Philosophical Topics in Light Novels/Manga/Anime (details in the first post)

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 03:41

Momogari wrote:before I start seriously wondering whether to move this to GD...

[mention=6444]Momogari[/mention]

I think it's OK to have it here, PROVIDED it's anime related.

So, let's keep it on-topic people. We are discussing "A Land of Decision by Majority - Ourselfish", which is about the majority rule. Short digressions are OK. I will create a separate thread in GD for longer off-topic discussions so there will be a place to go.

Here is the thread: showthread.php?122516-Philosophical-Top ... ost4749651

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 03:46

Momogari wrote:I think Suisei no Gargantia might have had an interesting political system with the different floating cities but I can't remember.

[mention=6444]Momogari[/mention]

I haven't seen Sousei no Gargantia. What is the political system presented there?

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 03:48

Endynyp wrote:but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Demarchy or Sortition. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) I won't tell you mine yet, so as not to sway your opinion.

I don't think it helps with the Tyranny of the Majority if the majority is equally distributed. It might happen that by chance a minority group will get selected from time to time, but that's all it can do.

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 04:52

[mention=63951]lambda-sky[/mention]

I have answered your comment about immigration in the off-topic thread here: showthread.php?122516-Philosophical-Top ... ic-thread)

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 04:56

[mention=6444]Momogari[/mention] [mention=111587]Endynyp[/mention]

I've moved your discussion about sortition to the off-topic thread here: showthread.php?122516-Philosophical-Top ... ic-thread)

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 04:57

lambda-sky wrote:If 1 person = 1 vote is creating problematic majorities you can weigh the votes against some metric. e.g. the US electoral collage weighs votes against geographic region so you don't have large population centres stomping on the will of larger but less populous states. Which is important because the millions of men in suits running around New York are arguably not more important than a few hundred farmers in Montana who are actually growing the food you eat.

[mention=63951]lambda-sky[/mention]

And the standard question appears: who sets the metrics?

lambda-sky wrote:I think our general trend towards Socialist governments is a symptom of this majority tyranny though. Economically for example, the government takes 40% of your pay and gives it to 2 unemployed people. Now the voting is 2 vs 1 even though those 2 people wouldn't be alive without the first. Weighing votes against tax contribution could help fix that. That might force politicians to actually improve people's financial situations to get votes instead of keeping people poor and buying their votes with ephemeral promises of free stuff.

I think jails are also a symptom of the tyranny of the majority. The majority don't want criminals running freely. The criminals are the minority with an opposite opinion with respect to this matter.

I think both taxing rich to provide to the poor and the jailing system are based on the fact that the majority wants to enforce some rules on the minority.

It doesn't mean that the outcome is automatically bad though. It might be, it might not be, depending on the details and also depending on the values of the person deciding what "good" and "bad" mean.

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 20 Jun 2019, 05:07

So my idea in general is the following one:

- let the criminals who are not happy with being in jail to form their own society. (on an island with plenty of resources but far from other countries

)

- let the rich who are not happy with the taxes to form their own society (I wonder who would work for them there).

It would be a different story if they found some people who wanted to join them and work for them.

Allowing the minorities to form their own separate, totally independent (in all respects) societies is the only thing that can prevent the tyranny of the majority that I can think of at the moment. I'm not saying it's doable in practice.

It's also a great test for the rules and values of the minority group. If the rules and the values are sensible, the minority society wouldn't have any major problems with surviving. (Provided they have resources and they're not attacked etc.)

It works well on a smaller scale. If one is not happy in a club, one is free to leave and join a different club or form a new one with a group of similarly thinking people.

lambda-sky · Post by **lambda-sky** » 24 Jun 2019, 19:13

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 24 Jun 2019, 21:27

lambda-sky wrote:I agree with your general point but also, everyone is a minority in some way (I'm the only person I know who enjoyed School Days :shrug .
What do you do when one hypothetical community best promotes your ethnic minority status but another hypothetical community best promotes your sexual preference minority status?
You can't join both so one way or another you're still going to have some important part of yourself potentially stomped on by a Majority.

Unfortunately, you're right. If we went specific enough, the resulting societies would be really, really small.

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 24 Jun 2019, 21:31

lambda-sky wrote:The difference is in the first case you want criminals to stop breaking the law and join the majority. In the second case if rich people stop paying tax and join the majority then society is fscked.

I don't see the difference you mentioned. In both cases the minority want to do something the majority don't allow them to do. The majority want criminals to behave and the rich to pay their taxes. Unless you meant the situation when the majority want the rich to pay more taxes then the normal rate. (Of course there is a whole discussion whether more should be understood as a percentage of income or an absolute value.)

lambda-sky wrote:You might like a book called Atlas Shrugged.

Oh, Ayn Rand.

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 25 Jun 2019, 05:45

On a flip-side, there are situations where one can have Tyranny of Minority. E.g. if the minority has a non-democratic way to enforce some rules over the majority. The first thing that comes to mind is power exercised by using economic means instead of political means. So a wealthy minority can also in some situations force the majority to do something.

Another form of non-democratic power is expert power. A small group of experts can enforce their rules on the majority if the majority cannot do things they must do without their help.

Is a balance between the democratic power and other types of power an answer to the problem of Tyranny of the Majority? I don't think it is, because not all minorities have access to other kinds of power.

Momogari · Post by **Momogari** » 25 Jun 2019, 09:43

lambda-sky wrote: You might like a book called Atlas Shrugged.

shots fired

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 25 Jun 2019, 09:58

[mention=6444]Momogari[/mention]

Ayn Rand is old news to me.

Maybe I should recommend a book as well, ha ha.

Veblen maybe for the beginning?

lambda-sky · Post by **lambda-sky** » 29 Jun 2019, 06:37

unoduetre · Post by **unoduetre** » 29 Jun 2019, 09:14

lambda-sky wrote:I meant there is a difference in incentives. In one case the behaviour being punished is detrimental to society and in the other case the behaviour being punished is beneficial to society. So you could argue that one is less "tyrannic" than the other.

So your argument is that criminals doing crimes is detrimental to the society and rich people not paying taxes is beneficial to the society?

It's a book about industrialists going on strike and forming their own exclusive society instead. Hence the name. Atlas holds the world on his shoulders, what would happen if he shrugged. It just seemed relevant to what you were saying.

Oh, OK. I haven't read it (yet), so I can't discuss it (yet).