The Island - A Thought Experiment

Greetings Fellow members,

The following is a short thought experiment which I posted earlier and I would like for you folks to read it and tell me your answer to the two questions at the end. This will help determine which end of the spectrum you are at.


......

'The Island'

There are 100 people on an island. They are sterile. No one else exists anywhere else. These people will live forever if left in anarchy. Also, most of them are happy but some are not....

....40 of them have decided to hold elections and pick a leader who will tell them what to do. There is no need for a leader on this island, nevertheless the elections proceed. 26 of the 40 vote for a new leader. The leader is elected.

Does this leader now have the right to impose his will on the 60 nonvoters as well as those who voted?

Do the voters have a right to impose their will on the 60?

Without getting insanely analytical.

Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

OR


No and No. With such small numbers (100) the 60 are the majority. The majority wins in such small numbers. So besides forcefully imposing the 40%ers will onto the 60%ers. They are SOL.

Good question. I think that sounds reasonable. It works the same way things are going now. If this person is really good for the people then they will come around and vote for the person next time around. If that person is not good, the people are more likely to put a vote in the next time around to make sure that their voice is heard. And BAM democracy is born. And if stupid and greedy people who have no business leading people dont get in the way, it can be a good thing for everyone. Or they have the right to stand up and revolt. And if they do revolt they need to have a plan for what they will do after they take "The Man" down, so either way someone or a small group would have to lead. I guess this question would be best answered if there was actually a correct answer.

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy


Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

Remember, they can live forever if left in anarchy and the 60 are the ones who are happy to have it that way.

Only other islanders can kill them, so here is a question in that regard:

Who is more likely to start killing fellow islanders, the 60 individuals who are happy? or the forty? (who were not happy and who held elections because they wanted someone to tell them what to do)

If they exist in a state of anarchy how can there be any such thing as rights? Surely rights can only exist when they are defined by an authority or through collective agreement; both of these would require some form of order and governing rules. Doesn't the question contradict itself.

reply to post by Mike_A


You are not thinking within the parameters of the thought experiment.

The 60 are happy, they will live forever if they remain in anarchy. Clearly their rights are being respected (rights which governments recognize and can uphold but do not create). No one knows why the 40 are unhappy as no one is infringing on their rights or stealing their property. It is anarchy. The 40 want a leader to tell them what to do.

*If you don't want to think within the parameters set out in the OP then your only purpose is to disrupt the discussion of those who are working within the parameters. This is an undeniable fact. Do not deny it. It cannot be denied. So don't. I certainly wouldn't bother denying it I if were you. Read this last paragraph again five times.

When I think about it, no, the leader does not have a right to impose his will on those 60, because they never agreed to the establishment of a leader, and they are the majority.
And I think the Island is a bad example of correct democracy, because you cannot vote a leader without firstly voting about a law that makes his post possible and delegates some rights to make decisions for the citizens on him - so first there should be a vote whether a majority wants a leader, and when majority says yes, then there should be elections about who should that be. If really a majority wants to live in anarchy, there will never be leader elections.

If you have a chance to vote yes or no, and you dont vote, you are voting - that you dont care, you want others to decide about the problem, you are indifferent to both alternatives and will respect their decision. Not voting is NOT and should not be synonymous to voting "no". If you dont want a leader after the vote, then make a party that supports anarchy, and when you win the elections (and if those 60 really want it, you will win), anarchy will ensue. Democracy is not the will of the majority - it is the will of the majority that cares enough about the problem to actually express their opinion and vote about the issue. But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

To sum it up - there is nothing wrong about minority deciding for the majority if majority showed they are indiferent to the matter (not voting), but in your example, they majority is not indifferent - they dont want a leader, but there were never any elections about on the issue to decide that, and THAT is wrong, not minority deciding for indifferent majority, but minority deciding to majority that was not given a chance to decide about the issue (actual existence of a leader).

Originally posted by Maslo
But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

All of the 40 of wanted a leader.

The was stated in the OP.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Maslo
But the point remains that those 40 should have at first made a vote about whether there should actually be a leader or not.

All of the 40 of wanted a leader.

The was stated in the OP.

Yes, then the leader cannot impose his will on the rest. Only if more than 50 wanted a leader, then he can.

reply to post by Exuberant1


This is not how Government's work.

Governments are Servants of the people.... not their masters.

Governments do not EXIST to enforce their will upon the populous, they exist to protect individual rights.

You know.... to Defend people, from tyrants.

-Edrick

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by BlastedCaddy


Mortality has set in so they have bigger issues...

Remember, they can live forever if left in anarchy and the 60 are the ones who are happy to have it that way.

Only other islanders can kill them, so here is a question in that regard:

Who is more likely to start killing fellow islanders, the 60 individuals who are happy? or the forty? (who were not happy and who held elections because they wanted someone to tell them what to do)

In regards to that I would venture to say that the 60%ers will kill first and win.... They want to live forever wich is a pretty powerful motivator and they do not need leadership to survive as they have proved. Whereas the 40%ers are seeking direction and leadership for someone to tell them what to do... I view the 40%ers a bit more slow to react and or cautious/scared or just plain a little weaker in sheer numbers alone. Not to mention their mindset.

*If you don't want to think within the parameters set out in the OP then your only purpose is to disrupt the discussion of those who are working within the parameters. This is an undeniable fact. Do not deny it. It cannot be denied. So don't. I certainly wouldn't bother denying it I if were you. Read this last paragraph again five times.

Well actually I misread the OP and I was going to apologise but to be honest if you’re going to take that tone I’m not really sure why I should bother to continue.

The leader should host meetings with all 100 and discus each issue. No one should have the right to impose his will on other people.

The 40 are forcing the 60 individuals of anarchy to organize.

You see, the 60 individuals are not really a "group". They have a common interest though. Since the 40 have organized and will, perhaps, attempt to enforce (through force) their rules/laws, this puts the 60 into a predicament.

If the 60 act as individuals, then the 40 can use force to, one-by-one, imprison the 60. However, if the 60 organize themselves, they will be able to stand as a unit against the 40. This is a problem though, because this will (according to the experiment), make the 60 unhappy because they will no longer live in "happy anarchy".

At that point, the 60 will begin to disagree about rules, and perhaps some will even join the 40.

This natural tendency to divide will allow the original 40 will win.

reply to post by Exuberant1


SOCIAL CONTRACT SOCIAL CONTRACT BURBLE BURBLE

The people necessarily signed a social contract by existing on the island.

If they don't like it, they should move to Somalia.

Clearly this is the only just and proper outcome.

Of course, they must leave all of their wealth behind for the majority to use at their discretion before they leave, otherwise the majority will have to track them down overseas to finish taking what is rightfully theirs.

If Somalia doesn't exist, then they should create Somalia, just as long as its not on the island, because the island belongs to "the people".

reply to post by Exuberant1


I did not read any of the other replies yet so I won't be swayed by their answers. Only 26 out of 40 voted for a leader. So a leader in the 26 was picked by majority vote. So 14 backed out of the voting for a leader out of the 40. That still leaves a majority of 74 that did not want a leader.
In this case the majority rules. The others did not want any one telling them what to do so their lives still are in anarchy. And depending on resources on the Island without laws imposed ..their lives would still be in jeopardy of uprising over the resources available.
Whether or not the 26 stick to the vote of having a leader to help them, Or..the 74 could each act out on their own and make things bad for all.
In any case scenario.. I don't see all of them living forever...

Originally posted by Bendii
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

In any case scenario.. I don't see all of them living forever...

You are right.

It is only a matter of time before the voters start killing people or getting themselves killed.

Or killing themselves.