| | But this is not democracy by the very root of itself. The democracy is first and all a voting process. So, the wolve and the sheep would vote on a topic, but it doesn't say that the wolves may eat the sheep. It just gives the oppinion that 92% of the population think they should eat the sheep, while 8% think they should eat grass or at least, not the sheep. However, the sheep will put in a vote on "who wants to eat meat but not the sheep, if the sheep shows an alternative!", suddenly we have 100% and the job goes on, that's consense politics.
If now, they had eaten the sheep, it would have been democratur rather than democracy, because the latter does not include the execution of a poll, but only legitimates the polling.
If a democratic council votes with 60:40 voices that it is ok to genetically alter your genes, this doesn't force the 40 % to alter their genes. This is democracy as I understand it, because it is only the method to finding a decision, it doesn't enforce the decision.
|
|
Some claim that majoritarianism, despite its faults, is an alternative preferable to physical conflict. They're wrong: majoritarianism is physical conflict. Elections are a process of counting fists, rather than noses, and saying, 'We outnumber — we could beat you up and kill you — you might as well give in and save everyone a lot of trouble.' Majoritarianism, to put it straightforwardly, possesses the full measure of nobility manifested by any other form of extortion.
