Majority is always right!
I as an individualist start to believe more and more that the majority is always right. This is not an endorsement of democracy, because that is not the same concept. But the "majority" as tied to some threshold minimum is always right.
Think of the human mind as a variable, and if you have 1 million people, who's minds are all aligning in the same direction, must mean that the variable is pointing to the right direction.
The same way as scientifically we analyze the validity of an information, by comparing different sources together, and if they all match, then that increases the probability for it to be true. There is always some error margin, but this is the methodology.
So the methodology to determine something true from something false, is just to compare different sources. And if we have a political issue, then the best solution to it, is to just ask every single person, and the answer that has the most votes should be the true one.
Imagine it like a safe lock, you need to align all wheels perfectly in order to open the lock. The same way the good information is always that which has the most support.
Issues
Now there are some issues, when the population is dumb, but then we just apply a threshold for validation, as explained here:
A direct democracy with a 80-90% approval requirement could be the key. Because here is the basic logic for direct democracy:
- If the high majority (90%) of people are educated and informed enough to make a decision, then they are right
- If the high majority (90%) is wrong, then we are already fucked as a species
So there is no reason to not let the high majority decide political problems. Because the consensus requirement will make sure that the best outcome possible in that situation will happen. Because if 90% of the people can't solve a problem, then who can? So either way we have no other option but to trust the majority. Because either way our lives depend on the decision of the 90% of the people.
Examples
If you are charged with a death penalty crime, would you trust a 12 person jury to give you a fair trial?
- What if the jury is filled with your political adversaries?
- Of course not, in that case you are fucked.
- What if the jury is filled with your political adversaries?
But what if the jury is the entire population of your country, and they need a 90% agreement in order to sentence you to death? Would you trust them more?
- Of course.
Because it's harder to get 90% of an entire population to agree on something, than to get 12 juries to unanimously agree on it.
And then you could say that, oh but then no criminals can get punished due to the high threshold?
- Well maybe the answer is to not punish them. If 90% of the people don't want a criminal to go to jail, then on what authority does the judge convict him?
What authority does the judge have to convict a person, if 90% of the population doesn't want him to get convicted? The judge draws his power from the constitution, but isn't the constitution supposed to be an social contract of the population?
And what power does the population have, if they don't have a say on any of this: It is obvious that the State, is a ruling mechanism, not an agreement mechanism, and that the population doesn't have any power, they are slaves, in the current structure.
So wouldn't it make more sense to have direct democracy with 90% consensus requirement, instead of a violent State where the average person has 0 political power?
Tyrants & Extremists
You could also say that, what would stop mob rule if a DD? or what would stop extremists from gaining power?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that the extremists are always a small percent of the population, and with a 90% requirement, they will never get into power.
- Hitler had only 38.965734% support, and who knows how much of that was coercion or voter fraud
- Lenin had only 11.3834% support , and he lost the election, but gained power anyway, through political coup due to a centralized parliament system
- Stalin wasn't even elected, he was appointed.
So as you can see, tyranny would be gone forever, if we had a DD with approval 90% requirement. No tyrant or extremist would get into power ever again, if we had this kind of consensus amongst humans. All tyrants got into power because of a shitty centralized voting system, centralized representative democracy.
And this would be as close as we could get to an anarchist society. Not rule by force, but rule by voluntary agreement. We leave a 10% room for maneuver, but we must have 90% agreement between all humans.
Wouldn't this make humanity better? I believe it would.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
Hello @ProfitGenerator,
Congratulations! Your post has been chosen by the communities of SteemTrail as one of our top picks today.
Also, as a selection for being a top pick today, you have been awarded a TRAIL token for your participation on our innovative platform...STEEM.
Please visit SteemTrail to get instructions on how to claim your TRAIL token today.
If do not wish to be promoted by SteemTrail, please reply with "Stop" to opt out.
Happy TRAIL!
No! NEVER!
