I as an individualist start to believe more and more that the majority is always right. This is not an endorsement of democracy, because that is not the same concept. But the "majority" as tied to some threshold minimum is always right.
Think of the human mind as a variable, and if you have 1 million people, who's minds are all aligning in the same direction, must mean that the variable is pointing to the right direction.
The same way as scientifically we analyze the validity of an information, by comparing different sources together, and if they all match, then that increases the probability for it to be true. There is always some error margin, but this is the methodology.
So the methodology to determine something true from something false, is just to compare different sources. And if we have a political issue, then the best solution to it, is to just ask every single person, and the answer that has the most votes should be the true one.
Imagine it like a safe lock, you need to align all wheels perfectly in order to open the lock. The same way the good information is always that which has the most support.
Issues
Now there are some issues, when the population is dumb, but then we just apply a threshold for validation, as explained here:
A direct democracy with a 80-90% approval requirement could be the key. Because here is the basic logic for direct democracy:
- If the high majority (90%) of people are educated and informed enough to make a decision, then they are right
- If the high majority (90%) is wrong, then we are already fucked as a species
So there is no reason to not let the high majority decide political problems. Because the consensus requirement will make sure that the best outcome possible in that situation will happen. Because if 90% of the people can't solve a problem, then who can? So either way we have no other option but to trust the majority. Because either way our lives depend on the decision of the 90% of the people.
Examples
If you are charged with a death penalty crime, would you trust a 12 person jury to give you a fair trial?
- What if the jury is filled with your political adversaries?
- Of course not, in that case you are fucked.
- What if the jury is filled with your political adversaries?
But what if the jury is the entire population of your country, and they need a 90% agreement in order to sentence you to death? Would you trust them more?
- Of course.
Because it's harder to get 90% of an entire population to agree on something, than to get 12 juries to unanimously agree on it.
And then you could say that, oh but then no criminals can get punished due to the high threshold?
- Well maybe the answer is to not punish them. If 90% of the people don't want a criminal to go to jail, then on what authority does the judge convict him?
What authority does the judge have to convict a person, if 90% of the population doesn't want him to get convicted? The judge draws his power from the constitution, but isn't the constitution supposed to be an social contract of the population?
And what power does the population have, if they don't have a say on any of this: It is obvious that the State, is a ruling mechanism, not an agreement mechanism, and that the population doesn't have any power, they are slaves, in the current structure.
So wouldn't it make more sense to have direct democracy with 90% consensus requirement, instead of a violent State where the average person has 0 political power?
Tyrants & Extremists
You could also say that, what would stop mob rule if a DD? or what would stop extremists from gaining power?
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that the extremists are always a small percent of the population, and with a 90% requirement, they will never get into power.
- Hitler had only 38.965734% support, and who knows how much of that was coercion or voter fraud
- Lenin had only 11.3834% support , and he lost the election, but gained power anyway, through political coup due to a centralized parliament system
- Stalin wasn't even elected, he was appointed.
So as you can see, tyranny would be gone forever, if we had a DD with approval 90% requirement. No tyrant or extremist would get into power ever again, if we had this kind of consensus amongst humans. All tyrants got into power because of a shitty centralized voting system, centralized representative democracy.
And this would be as close as we could get to an anarchist society. Not rule by force, but rule by voluntary agreement. We leave a 10% room for maneuver, but we must have 90% agreement between all humans.
Wouldn't this make humanity better? I believe it would.
Sources:
https://pixabay.com
