The people is a collective average of the population. You are part of the people. Your wishes make up a small proportion of the wishes of the population.
Especially without regard for consent, using a collective average of the population, lack of consensus becomes not only inevitable, but systematic; it will never go away - it can't.
In democracy no vote is seen as a vote. A vote for the status quo. Most people vote when they are unhappy with the system. So theoretically low voter turn out is approval of the system
You're going to ignore my and others' overt disapproval of the system and not voting that we are openly and loudly saying?
Nothing theoretical here. I don't approve.
I see no vote as vote of no confidence. imagine starting a gov, you & 1000 ppl go off into a room & vote for a gov then tell the 100M other ppl you now rule them bc they didnt vote no.
That scenario only works if the 100M others also were called into the room to vote, and only the 1000 people bothered to vote.
I mean, things are typically official if they send you a letter or just put it in the news paper (like rezoning)
The main reason you see strange bylaws and such is due to the few who do get involved. Often old people. The people have to make themselves heard.
why though? you have a minority exerting their influence on the rest of us. not everyone has so much free time to continually fend off these advances.
Home owners I guess are given extra notice, and consideration. As the property tax payers.
I know a property that runs along the back of my, and others properties wanted to do a zone change to allow container storage. We all had to be consulted and given a chance to say so.
Not true at all. Everyone can participate. If more participated they could easily overturn the whole system.
yes everyone *can*. but you have people who's full time "job" is to meddle while the people whose lives they meddle in are busy living (working, raising families, hobbies).
Yes, but they were elected to that job. On a whole it is a good system. There are elements that are not perfect. There are different places with different approaches.
If they were elected by less than half the population would they still have a mandate to meddle?
Depends on if this is a popular vote election, of a majority of districts election. There are pros and cons the each system. Germany uses both for their elections I hear.
nah just if less than half the citizens participate (cast a vote). even if they all have the option/chance to.
No vote counts as a vote with the majority.
Civil/municiple politics are the easiest to get involved in, and yet people get involved least in their local politics. Which is funny when it can have more impact on you.
This isn't always true though. Some refuse to vote out of anger. Sadly they dont know the way their apathy is viewed.
How isn't it always true? Isn't consensus 100%? I clarify that that's what I mean.
You don't? You're advocating rule of majority over minority?
Consensus isn't 100%. I do believe in the majority ruling over the minority, with some rules protecting that minority. As we have now.
Why do you believe in the majority ruling over the minority?
You're actually advocating a form of slavery?
No, I am advocating a form of consensus. Also, as I said with rules protecting the minority. This is why we have rights and protections for minority groups.
What form of consensus? What does it look like?
If the minority is included without their consent, what do the rules "protecting" them matter?
How isn't that baseless lip-service?
Majority consensus. The minority has their say, and isn't revealed to be the minority until after. The protections are real and significant. Ut has allowed the minority to grow.
Except that the minority can't dissassociate. Right?
Can't just not be stolen from. Correct?
The only way to dissassociate is to leave the area of that consensus. To stay is to consent to the services and their price. You can always talk about the tax system though.
Fortunately, you're wrong.
That's not the only way.
You're welcome to your opinion though.
"What argument have you presented to disprove it?" Plenty. You disregard them and consider them invalid for reasons unknown to me. We're still actively discussing them.
Often in arguments like this it is the truth of the premise we disagree on. An argument can be valid, but wrong due to a false premise.
