Who should rule : the majority or the minority?

[Someone here]

Is it better to save one to let a thousand die? Every law is for and against some. Should the majority or minority be the one against? Are a hundred rights better than a thousand rights? In the ideal government, should the majority or minority be the dominant political influence? Whose suffering is greater by restricting laws, the majority or minority? In the USA today, who has the most political influence, the majority or minority?

[Preety_India]

The Righteous. 

 

 

[Thought Art]

The conscious 

the world is run by everyone given their perspective and relationship to the whole

Edited May 26, 2022 by Thought Art

[Yarco]

The most powerful. 

Might makes right, it's survival of the fittest. History is written by the victors.

Historically it's the most physically strong or those with the largest army. Today a significant amount of power comes from propaganda and shaping discourse to bend people to your will.

I don't know if that's who "should" rule but it's who will.

[Someone here]

6 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

The conscious 

the world is run by everyone given their perspective and relationship to the whole

 

I would assume most agree that  the law should neither exclusively go against the minority nor the majority, but that it protects each in some respects and goes against them in others (except perhaps the small few who believe in true popular sovereignty, that would subordinate their own definition of the good to the popular one, regardless of what it be).

[BlueOak]

Everyone. Represented by a council.

The council members being responsible for sectors of society and running their own teams. If those council members make mistakes or don't do an adequate job, individual council members are elected by the majority.

[Someone here]

7 minutes ago, Yarco said:

The most powerful. 

Might makes right, it's survival of the fittest. History is written by the victors.

Historically it's the most physically strong or those with the largest army. Today a significant amount of power comes from propaganda and shaping discourse to bend people to your will.

I don't know if that's who "should" rule but it's who will.

No group of citizens ought to have more power than any other group of citizens. The government should be striped of its domestic abilities through constitutional restrictions that put the States, Cities, and Towns in charge of caring for the needs of the people. 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

Definitely the minority.

I personally think that the right to vote should only go to those who pass a test demonstrating political understanding.

[BlueOak]

12 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Definitely the minority.

I personally think that the right to vote should only go to those who pass a test demonstrating political understanding.

Don't dismiss the balancing effect of the majority. I'll get to that.

I'll set up the test. That way people who think like me, or within the boundaries I set will be doing the electing.

Or do we get 15 experts to set up the test, and we'll adapt it every year? That means the intellectuals will always hold the vote, even if they are intelligent enough to suppress their own bias. Maybe the 15 experts are taken from a widespread spectrum of society? Then that creates exactly the same problem you want to avoid?

Who are these 15 experts, what do they allow under the terms political understanding. Are radical centrists allowed? Is there a left-right axis, or are we modeling many political axis? Do we have to define what is allowed in society to fit the test questions? Are fringe parties allowed in this understanding, how about movements or social groups? Will political understanding itself lead to radicalization of politics? You see the average person is not very radical, they are average, and the average political activist or politician is significantly more entrenched in their opinions. Which is what gives them the drive to do politics! 

The average person, when not manipulated so heavily, is able to bring some balance to politics by sheer weight of numbers. So don't dismiss the balancing effect on an electorate, especially on individualist societies. 

It really comes down to removing the magnification of issues on the electorate through the media, and the ability to give them as balanced a view of the issues facing their country as possible.

[Someone here]

20 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Definitely the minority.

I personally think that the right to vote should only go to those who pass a test demonstrating political understanding.

For society to exist, the majority must decide, but  also consider the ideas of the minority, this is democracy.

In USA ..The States are left to their own devices within reason, they are limited by a set of base governances/guidance laws that can be "adjusted" when properly taken before congress and agreed upon, they cannot be a fully "United States" if they are not at leaste base unity set up.

[Danioover9000]

   It all depends on the stage, cognitive and moral development, psychological development, states of consciousness and life experiences, along with societal infrastructures, of the person and the people. If a country is not ready for socialism, no amount of forcing of persuading the population to be progressive and socialist in their view would do it. Likewise, if a country is democratic, it's not ready to regress to an authoritarian dictatorship. It seems like no matter what person or group wins the votes and gets to rule the country for some time, ultimately the authority given isn't permanent but temporary, meaning that that power can later on shift to another group, so ultimately who/whose group should hold absolute authority? By what standards do we adjudicate that kind of power to? Who gets to decide that? How do I know that is the right authority to give to?

[Someone here]

35 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Definitely the minority.

I personally think that the right to vote should only go to those who pass a test demonstrating political understanding.

I contest your supposition that 'intelligent' and 'informed' individuals are more inclined to vote. In fact, in the recent special elections regarding tax hikes in California, the majority of voters did not show up. The consensus theory was that the only voters who showed up were the ones who were informed and did care.

Additionally, who's to say the shepherd is always the best choice for his? Consider the misled, benevolent shepherd, who does not know his way but has the best intentions. He leads his flock to their death even with their well-being in mind. Even the most wise King has met his demise as a result of fate.

[zurew]

@Someone here

Both choice has their own pros and cons.

But there is a meta question to this, who should choose which answer is the best for your question?

Edited May 26, 2022 by zurew

[Danioover9000]

@Someone here  If I'm forced to answer whether the majority, or minority, should rule, I'd say the person or group whose most skilled and qualified to be in that position of power. Practically speaking, the more you know, the more life experiences you have, the more richer your mind is with it's many internal systems, the more states you can access, the more developed you are the better ruler/leader you can be.

[Someone here]

16 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Someone here  If I'm forced to answer whether the majority, or minority, should rule, I'd say the person or group whose most skilled and qualified to be in that position of power. Practically speaking, the more you know, the more life experiences you have, the more richer your mind is with it's many internal systems, the more states you can access, the more developed you are the better ruler/leader you can be.

 

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

@Someone here

Both choice has their own pros and cons.

But there is a meta question to this, who should choose which answer is the best for your question?

 It all depending on the choices being chosen by the government.

As a matter of statistics  you cannot make everyone happy all the time. For instance, if I were king of the forest, I'd redistribute the great wealth/resources, there in equality among all. Everyone would have sufficient food, housing, clothing, education, medical, etc... Yeah, the super-rich will be unhappy that they no longer have it all. Tough.
Thety can move if they don't like it, but they cannot take it all with them.
Violent crime would be severely and summarily dealt with. The bodies of anyone found with a gun would be spinning in the breeze as examples. There would be less 'freedoms' to harm others. But it would be much more peaceful.
Some would be unhappy that they can no longer victimize others. Tough.
And if it's perceived by enough people as bad enough, there is always revolution. It is human nature to take things for granted. Give em food, housing, education, medical, etc... and eventually they will be unhappy that they all do not have Mercedes rather tha Hyundai. And the wheel turns again, perhaps to reinvent democracy and avoid the 'wrong turns' that has finally brought it to failure.

[BlueOak]

35 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Someone here  If I'm forced to answer whether the majority, or minority, should rule, I'd say the person or group whose most skilled and qualified to be in that position of power. Practically speaking, the more you know, the more life experiences you have, the more richer your mind is with it's many internal systems, the more states you can access, the more developed you are the better ruler/leader you can be.

@Danioover9000

What defines how qualified someone is to be in a position of power? 

How does this type of experience-based or top-heavy leadership not lead to the stagnation or growth of the country?

How does it not lead to internal unrest? Because naturally, the most experienced leaders are older, and naturally they are going to be less in touch with the younger generations, i.e those most prone to civil unrest.