We have this misconception that #Democracy is executing the will of the majority... But thats not true.

Any democracy that gives 51% of people what they want, even when that is abusive to the wishes of the 49% will not survive, that leads to revolution... democracy has never been about majority rule.

What democracy is about is rule by the people, ALL the people. Any successful system will reach agreements that nearly everyone will be happy enough with so as not to pick up a gun and shoot the other side for oppressing them. Its about compromising enough that everyone can settle rather than agree.

This is exactly why the electorial college and other elements of government exist rather than a simple 51% rule... because we want to make sure any idea has atleast some level of support from most represented groups... so in the end the ones who may not like the vote can at least live with it.

#USPol

@freemo fun fact: in ancient Greece, democracy was all about the "power" (i.e. 'crazia') to the citzens (i.e. 'demos'), through a majority vote during an assembly, after a free discussion. There were no clear concepts of individual rights and respect of the minority, like in modern democracies. There were no supreme constitutional rights: if the majority vote decides something, this will be effective.

The assembly was used for direct government, and also for judging people in trials. For example Socrate was condemned from a jury of 500 or more citizens. They did not applied codified laws, but they decided that what he was doing was a danger for the values of the community, because the majority of the assembly decided so.

@mzan @freemo rule of law has not been very effective though. The USA daily does things the charter says is never to be done, and activist judges work to make up laws at their benches. On rare occasion somebody actually steps in and fixes isolated cases of it, but, generally I'd say rule of law is a resounding failure as a concept

@icedquinn

When the people who run a system are corrupt then no rules, no matter how perfect they may be will ever serve justice.

Rules only work when the system enforces them fairly for everyone.

@mzan

@freemo @mzan civilized behavior is backed by perpetual threat of violence. If nobody is willing to kill the state for violating their oath there is no reason to keep one. It's just a huge consent laundering operation where all but the most egregious excesses are buried away from view.

Barnes put it as the best thing about the legal system is most people never interact with it. It's little more than a meat grinder if you do.

@icedquinn

also in antique Greece, they noted that often the majority vote was not representing the free thinking of the assembly, but it was heavily influenced from the oratory art of the best speaker. In a similar way, now days, information is heavily controlled and manipulated. Worse: we have no permanent assemblies, but we vote only every few years.

We should have a better organized democracy, and informative system, using more the technology we have. But there is no will to do this.

And as you noted, if the institution that had to apply a process, are not fair, then a citizen can be "legally" oppressed.

@blob.cat @freemo

@mzan I think you accidentally broke @icedquinn tag with that reply.

@freemo @icedquinn

> I think you accidentally broke @icedquinn tag with that reply.

sorry. If the qoto assembly will decide so, I will eat the hemlock. Except, qoto is a tiranny, then I will follow @freemo decision 🙂

@mzan

We dont do hemlock here.. We have "The holy cannabis edible"... you take one bite of it and then we laugh at you as the madness ensues :)

@icedquinn