Greetings Fellow members,

The following is a short thought experiment which I posted earlier and I would like for you folks to read it and tell me your answer to the two questions at the end. This will help determine which end of the spectrum you are at.


......

'The Island'

There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

....40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

Without getting insanely analytical.

Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

OR


No and No. With such small numbers (100) the 60 are the majority. The majority wins in such small numbers. So besides forcefully imposing the 40%ers will onto the 60%ers. They are SOL.

Good question. I think that sounds reasonable. It works the same way things are going now. If this person is really good for the people then they will come around and vote for the person next time around. If that person is not good, the people are more likely to put a vote in the next time around to make sure that their voice is heard. And BAM democracy is born. And if stupid and greedy people who have no business leading people dont get in the way, it can be a good thing for everyone. Or they have the right to stand up and revolt. And if they do revolt they need to have a plan for what they will do after they take "The Man" down, so either way someone or a small group would have to lead. I guess this question would be best answered if there was actually a correct answer.

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy


Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

Remember, they can live forever if left in anarchy and the 60 are the ones who are happy to have it that way.

Only other islanders can kill them, so here is a question in that regard:

Who is more likely to start killing fellow islanders, the 60 individuals who are happy? or the forty? (who were not happy and who held elections because they wanted someone to tell them what to do)

If they exist in a state of anarchy how can there be any such thing as rights? Surely rights can only exist when they are defined by an authority or through collective agreement; both of these would require some form of order and governing rules. Doesn't the question contradict itself.

When I think about it, no, the leader does not have a right to impose his will on those 60, because they never agreed to the establishment of a leader, and they are the majority.
And I think the Island is a bad example of correct democracy, because you cannot vote a leader without firstly voting about a law that makes his post possible and delegates some rights to make decisions for the citizens on him - so first there should be a vote whether a majority wants a leader, and when majority says yes, then there should be elections about who should that be. If really a majority wants to live in anarchy, there will never be leader elections.

If you have a chance to vote yes or no, and you dont vote, you are voting - that you dont care, you want others to decide about the problem, you are indifferent to both alternatives and will respect their decision. Not voting is NOT and should not be synonymous to voting "no". If you dont want a leader after the vote, then make a party that supports anarchy, and when you win the elections (and if those 60 really want it, you will win), anarchy will ensue. Democracy is not the will of the majority - it is the will of the majority that cares enough about the problem to actually express their opinion and vote about the issue. But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

To sum it up - there is nothing wrong about minority deciding for the majority if majority showed they are indiferent to the matter (not voting), but in your example, they majority is not indifferent - they dont want a leader, but there were never any elections about on the issue to decide that, and THAT is wrong, not minority deciding for indifferent majority, but minority deciding to majority that was not given a chance to decide about the issue (actual existence of a leader).

Originally posted by Maslo
But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

All of the 40 of wanted a leader.

The was stated in the OP.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Maslo
But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

All of the 40 of wanted a leader.

The was stated in the OP.

Yes, then the leader cannot impose his will on the rest. Only if more than 50 wanted a leader, then he can.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy


Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

Remember, they can live forever if left in anarchy and the 60 are the ones who are happy to have it that way.

Only other islanders can kill them, so here is a question in that regard:

Who is more likely to start killing fellow islanders, the 60 individuals who are happy? or the forty? (who were not happy and who held elections because they wanted someone to tell them what to do)

In regards to that I would venture to say that the 60%ers will kill first and win.... They want to live forever wich is a pretty powerful motivator and they do not need leadership to survive as they have proved. Whereas the 40%ers are seeking direction and leadership for someone to tell them what to do... I view the 40%ers a bit more slow to react and or cautious/scared or just plain a little weaker in sheer numbers alone. Not to mention their mindset.

*If you don't want to think within the parameters set out in the OP then your only purpose is to disrupt the discussion of those who are working within the parameters. This is an undeniable fact. Do not deny it. It cannot be denied. So don't. I certainly wouldn't bother denying it I if were you. Read this last paragraph again five times.

Well actually I misread the OP and I was going to apologise but to be honest if you’re going to take that tone I’m not really sure why I should bother to continue.

The leader should host meetings with all 100 and discus each issue. No one should have the right to impose his will on other people.

The 40 are forcing the 60 individuals of anarchy to organize.

You see, the 60 individuals are not really a "group". They have a common interest though. Since the 40 have organized and will, perhaps, attempt to enforce (through force) their rules/laws, this puts the 60 into a predicament.

If the 60 act as individuals, then the 40 can use force to, one-by-one, imprison the 60. However, if the 60 organize themselves, they will be able to stand as a unit against the 40. This is a problem though, because this will (according to the experiment), make the 60 unhappy because they will no longer live in "happy anarchy".

At that point, the 60 will begin to disagree about rules, and perhaps some will even join the 40.

This natural tendency to divide will allow the original 40 will win.