Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[anthony]

No, the constitution reins in the government. The populace are free, without anyone's permission.

Look at the history of the constitution and the government (especially the recent history) and then try to say that three times with a straight face.

Good luck with your might is right thing, you're going to need it.

(Logic and pragmatism got you this far, any reasoned principles in reserve?)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What I am saying is "If you want to prevent people's individual rights from being violated, this is how you would shape political institutions in order to bring about that goal."

Naomi,

So you changed your mind again.

In other words, to you once again individual rights = being able to be taxed.

If not, what individual rights are you talking about?

The right to life? The right to free speech? The right to free assembly? And so on?

Are you talking about that? You just said no yet insisted you are defending the phrase ("individual rights") that denotes that.

You can't have it both ways and be logically consistent.

Words do mean things.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

So you changed your mind again.

I'm not changing my mind at all, you're just misunderstanding my position.

In other words, to you once again individual rights = being able to be taxed.

If not, what individual rights are you talking about?

The right to life? The right to free speech? The right to free assembly? And so on?

Are you talking about that? You just said no yet insisted you are defending the phrase ("individual rights") that denotes that.

You can't have it both ways and be logically consistent.

Words do mean things.

Michael

Well, the right to property, for starters. Taxation is a violation of the right to property. If a political system does not tax, then there is no violation of anyone's right to property (all else being equal). If there is no violation of anyone's right to property, then the right is successfully defended.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Good luck with your might is right thing, you're going to need it.

(Logic and pragmatism got you this far, any reasoned principles in reserve?)

Appealing to "reasoned" principles in situations where they don't work is the cleverest form of stupidity.

Reality is under no obligation to look pretty. If you want to deal with it on its terms, then you have no choice but to be practical.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Taxation is a violation of the right to property. If a political system does not tax, then there is no violation of anyone's right to property (all else being equal). If there is no violation of anyone's right to property, then the right is successfully defended.

Naomi,

I'm with you on this (except for the odd use of the word "defended" since in this case there is no attack.

But I'm not with you on the following: "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights."

Suppose I am a black man in the Deep South a while back and I encounter some KKK people. They vote to lynch me. I vote no. They pass the motion to hang me by majority rule.

How is that "direct democracy" the best possible defender of my right to life?

Run that through your game theory.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

I'm with you on this (except for the odd use of the word "defended" since in this case there is no attack.

But I'm not with you on the following: "I propose that direct democracy is (theoretically, at least) the best possible defender of individual rights."

Suppose I am a black man in the Deep South a while back and I encounter some KKK people. They vote to lynch me. I vote no. They pass the motion to hang me by majority rule.

How is that "direct democracy" the best possible defender of my right to life?

Run that through your game theory.

Michael

Well what's the alternative?

In a constitutional republic, the racist people elect their racist representatives. The racist representatives vote for racist laws. And if those laws are unconstitutional, the racist politicians will either "re-interpret" the intent of the constitution to suit their agenda, or, failing that, they'll hold a constitutional convention and change the constitution.

Direct democracy is the best possible defender of your right to life, not because it is perfect (which it isn't), but because there is no better alternative.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Confiscation of person's possessions by a public official is morally no different than theft by a private gunman. That the motive of the public official is for the commonweal, the greater good (that is he acting to "protect property") does not change the nature of his action; it is still the initiation of force to compel the taxpayer to spend the money in a way he would not otherwise have done in the absence of force.

Furthermore, if the importance of defending property justifies the initiation of force, then why wouldn't other worthy goals such as education, healthcare, aid to the indigent, public housing, wilderness preservation, trips to Mars, and public television also justify pointing a gun at a man's head? Eating is no less important than security, so why shouldn't we use the armed power of the state to make the public contribute to food banks?

The proposition that stealing is necessary to prevent stealing (or that violating rights is a defense of rights) is self-contradictory and thus false.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa... When did I say that defending property justifies the initiation of force? If you read the OP without bias, then you can clearly see that I'm saying that direct democracy (and I said nothing at all about the initiation of force) is best able to defend individual rights even when the government has the power to violate them, and even when the majority has an interest in doing so.

I see. In your described system, all political power would rest in the hands of the people--except the power to tax.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I see. In your described system, all political power would rest in the hands of the people--except the power to tax.

You're either being intentionally obtuse, or you didn't read the OP. Either way, you're wasting my time.

[tmj]

He may have been commenting on the fact that in the OP, taxes or taxing is a given.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well what's the alternative?

In a constitutional republic, the racist people elect their racist representatives.

Naomi,

Heh.

You mean like Obama?

Man, do you have some premises to check and some learning to do.

And I say that with good intent and even affection.

You really do need to read (OK... reread since you say you read it ) the Objectivist and libertarian literature.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Well what's the alternative?

