To Understand the Tyranny of Majority and the Essence of Existing Democracies
Certainly, Being a Majority Is a Piece of Power
But certainly, being a majority is a piece of power.
It seems to be a major piece of power, on the Bias planet.
Is that because the majority can raid?
That is a source of the power.
I would say, that's an important source of the power. In fact, as far as I know, all the revolutions were carried out by raids or threats of them. Glorious Revolution wasn't any exception.
I don't know whether all of them were so, but at least, that is a typical pattern.
The majority can also strike, or do other things. And more importantly in the modern world, the majority means money: with disliked or ignored by the majority, we can't make much money.
Hmm, a product doesn't necessarily need to be liked by the majority, as 'the largest part of a group of people', but certainly, 'more people' means more money.
Even when a business makes much money by selling expensive luxury cars to a small group of wealthy people, that's based on the popularity by the majority. Those luxury cars aren't bought by the majority, but are coveted by the majority, which is crucial. If those cars were things ignored, despised, or laughed at by the majority, the prices of them would be quite different.
Ah, the majority have at least the power of swaying prices even in such a case.
Even if a rare first edition copy of a book is sold to a single person at an eye-popping high price, that's based on the popularity of the book by the majority.
There are such cases. However, there are some cases in which any popularity by majorities aren't required in order for products to be priced high.
Are there? What cases?
For example, a medicine for a rare mortal disease, provided by a single pharmaceutical company: whatever the majority say, a patient desperately needs it.
Ah-ha, there are such cases. . . . Anyway, the majority has a major, if not absolute, piece of power, to influence who get money.
That is undeniable.
And another deep-rooted source of their power is psychological.
What do you mean?
Most humans, except some eccentrics like us, fear isolation.
Ah, that's ingrained in the human genome: for humans, being in a group was historically crucial for survival. Even we don't not fear isolation, but just are somewhat accustomed to it and can somewhat check what the intuition says.
Anyway, the majority can ostracize someone, which is a source of their power.
Whether it is physically critical or not, most people would suffer it psychologically critically.
An Unfettered Act of Exertion of the Majority Rule Can Be an Act of Bullying, Certainly
After all, why should such a rule as the majority rule be influential?
It should not particularly be influential, but just is so.
Ah-ha, so, it's influential without any validity . . .
Usually, something is influential not because it is valid, but because some power promotes it.
The power, in this case, seems the majority themselves.
To note, the division into the majority and the minority is basically done on an issue-by-issue basis: someone in the majority in an issue may be in the minority in another issue. It is not that there is a tribe that is called 'the majority'.
I know. However, there seem to be some people who believe that they belong to 'the majority', and somehow are mostly in the majority.
There may.
I called them 'the majority'.
Well, most people believe in their intuitions, and mostly, their intuitions work in the same way.
That's natural: their intuitions are the same mechanism ingrained in the human genome.
And when those people share many experiences and interests, they judge most things in the same ways, and they become the majority in most issues. So, they feel they belong to 'the majority'.
On the other hand, there are some people who are, somehow, chronically in the minority.
There are some people who try to check and validate what their intuitions say.
Ah, that happens to apply to us.
They tend to disagree with the majority in most cases, naturally.
Naturally. We tend to think against what 'the majority' say, "That's illogical . . .," "That's just a stereotype . . .," "That's inaccurate . . .," etc, and think, "I'm mostly incompatible with those people . . ."
And there are some people who don't share many experiences or interests with 'the majority'.
Ah, that happens to apply to us.
They tend to disagree with the majority in most cases, naturally.
Naturally. As the majority judge things mostly based on their experiences and mostly for their interests, we tend to think, "That may be your situation, but I have another situation . . .," "That may be good for you people, but that doesn't do for me at all . . .," etc, and think, "I'm mostly incompatible with those people . . ."
It is not only us. There are some people who can't help but in the minority because of their races, their congenital deficits, their dispositions, their pieces of intelligence, etc.
Anyway, the rationale of the majority rule is just, "As the majority is powerful, obey the power."
At least, I haven't found any valid argument that explains how and why the majority rule is valid.
After all, I can't help but say that the majority rule is a tyranny by the majority.
What is 'tyranny' for you?
The tyranny, for me, is an act of exertion of power without fairness.
It is certain that the majority rule doesn't guarantee any fairness.
It even promotes atrocious unfairness sometimes! . . . For example, think of a majority vote for a proposal that I, only I, should keep assuming the role of cleaning the community toilet.
You love that example.
I don't have ever any hope that the majority are noble enough to pass the opportunity that they can shove off an undesirable role onto a poor victim, and I have some grounds to say that, as some my own experiences.
A poor fellow . . .
There seem to be some people who claim that the majority rule is fair because everyone has an equal vote, but where did their consciences, and their pieces of intelligence, go?
Being asked 'where' . . .
Is it fair to force the role of toilet cleaning solely to a poor, pure, handsome guy because everyone had an equal vote?
You aren't particularly pure, nor handsome at all.
For me, the majority rule is just bullying.
In fact, bullying is a pure manifestation of the majority rule. If the majority rule is fair by itself, bullying can't help but be justified as being fair. I don't say that the majority rule should be abolished altogether, but at least, the majority rule has to be qualified by some measures that bring in fairness.
Whether such measures are really taken, that's the question . . .
