Woozle: expanded/clarified a bit

2015-07-21T19:19:41Z

expanded/clarified a bit

Woozle: Created page with "category:anti-government {{hdr/subject|"Tyranny of the majority" as an attack on government}} If the argument is that ''nobody should have to follow rules they don't agre..."

2015-07-21T19:08:49Z

Created page with "category:anti-government {{hdr/subject|"Tyranny of the majority" as an attack on government}} If the argument is that ''nobody should have to follow rules they don't agre..."

New page

[[category:anti-government]]
{{hdr/subject|"Tyranny of the majority" as an attack on government}}

If the argument is that ''nobody should have to follow rules they don't agree with'' – a frequent contention of [[marketist]] (aka "voluntarist") philosophy – then this is an attack on the basic idea of government and civil society in general, wherein agents of the government may use force to prevent individuals from committing acts that have been determined to be unacceptable.

Unfortunately, any group must make decisions that affect all or most of its members; to not make a decision is to choose one alternative. There will always be actions a few find acceptable or even necessary that will be condemned by the majority, and some of those actions will truly be harmful to the group. Not making a decision to do anything about these actions allows them, and the harm they do, to continue.

That said, there are numerous examples illustrating both sides of this argument – good or harmless actions condemned by a majority (e.g. homosexuality, for much of its history), and harmful actions rejected by a minority but endorsed by the majority (e.g. slavery). The fact that this is true is why ''simple'' majority rule cannot prevail. There must be some kind of ''process'' that helps to weed out ''harmful'' actions and support ones that are actually ''helpful'', regardless of whether they are supported by the majority – and "tyranny of the majority" is, when used properly, an argument for the necessity of such processes.

It is ''not'' a valid argument against governmental [[Marketism/coercion|coercion]].

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 If the argument is that ''nobody should have to follow rules they don't agree with'' &ndash; a frequent contention of [[marketist]] (aka "voluntarist") philosophy &ndash; then this is an attack on the basic idea of government and civil society in general, wherein agents of the government may use force to prevent individuals from committing acts that have been determined to be unacceptable.
-Unfortunately, any group must make decisions that affect all or most of its members; to not make a decision is to choose one alternative. There will always be actions a few find acceptable or even necessary that will be condemned by the majority, and some of those actions will truly be harmful to the group. Not making a decision to do anything about these actions allows them, and the harm they do, to continue.
+Unfortunately, any group must make decisions that are binding on all or most of its members; to not make a decision is equivalent to choosing inaction. There will always be acts that a few find acceptable or even necessary but that will be condemned by the majority, and some of those acts ''will truly be harmful'' to the group. Not making a decision to do anything about these actions allows them, and the harm they do, to continue. Being able to make decisions that obligate everyone in the group is essential for group prosperity and even survival.
-That said, there are numerous examples illustrating both sides of this argument &ndash; good or harmless actions condemned by a majority (e.g. homosexuality, for much of its history), and harmful actions rejected by a minority but endorsed by the majority (e.g. slavery). The fact that this is true is why ''simple'' majority rule cannot prevail. There must be some kind of ''process'' that helps to weed out ''harmful'' actions and support ones that are actually ''helpful'', regardless of whether they are supported by the majority &ndash; and "tyranny of the majority" is, when used properly, an argument for the necessity of such processes.
+That said, there are numerous examples illustrating both harm and benefit from following this principle to the letter &ndash; good or harmless actions condemned by a majority (e.g. homosexuality, for much of its history), and harmful actions rejected by a minority but endorsed by the majority (e.g. slavery). The fact that this is true is why ''simple'' majority rule cannot prevail. There must be some kind of ''process'' that helps to determine whether a given action is helpful or harmful and then support or oppose it on that basis, regardless of whether it is supported by the majority &ndash; and "tyranny of the majority" is, when used properly, an argument for the necessity of such processes.
-It is ''not'' a valid argument against governmental [[Marketism/coercion|coercion]].
+It is ''not'', however, a valid argument against governmental [[Marketism/coercion|coercion]].

Propaganda/tyranny of the majority/anti-government - Revision history

Woozle: expanded/clarified a bit

Woozle: Created page with "category:anti-government {{hdr/subject|"Tyranny of the majority" as an attack on government}} If the argument is that ''nobody should have to follow rules they don't agre..."