| 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. |