Criticizing democracy because of majoritarianism is like criticizing programming itself because of how Perl, Ruby, or any other particular programming language works. Democratic governance can be implemented using consensus, majoritarianism, majoritarianism with a 60% threshold, or whatever other rule or stipulation. A constitution is of course also possible; then the people would decide on some ground rules which will be very hard to change for the foreseeable future. Which might be a blessing or a curse for the future people.
> Just saying, 'the will of the majority controls' is a recipe for mob rule — which is exactly what 'democracy' means.
You are not saying anything. Mob rule is indeed a pejorative term which is often used as a synonym for democracy. What of it? I could call you by some insult or other but I wouldn’t be making a point or an argument.
In a democracy of three, two people can vote to kill the third. That's why democracy is a problem, and that's why the bill of rights is amazing. Call it what you want.
edit: democracy as a governance method must be built on consent, an agreement to abide by the outcome of the vote. No one would consent to a democracy without limitations. They're not even stable; they keep peeling off minorities until there are only two members left.
> In a democracy of three, two people can vote to kill the third.
It depends on the specific rules of their democracy.
Majority democracy would allow the majority to kill the minority, as in your example. I heard this goes back to Roman legions, who knew that the 51% could kill the 49% if it came to battle.
Democracy by consent would not allow for that, because that third person would (presumably) not consent to being killed. This requires that people respect each other enough not to impose on minorities.
You’re conflating a more general problem of foundations with democracy. How can a form of governance even be started? On what grounds? How has the mandate to put forth the ground rules? Has nothing to do with democracy per se.
It has something to do with a group of people having votes in order to decide things, where the action that the majority approves of is taken. Democracy may mean something different to you.
> Just saying, 'the will of the majority controls' is a recipe for mob rule — which is exactly what 'democracy' means.
You are not saying anything. Mob rule is indeed a pejorative term which is often used as a synonym for democracy. What of it? I could call you by some insult or other but I wouldn’t be making a point or an argument.