Tyranny of the Majority

[Anthony Simmons]

>> From: DEMOREP1 at aol.com
>> Subject: Re: Tyranny of the Majority

>> >> D- How often do > 50 percent majorities tyrannize themselves
>> >> (for decades or centuries) as compared to thousands of
>> >> years of tyranny by monarchies / oligarchies ???

>> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>> How often do absolute monarchs tyrannize themselves?

>> D- Never. They tyrannize others.  Ask all the dead bodies
>> killed by Kaiser Wilhelm, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao,
>> for example.  See The Outline of History by H.G. Wells for
>> the tyrannical machinations of all sorts of monarchies and
>> oligarchies over the centuries.

And likewise, when we ask about the tryanny of the majority,
it does not make sense to ask how often 50 percent majorities
tryannize themselves.  If we ask whether monarchs tyrannize
others, the corresponding question is whether majorities
tyrannize others.

>> Mr. Simmons wrote-
>> Here's the question I would ask:  Does the majority tend
>> to tyrannize the minority?

>> D- Only if the laws are not equal on their face (and in
>> reality) and not equally enforced by executive and
>> judicial officers)--- two very major separate problems
>> (connected somewhat indirectly to election methods for the
>> officers involved).

And in regard to the answer to my question, I don't agree.
There are two ways the majority can oppress:  Through unequal
enforcement, and through oppressive laws.  That's why the
U.S. has a constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of
speech.  Without it, the law can suppress dissent.  And
suppressing dissent naturally oppresses those out of power
more than those in power.  Thus, equal enforcement does not
prevent oppression.

Another hypothetical example:  Suppose a country had an
economic system that stratified people, producing a permanent
underclass.  Suppose the permanent poor were a minority, so
that the majority of people were satisfied with their
economic prospects.  (Perhaps they would not be happy with
their present conditions, but maybe the upper class in this
hypothetical society uses propaganda to convince the suckers
they will get theirs in the future.)  The majority would be
afraid to rock the boat.  They would support candidates who
promised to perpetuate the situation for the benefit of the
winners, and ignore the plight of the losers.

For this reason, I don't consider it sufficient that the
majority have its way.

Perhaps it would be valuable to consider further the
implications that Forest has brought up.  Perhaps it even
makes sense to reduce overall utility if necessary in order
to improve the overall fairness of the outcome of an
election.  Or, put differently, perhaps fairness should be
included as a factor in computing utility.