majority’s “geographic distribution”.

[netbioserror]

I'm suggesting that the baseline assumption that majority rule is some selection of "good" or "ideal" or "preferred" is at minimum misguided and at worst downright evil. Sprinkle in some geographic distinction and you edge much closer to the "evil" end of the scale.

[pseg134]

And what do you supposed we do if the A that the 10 people want is for the 3 people who want B to pick their cotton for free?

[brookst]

The same thing you do if 3 people want 10 people to pick their cotton for free.

I can’t even tell what you’re advocating for. Minority rule? Anarchy? Democracy were you always win?

No system is perfect. Much control should be local. In zero sum situations, there isn’t a better answer than majority rule. That can be imperfect or even evil, but so can every other approach.

[CRConrad]

> I can’t even tell what you’re advocating for. Minority rule? Anarchy? Democracy were you always win?

Slavery, AFAICS.

[LanceH]

You're not understanding. The "correct" people have the majority numbers now, so we should embrace the tyranny of the majority.