I respectfully, but loudly and vehemently disagree.
I don't care how many billion people you may muster, the majority never has the right to force me to do anything against my will, with the single exception of defense against aggression initiated on my part.
And, regarding your percentages... all 90% of the population need do is ignore the diktat of a Hitler, Lenin, or Stalin and their minions in order to make their precious tyranny of none effect.
Man was never intended to rule his fellow man, singly or in vast numbers. 😄😇😄
I am sorry but it's the only way to achieve liberty. You have to have a consensus structure, but that structure should be set up in a way to limite the agression.
Ignoring won't work, because populists and demagogues, throughout the history of mankind will just use force to achieve their way. How do you think the modern state grew out of a tribal society? What happened to the tribesman who ignored the chieftain?
So you can't ignore authority, that strategy won't work. You have to give back authority to the individual in a systematic way, as I propose.
Besides, what do you think your body is? Doesnt the cells in your body uniformly agree on everything, otherwise a cancer is forming.
So the same way as the cells in your body have to have a >99% consensus on something, the same way you have to have that level of agreement between people in order to introduce a radical change.
People won't throw out basic concepts of morality, but if they do, then you need 99% of people to agree, otherwise there will be chaos.
But people, yourself included as evidenced by both your article and your response to my comment, all too cheerfully "throw out basic concepts of morality" based on such indoctrinated but false notions as "it's the only way," and "you have to have" this or that." It is immoral to initiate force against your neighbor, no matter your cause.
Because he was destroyed, does that justify the chieftain's act? Should my fear induce me to "go along to get along?" Because the majority is scared shitless that my unvaccinated child will spread disease among them, shall I accede to their mass-delusional, ignorant, fear-driven "wisdom" and stand idly by while their "political" force holds my beloved child down and inserts toxic poisons into his bloodstream?
I of course cannot "ignore" authority, but only because I must resist, flee, hide from, and outsmart it at every turn. I do not need authority given back to me "in a systematic way," I already possess it inherently and will not willingly relinquish it to either you or your mob.
I have no problem whatsoever with authentic agreement - case in point, this marvelous blockchain-based platform that we are presently using as the medium for a peaceful discussion, Steemit. It is clear that my agreement with you alone or a million other Steemians confers no right upon us to become oppressors who impose our consensus upon a single individual who is not in agreement with us.
I like your idea, BUT I see some major issues in implementation...
You Wrote: "If the high majority (90%) of people are educated and informed enough to make a decision, then they are right; If the high majority (90%) is wrong, then we are already fucked as a species"
Remember: people are sheep, easy to influence; the success of the today's populist politicians.
Remember: description of the problem, and the consequences greatly influences the outcome of the vote.
Mob rule only works well if the majority of people have decent morals. What if 90% of the population agree to execute homosexuals or certain ethnicities? I believe laws must be put in place to protect the minority from the majority.
The high majority of people do have decent morals.
I can personally guarantee to you that 90% of the population will never agree to genocide or any other nonsense.
If Hitler had only 39% support with all the coercion , manipulation and violence that he wielded. Besides the core of the Nazis had only 1-2% of the population, before the elections. Of course after that the SS membership was mandatory in some jobs. So only about 1-2% of the population was hardcore Nazis, and another 38% were fooled into being, due to the unfortunate circumstances:
Of course Hitler made all of them worse, and his solution was to murder half of Europe, but that is not the point.
The point is that, Hitler had a huge advantage, because demagogues gain power exactly in harsh conditions.
And everything aligned up for him, and he could only convince 39% of the population to vote for him, and also let's not forget that most votes were coerced, and they also did voter fraud.
So as I am telling you, the hardcore Nazis are only 1-2% of the population, even in a devastated country despite all the propaganda.
So how can you say that 90% of the people could adhere to an extreme ideology, when even the Nazis had only 2% of the population as fanatics?
What if the majority says the majority is more often wrong?