Our first option should always be #Noncompliance.
Discussion
Just because a majority if the people vote on something doesn't mean the minority has to comply.
Majority rule vote is never justification for forcing everyone to do anything and everything.
If you think about it, 51% vs. 49% is not a consensus of the people. It is a division of the people. It does not get much more divided than 51 vs. 49.
51% vs 49% is no different than 1 person bullying and pushing another person around.
66% vs. 34% is no different than 2 people bullying and pushing 1 person around.
We use majority rule to select representatives, and then those representatives can use majority rule to decide which services, or products to OFFER the people, but never to force the services, programs, or products onto the people.
Majority rule is NEVER justification for forcing people to use, pay for, or support a government service, or product. Individuals should have the individual liberty and individual free agency to decide whether or not they want to use or support a government service or product.
When it comes to the president, not even half the population votes for both combined. Neither even hit 25% last time. And yes, not all can vote, but not even a quarter voting for either speaks volumes of the scam
Even if voting would work, it's still an unethical thing to do.
Voting isn't unethical.
Forced-Collectivism is what is evil.
Socialism, communism, fascism, democratic socialism, national socialism, etc... The core ideology that makes them all evil is forced-collectivism. Which they irrationally justified in the name of majority rule vote.
Oh Im in no way arguing for it
Agreed, and it never seems to actually be the majority that bullies the minority but a minority class imposing on the majority, with an electoral college for insurance.
Thanks, great day to you.
I think some fundamental rights must be guaranteed regardless of what the majority wants and that’s usually the purpose of a Constitution, however when it comes to pass bills and policies it’s unclear to me what would be a better system than a majority system. The problem though is that bills aren’t currently passed by the majority. Electing representatives through majority voting isn’t the same as majority voting of bills. Representatives are too easily corrupted and/or mislead the voters regarding their intentions. Most of what is passed, the majority doesn’t actually want. We need more direct #democracy and/or random selection of representatives.
We need a freedom democracy, not the forced-collectivist democracy the world has right now.
In a freedom democracy, bureaucrats can vote on which government services they can OFFER the people, but they cannot force any government service or product onto anyone. People get to decide at an individual level whether or nor they want to use, pay for or support any government service.
"There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong.... In fact it is only reestablishing under another name a more specious form, force as the measure of right...."
— James Madison, letter to James Monroe, October 5, 1786 (see The Founders Almanac, by Matthew Spalding, The Heritage Foundation, 2002, p. 177)
I guess I don’t really understand what you mean by « government services and products ». Governments usually don’t produce anything. Instead they set the rules within which the society is permitted to function. Are you suggesting that bills and regulations should be optional or am I misunderstanding the point?
Something on the lines of voluntarism ?
Yes, like Universal Natural laws and which Constitution are we adhering to today and how's about some actual laws opposed to corporate statutes.
Thinking there is plenty of evidence proving that our government is actually a corporation, illegitimate in it's founding and operation.
The Crisis of the Two Constitutions