[Victus]

Rhinoqulous wrote

So, voting is irrational because each single vote is meaningless

Yes, because the probability that your vote will affect the outcome approaches zero.

Rhino wrote

especially if the vote would be for the losing side.

Nope, voting is irrational regardless of whether your side wins or loses.

Rhino wrote

Does that mean any instance of speech that falls in the minority it is more rational to remain silent (as voting is an form of speech)?

See above for why this is a non-starter.

Rhino wrote

But, if everyone uses this rational, then everyone would stay home, making their individual vote count, meaning they should go vote (on the off chance no one shows up to vote).

But not everyone uses this rationale (the mathematically accurate rationale); indeed, few do. The average person doesn't have enough knowledge of statistics to reach this conclusion Beyond that, many people have an emotional attachment to voting, and even if that fails, there's always peer pressure - voting is something that socially respectable people do.

So, again, why not let the statistically illiterate vote and enjoy the prevailing equilibrium from the comfort of my house?

Rhino wrote

A government is still a collective

But an involuntary collective, one people are forced into. That's not as good a starting point for consensus as, say, a group of like-minded people coming together for a common goal, as is the case in corporations or rock bands.

Rhino wrote

and in a democracy each person is supposed to have equal say.

They do. And as a result, the weight of any individual vote is approximately zero. So voting, in a functioning democracy, is irrational.

Rhino wrote

Obviously we do not have this now

Can you point to some policies that were highly unpopular when they passed (let's say < 35% support)?

Rhino wrote

but junking the entire system seems to be a bit reactionary and short sighted.

It's only short sighted if it provides some benefit. I'm not convinced it does.

Rhino wrote

I really don't see how markets mean everyone decides for themselves when it comes to governance.

Markets aren't a form of governance; they peel back what is governed.

Rhino wrote

You don't decide for yourself what is available to purchase

Retailers sell A) what exists and B) what consumers demand.

On its best day, democracy couldn't hope to achieve that level of effectiveness in satisfying individual preferences.

Rhino wrote

you make a decision based on what is offered.

And retailers offer what they think you will want. The retailers that make the best guesses win your business.

Rhino wrote

In democracy, anyone can decide to run for office and be part of government (though this "anyone" becomes limited in higher office because the costs involved have spiraled out of control, it's not a perfect system and needs to be fixed).

And your 'purchase' in a democracy is weighted against every other voters' preferences, such that any individuals' preferences are indistinguishable from zero. In a market, if I want a jug of orange juice, I can go buy some; I can even specify the specific type and amount I want, and to an extent, how much I pay for it. My preference is weighted at 100% in the decision.

In a democracy, my preference for orange juice is weighted at next to zero. There's no point in even going to the store.

Rhino wrote

If markets control everything, what's to stop some mega corporation taking control of the roads and banning competing corporations from using them?

There are always multiple routes between two points. If one company blocks the optimal route between two points (at the cost of buying and maintaining this path while decreasing traffic), its competitors can either take the next-most optimal route (and whoever owns that road would profit from it) or they can invest in building their own optimal-adjacent road.

The road-owner that discriminates least gets the most traffic, the most money, and therefore survives competition best.

Rhino wrote

What's to stop a mega-church from taking over the schools in a state and deciding to stop teaching most of the sciences, as it disagrees with their beliefs?

Nothing. And as soon as they did, and assuming parents actually want a non-religious education for their kids, then science schools would start opening statewide so as to cater to consumer demands, because there's money to be made.

Rhino wrote

Let's see, you believe education is a privilege of the rich

I'm pretty sure I've actually refuted this earlier.

Rhino wrote

and democracy should be abolished in favor of corporations (the market) becoming the ruling class.

How would they be the 'ruling class'?

Rhino wrote

It's not Godwin's law when you actually support Fascism (or possibly Feudalism, it could be either).

I guess we could take the test and see which of our views are more consistent with fascism. I can make up a chart if you post your coordinates.