Majority rule is evil
Political ·Monday July 6, 2009 @ 00:40 EDT (link)
Federalist #39 sparked this, although the specific mention is arguably a case of necessary evil:
Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each state must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States.
"Bind" is the word that sticks out as dangerous.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
This is not to say that minority rule is an improvement: any sort of "rule" implies coercion, and coercion should be avoided whenever possible, i.e., first, let the individual decide. Subsidiarity at its finest!
It's not "ruling" (despite arguments) if a minority can stop an action, such as the passage of a law. A minority can stop a constitutional amendment from passing: is that tyranny? It would be a good idea to require supermajorities for all laws, especially takings, if they cannot be replaced by individual choice (and most can).
Sometimes majority decisions are a necessary evil. If so, they should just go to form, and not reduce liberty. Arguably the adoption of the Constitution was such a case: the Articles of Confederation were fairly powerless to defend the nation and allow it to act among the other powers, and the Constitution did not generally reduce liberty, although it upheld the ability of majorities to do so—but they already could under the Articles.
To conclude, some quotes from Professor de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, R. A. Heinlein:
"The more impediments to legislation, the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority… while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third mnority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?"
As to financing government: "Goodness me, sir, that's your problem. I can think of several ways. Voluntary contributions just as churches support themselves… government sponsored lotteries to which no one need subscribe… or perhaps you Congressmen should dig down into your own pouches and pay for whatever is needed; that would be one way to keep government down in size to its indispensable functions whatever they may be…. But if you really believe that your neighbors must have laws for their own good, why shouldn't you pay for it. Comrades, I beg you—do not resort to compulsory taxation. There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." (Emphasis mine.)