In a constitutional republic, the racist people elect their racist representatives.

Naomi,

Heh.

You mean like Obama?

You're using a double standard in your evaluation here. If you're worried that a racist majority would vote to lynch minorities in a democracy, you can't just pretend that the same problem wouldn't exist under a constitutional republic.

And no, not like Obama. All you have to do is look at the case of American slavery and see just how well a constitutional republic respects the individual rights of minorities.

Man, do you have some premises to check and some learning to do.

And I say that with good intent and even affection.

You really do need to read (OK... reread since you say you read it ) the Objectivist and libertarian literature.

Michael

What is there to read on the subject of direct democracy there, really? All I've ever heard is "mob rule blah blah blah lynch mob."

Honestly, it seems like you've read enough of it. I would recommend that you stop reading the old literature, and use it as a starting point to create new Objectivist and libertarian literature.

[deanwins]

Naomi, The bribe doesn't work when the votes are anonymous. So people will agree to the bride and then vote a liar's vote.

Who said the votes are anonymous?

I'm not aware of any place that has identity associated non anonymous voting... except for when elected "representatives" vote. So why would you default to non anonymous voting?

By the way, I currently think voting should not be anonymous. Voting is effectively using force. Allowing members of society to use force anonymously is foolish... because it too easily allows for oppression of the majority. Do you agree with this or not?

Hence: Anonymous majority votes would be expected to be tyrannical, but non-anonymous would be expected to be ok, given your math as true premise of the underlying properties of the game.

[deanwins]

No, the constitution reins in the government. The populace are free, without anyone's permission.

Look at the history of the constitution and the government (especially the recent history) and then try to say that three times with a straight face.

Good luck with your might is right thing, you're going to need it.

(Logic and pragmatism got you this far, any reasoned principles in reserve?)

What Naomi is talking about is not "might is right". Instead: "might makes". Its completely different, and your accusation appears to me to be an unfounded smear.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I'm not aware of any place that has identity associated non anonymous voting... except for when elected "representatives" vote. So why would you default to non anonymous voting?

Precisely because of the bolded. In a direct democracy, everyone is a "representative".

By the way, I currently think voting should not be anonymous. Voting is effectively using force. Allowing members of society to use force anonymously is foolish... because it too easily allows for oppression of the majority. Do you agree with this or not?

Honestly, I don't know, I've never really thought about it.

Hence: Anonymous majority votes would be expected to be tyrannical, but non-anonymous would be expected to be ok, given your math as true premise of the underlying properties of the game.

Yeah, I guess so.

[deanwins]

Naomi,

My proposed alternatives are:

"Contribution" weighted voting: The more money you contribute to the government, the greater weight you have in your vote. So basically your voting power is proportional to the fraction of contributions you pay to the government to the total contributions to the government.

"Shares" weighted voting: The government distributes some number of new shares per year (some inflation rate) (by various policies: giving one share to each citizen or by auctioning them), and then shares are fully trade able on the open market. One's voting weight is directly proportional to how many shares you have.

"Real Estate" weighted voting: Your voting power is directly proportional to the relative worth of your property to the appraised value of all of this citizen's property. I can't say I like this idea as much as the above two.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What is there to read on the subject of direct democracy there, really? All I've ever heard is "mob rule blah blah blah lynch mob."

Honestly, it seems like you've read enough of it. I would recommend that you stop reading the old literature, and use it as a starting point to create new Objectivist and libertarian literature.

Naomi,

What on earth do you think direct democracy is except mob rule? It's called human nature and there is a crapload of empirical evidence about how direct democracies work with humans.

If you don't like reality, I don't care. But it's a bit much when you try to teach others your own shortcomings and get snarky when they disagree.

I appreciate your recommendation, but why on earth would I want to start the equivalent of a flat-earth movement? Just because you say so and the "old literature" says the earth is round?

If you really have read the literature, it is a mystery to me why you misrepresent it and ignore human nature so badly.

MIchael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

My proposed alternatives are:

"Contribution" weighted voting: The more money you contribute to the government, the greater weight you have in your vote. So basically your voting power is proportional to the fraction of contributions you pay to the government to the total contributions to the government.

"Shares" weighted voting: The government distributes some number of new shares per year (some inflation rate) (by various policies: giving one share to each citizen or by auctioning them), and then shares are fully trade able on the open market. One's voting weight is directly proportional to how many shares you have.

"Real Estate" weighted voting: Your voting power is directly proportional to the relative worth of your property to the appraised value of all of this citizen's property. I can't say I like this idea as much as the above two.

Why? What problems do these alternatives solve? How do they improve on the "one man, one vote" system?

[anthony]

No, the constitution reins in the government. The populace are free, without anyone's permission.

