Democratic compromises

Dissident1's picture

A man is assaulted in front of his home. The neighbours see this assault take place, but do nothing. A stranger to the area leaps out and assist the man.

Through democratic process and determination, the man who "did the right thing" would be in the wrong. The majority of people in the neighbourhood said, by their behaviour, that turning your back on someone in need was the proper course of action.

When a democratic compromise is reached, the same thing occurs. The democratic vote is bound to be determined in favour of the majority, and the minority for whom the "compromise" is being reached are getting shafted. Any who speak out against what is determined to be the "compromise" are regarded as troublemakers.

It is a matter of good social manners to be willing to compromise. Given any two positions, etiquette demands that an agreement be reached that hopefully will benefit both parties. However, in a true compromise, neither party will be benefitted. In fact, both parties will come out worse for compromising.

Science is not a democratic process. Nobody "votes" on what the outcome of a given experiment proves. Two plus two will never equal a different number just because a majority of people wish it to.

In many arguments, there has been opposition to positions held based on the idea that most people don't "believe" that way, that any deviation from the "common knowledge" of the majority opinion is distorted and wrong.

If an argument is right, it doesn't matter how many hold contrary opinions. The veracity of a given claim, the validity of a given view, is not in any way altered by the beliefs and opinions of the "majority". The fact that others hold adverse opinions about a subject does not alter the facts.

A compromised position in an argument, when reached, merely allows those who follow majority thought the ability to make a fool out of those who stand in the minority. Compromises inevitably make fools of us all.

There are no democratic compromises. There are only facts and wishes. The facts can be determined by proper investigation and scientific methodology. What is decided by the masses more often than not amounts to wishful thinking.

If an argument is made to which the only counter available amounts to "nobody else believes that" or "everybody else believes the contrary", then that argument must be correct. If one person holds a correct opinion and one hundred people hold to an incorrect opinion, then the one hundred people are wrong and the one is right.

It is difficult to hear the voice of the one amidst the voice of the many sometimes. You have to be listening. A good rule of thumb would be that, the more people who say something, the more likely it is to be wrong.

For this reason alone, dissent is important. With back against the wall, there still can be no apologies, and no compromises.

I am become death, destroyer of worlds