Under Democracy, why is it assumed that 51% of the population is just and right in using force to overpower 49% of the population? I think it stems from a certain level of instinct developed from mob mentality. In older times, power was directly related to the number of people. If you had majority favor, this meant you had greater number of people, and greater capacity of force, and in such times greater capacity of force is what made things true. Today, rather than people actually utilizing such capacity for force and actually killing each other, we instead vote. So then we say, "majority agrees with this, which means you must agree as well, otherwise you would die". Instead of people actually dying, people recognize the alternative of not dying is better, so they just accept the situation which majority rule, and majority force, has made true.
Democracy is thus actually a tool of force, it is a threat of force. This is the power it rests upon. Which given that, it is so ironic that people support Democracy, while simultaneously not supporting other things which are rule by greater capacity of force.
If you support Democracy, to be logically consistent you should support American Imperialism and it's outcomes. Both of them are rule by who has greater capacity of force.
If you support Democracy, to be logically consistent you should support what Israel is doing, and it's outcome. Both of them are rule by who has greater capacity of force.
If you support Democracy, to be logically consistent you should also support the notion of one person building a massive self-replicating AI controlled militarized drone army and becoming the dictator of the world, and that outcome. Both are rule by who has greater capacity of force.
This isn't to say I am in favor of any aforementioned means of rule by greater force. It is to highlight the oddity that is Democracy, and how it's actually a cognitive dissonance for probably most people who support it.
Perhaps the reason a lot of people have this oddity in their thinking is because they have never seriously considered there is an alternative to some kind of rule by force. There is an alternative, it is a philosophy which fundamentally removes the use of force as a source of merit. It is the maintaining of Inalienable Individual Rights. It is Laissez Faire Capitalism in it's most basic meaning as a separation of production and state.
Under Laissez Faire Capitalism the purpose of state is to protect inalienable individual rights. The meaning of separation of production and state is the separation of merit seeking and violence. If you seek merit, you can only do so through production, peacefully creating value. Then force is sanctioned and constrained to only the state, which the role of the state is to be as minimal as possible and to protect inalienable individual rights. Force is constrained to only be used in defense of violation of rights. Laissez Faire Capitalism is a philosophy which fundamentally rejects the ability to use of aggressive force to gain merit.
I do lump all philosophies which allow merit seeking through violent aggression into one category. Which most certainly the gap between Nazism and Modern Democracy is massive, even though they both permit merit seeking through violence. But I do it to highlight that Laissez Faire Capitalism is not just different, but is actually in a completely different league and category of morality as it fundamentally rejects merit through violent aggression.