Look at the history of the constitution and the government (especially the recent history) and then try to say that three times with a straight face.

Good luck with your might is right thing, you're going to need it.

(Logic and pragmatism got you this far, any reasoned principles in reserve?)

What Naomi is talking about is not "might is right". Instead: "might makes". Its completely different, and your accusation appears to me to be an unfounded smear.

"Might makes..." what, exactly? Greater power for some, I assume? Might makes 'rights', then.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

By the way, I currently think voting should not be anonymous. Voting is effectively using force.

Dean,

I don't agree with blanket statements like this. There are contexts. In cases where the ruling elite likes to intimate enemies, anonymous voting assures voters they will not be harmed for voting against the will of those in power.

In cases where it is easy to game the system from lax standards, making voting choices public makes sense.

Also, voting doesn't have to entail force. I like the idea of voting for the person, not for the individual rights that are to become thereby valid. (In other words, I don't agree that fundamental rights should ever be up for vote.) Voting for a steward, so to speak, not a tyrant.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

What on earth do you think direct democracy is except mob rule? It's called human nature and there is a crapload of empirical evidence about how direct democracies work with humans.

If you don't like reality, I don't care. But it's a bit much when you try to teach others your own shortcomings and get snarky when they disagree.

I appreciate your recommendation, but why on earth would I want to start the equivalent of a flat-earth movement? Just because you say so and the "old literature" says the earth is round?

If you really have read the literature, it is a mystery to me why you misrepresent it and ignore human nature so badly.

MIchael

The words "mob" and "rule" only have negative connotations. Since both mobs and rulers are bad, it follows that "mob rule" must be really bad. Since direct democracy is "mob rule", then it must also be really bad. This is the extent of the libertarian and Objectivist literature on direct democracy. If you think I'm misrepresenting the literature, then I challenge you to find any libertarian or Objectivist analysis of direct democracy that goes deeper than that.

It's called human nature and there is a crapload of empirical evidence about how direct democracies work with humans.

There's also a crapload of empirical evidence about how constitutional republics work with humans, and I have to tell you, I'm not impressed.

[anthony]

...and I have to tell you, I'm not impressed.

Me neither. Too many people inventing systems from the top, down to we lowly serfs...

[Francisco Ferrer]

The question of whether one is entitled to a vote depends entirely on the context of what one is voting for. If A and B have equal and legitimate ownership of a barbershop, it is appropriate to give each an equal voice in how the shop is run, what prices to charge, what improvements to make, etc. However, voting rights do not pertain to decisions regarding property one has no rightful claim to.

If A and B do not like the color of a house owned by C, a vote among the three would have no relevance in determining whether the color should be changed. That decision is C's alone to make.

Similarly. as long as U.S. citizens are voting on how many stripes to put on the flag or what the National Anthem should be, one-man-one-vote is as good as any other system (though not inherently better).

But not even the most perfect form of universal suffrage can legitimize a vote on the question of what all children must be required to learn in school, or which drugs one may not put into his body, or what percentage of personal income is owed to officials in Washington.

This is perhaps what DeanGores had in mind when he wrote, "Voting is effectively using force. Allowing members of society to use force anonymously is foolish... because it too easily allows for oppression of the majority."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since direct democracy is "mob rule", then it must also be really bad. This is the extent of the libertarian and Objectivist literature on direct democracy. If you think I'm misrepresenting the literature, then I challenge you to find any libertarian or Objectivist analysis of direct democracy that goes deeper than that.

Naomi,

You ought to know better to insist on faking it on a forum like this.

I don't want to confuse you, but I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you. So let's start easy.

Try The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. That goes way deeper than "mob rule" for democracy, and there's a lot in it to discuss re Objectivism, but you gotta read it to know.

There's a crapload more, but that should get you started if you are serious.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Since direct democracy is "mob rule", then it must also be really bad. This is the extent of the libertarian and Objectivist literature on direct democracy. If you think I'm misrepresenting the literature, then I challenge you to find any libertarian or Objectivist analysis of direct democracy that goes deeper than that.

Naomi,

You ought to know better to insist on faking it on a forum like this.

I don't want to confuse you, but I'm certainly not going to do your homework for you. So let's start easy.

Try The Road to Serfdom by Hayek. That goes way deeper than "mob rule" for democracy, and there's a lot in it to discuss re Objectivism, but you gotta read it to know.

There's a crapload more, but that should get you started if you are serious.

Michael

Oh really? I'm faking it? Can you remind me on which page Hayek uses the phrase "direct democracy" again? It seems to have fallen out of my copy of the book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

I'm not playing this game. You have to do your own homework and learn to think in concepts.

Meanwhile, enjoy your game theory musings about non-reality.

Michael