A Reply

My good friend,

It is an axiom of democracy not to make the people most happy and satisfactory, but the majority of the people. There is the key difference, of in favouring the majority instead of the totality of society, the "optimal" or "maximum" happiness and stability may not be achieved.

Utilitarianism is a matter of the totality of a state, not in statistical majorities.

Will you value the opinion, opinion by the way and not necessity, of the majority over the necessities of the totality? Will you for the sake of the part, however large it may be, neglect the needs of the whole? Democracy is essentially a compromise, a compromise that favours the majority, ironically by claiming to favour and be partial to no one. Whether such a compromise is truly and eternally stable is anybody's guess, but remember that as it is a compromise, democracy is not perfect. If something imperfect persists in a state of by definition temporary stability forever, then I would say that it is not an imperfect thing.

And yet it is.

You give me the example of America, granted then. But it might be a little ad hoc to say that "America is successful because its people voted for their leaders", for there are definitely other, perhaps more important factors.

Will you subscribe to a compromise forever?

~Bryan~