[_bin_]

Okay, I don't actually believe in that form of democracy. Not all things that are legal are good, therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do. I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule. And no, that is not the premise of every system that incorporates democracy as an element, it's the premise of an absolute democracy.

[jjav]

> therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do

Which inevitably leads to the question: who should get the power to do that and why they, specifically?

[pdonis]

You have it backwards. The actual question is, how did the majority magically get the power to enforce its will on the minority in the first place?

[chairmansteve]

Maybe the question is, how are the wealthy magically protected from the mob?

The answer is, some form of government protects them. And that form of government is going to want it's tribute.

[jjav]

> You have it backwards. The actual question is, how did the majority magically get the power to enforce its will on the minority in the first place?

This doesn't answer my question at all.

Who should decide those limits, and why they? Who pics them?

Think of a thought experiment: A new city/town/state/country is getting started (let's assume peacefully somehow, this is a thought experiment).

Who gets to set those limits on democratic action?

One choice that comes to mind is everyone gets together and pics the wisest person in the crowd = representative democracy.

Another choice is the strongest bully in the group beats everyone up and sets the laws however he likes = dictatorship.

What other choices? And which one should be best?

[pdonis]

> This doesn't answer my question at all.

I wasn't trying to answer your question. I was pointing out that your question presupposes that the majority has the power to enforce its will on the minority. It doesn't even consider the possibility that the majority having that power is not a law of physics, it's a social construct, and a society does not have to adopt it.

> A new city/town/state/country is getting started (let's assume peacefully somehow, this is a thought experiment).

Who gets to set those limits on democratic action?

Again, you're assuming that what gets started is a city/town/state/country as a political entity, with the ability to enforce its will on its residents, and then asking how that power gets regulated.

You're not even considering the possibility of a community getting started without anyone having the power to enforce their will on others, with everyone having to deal with everyone else as an equal, and nobody having any "governmental" powers.

Historically, such things have happened. For example, saga period Iceland went for several centuries without anyone having governmental powers. Some of the American colonies in the late 1600s and early 1700s--Pennsylvania is a good example--had effectively no one having governmental powers, since while there was nominally a "goverment", it had no ability to enforce its will on residents. These are "other choices" that your question doesn't even comprehend.

What happened in those cases? Historically, those societies did fine as long as they were left alone. What eventually ended them was outside interference. Saga period Iceland ended up conquered by Norway. Pennsylvania ended up having its regime tightened up by the British after the French and Indian War (as part of a general tightening up on all the American colonies).

[kjkjadksj]

The majority held this power as long as we’ve been a social species. Even a Pharaoh lives with consent of the majority even if they’ve convinced that majority they are divine.

[tsimionescu]

There is no mystery here. The majority has the physical power to force the minority to do what they want (at least if the difference is big enough). This is an objective, measurable power, not some theoretical concept or moral right. It's not magical, it very much comes from physical laws, like fists and clubs.

[MisterBastahrd]

Violent revolution, mostly.

[keybored]

Of course no one is surprised.

> therefore we should set constraints on what the majority can do.

The constraints are supposed to be a constitution and time. In time, as people die and new people are born, the world changes. New people are in charge. They can even rewrite the constitution.

What other alternative is there?

> I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule.

“Mob rule” is just the pejorative anti-democrats use for democracy not going their way.

What’s a rule-by-rich-people pejorative? Pig-rule? Just a pejorative. Just as meaningless.

Anti-democrats don’t have rational arguments on their side. Therefore they have to invent specters of the pitch-forked mob who is killing babies in the streets, the desperate, unwashed…

But all of that begs the question: if the “mob” rules, why are they in the streets? With pitch forks? Desperate? Of course it is completely irrational. If the “mob” already ruled there would be be no mob because the average person would enjoy dignity and respect. Safety and security.

They would have enough means to appear upstanding. Like you know, those rich people who rule now or ruled in the past. Those who never had to excuse themselves for being part of a mob or being unclean.

But it’s clear that if you want people to be desperate and in the dirt then you also don’t want them to rule. That’s how you get a mob.

[FactKnower69]

>I'd describe your system as closer to mob rule.

lmfao this is always, always, always the refrain