The voters.

Then that's a power imbalance

How so? Everyone can vote equally?

Because the losers are not "morally wrong", they just lose

For example

It's the most simple example, but it also happens on a large scale unless tempered

Two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner

Clearly the sheep is going to lose

This is the fundamental flaw of a democratic system, it doesn't change anything about a power imbalance, in fact it brings it out

I understand what you mean, you can use different methods of voting and election to achieve as much equality as possible

In my view, that would be better than the current system. Even if it’s not 100% perfect.

My goal is to minimise that inequality as much as possible.

Even if I don’t achieve 100% equality, it doesn’t matter. As long as we’re closer to it, that’s fine.

The way I see it, the solution to this problem lies in an anti-democratic approach

Democracy must be tempered, not absolute

Then the problem is, how do people get elected to govern themselves?

Raffle?

For example, the solution of the wolves and the sheep lies in letting the sheep have guns so if they lose the vote they can kill the wolves

Which means the wolves won't vote to eat the sheep

The problem is, how do you decide who governs who?

That's an eternal struggle, governance is inevitable (as demonstrated by history)

Injustice, inequality, imbalance, and suffering as a result, it's part of life

But surely we can try minimise those injustices, inequality, imbalance and suffering 😉

For me it's about mitigating the cost on a moral individualistic level, not on a collective level

Well

What's the difference between two people dying or one person dying?

The utilitarian answer is: it's twice the cost because two is twice than one
My answer: no difference

Some people misunderstand what I mean by this

So let me explain

Please do

We can either place value on life, or we don't. If we place value on life, we can do this either by numbers of lives, or by the simple distinction between life and death.

Ergo we can say death is terrible just because it's death, or we can say death is more or less terrible depending on how many people die.

Fuck, I want to continue this, but I need to head out..

I only make a distinction between life and death, not between numbers of dead people.

Every single death is bad. More dead people are not more bad, they're just equally bad. It doesn't add up, it stays level.

so killing 1 baby is equal to killing a hundred?🤔

That’s what I was just typing

Yes, in my opinion it's the same. If you kill one, you could just as well kill a hundred, so you should be tried the same either way.

bruh

thats... an intresting way of looking at things

If that one death was violent and painful, would it be any different from the 100 deaths which may have been peaceful in their sleep?