Hiding from My Life, Considering Tyranny of the Majority Concept

The idea that the job of America is to spread democracy, or that our fabric is about pure democracy is misguided. Overdone, democracy is tyranny. That is why you have to have limits on it. Most of the biggest problems in civilization can be traced back to tyranny of the majority.

Freedom and democracy are not one and the same. For matters which are under the proper jurisdiction of the common conscience, then it is properly decided by majority will. The only way freedom is maximized is to protect the minority from will of the majority in matters of property life choice, etc.

Our system is designed to maximize, in theory, the individual freedom of citizens, however, throughout history the actual principles upon which it was constructed were bypassed, and the result was always bad. That does not discount the validity of the structure, only the validity of the reasoning which has allowed unequal treatment under law.

When special treatment is given to groups based on some identifiable characteristic which has nothing to do with behavior or belief, or any reason devoid of merit, there is risk of a tyranny of the minority. We live in an age in which both sides of that coin operate. Usually it amounts to an oligarchy which finds dividing the population into blocks by varying treatment is able to better maintain power in this manner. That all works because people are more than happy to accept favor at the expense of others, and enjoy believing that life's hardships are visited upon them alone, because they are victims. Too bad so few seem to see that the extra hardships are almost always created by that same oligarchy which pretends to show them special favor.

It is still troubling that the possibility of forced health insurance purchase is on the table. Those who compare it to auto insurance are guilty of faulty logic. If that is the case, can you opt for liability only? Auto insurance is to protect the lender in case you destroy the collateral for the car loan, and to protect others in case you cause damage to people or property with your vehicle.

Had it not been for the twist of thought which allowed courts to deem others responsible for normal risks of living your life on earth, much of the medical mess would be less costly and cumbersome. The idea that the only answer is universal insurance is kind of a jump. I guess those in the insurance business and the related financial businesses like it. It does have its use, but it has become bizarre.

I remember the time before all the hoops; before you had to go to a primary care provider so you could get a referral to see a dermatologist for a raging rash--something most would know was under the purview of a specialist. There was a time that minor surgery could be done without signing forms absolving the surgeon of all liability. I had some bump where I bit my lip and I had to sign all kinds of things acknowledging that I understood I might die from the simple surgery. They didn't even put me under. Of course, first the insurance was going to pay, then not, then the doctor's office was to handle it, then they said, "No, you handle it", then this then that. I just ignored any further mail.

They idea that more government involvement will cure this is one I don't believe. It is primarily tricky regulation that has allowed the insurance game to become what it is. Everything is a code, which any good trouble shooter knows does not always fit the situation. The task of the people messing with your body is to cover themselves ahead of time in case you sue or die or go crazy. The least of the worries is fixing your problem. Those are the things best addressed.

Regardless of all that, free people should have a right to opt in or out, to pay as they go, or to simply take their chances and refuse medical attention if they choose. Someone stands to make a fortune off this forced participation. It has nothing to do with taking the burden off society for those who abuse emergency room services.

Anyway, the reason that there is a cumbersome process for passing laws, requiring a large majority, and requiring both houses of congress is to prevent the majority form being able to run roughshod over the opposition, and to prevent acting on whim. If you've ever witnessed crowd control, or even large committee debates, you know how quickly and easily the majority can change its view. If there weren't barriers to enacting laws they'd be proliferating like rabbits on fertility drugs. They are proliferating like rabbits as it is. Mostly because no one can resist stolen money and special treatment. If it is extorted by government from strangers then it is easy to convince one's self that all is above board and OK.

Pure mob rule by majority could forbid religious choice or even taste in fashion. We don't like those fluorescent green golf pants, make possessing anything of that color punishable by a fine and jail time.

With the advent of various "studies" as support, people have not been able to resist forcing their will on others. Often as not the studies cited are flawed, or the conclusions unfounded. That doesn't matter in California. They still do public service ads and make laws even when the study which spawned the action has been discredited. The important thing is that the desire to influence the bahavior of others is fed. These days that is one appetite which knows no bounds in too many people.