That seems impossible, there will always be those with most of the power, and those with virtually none

The argument for that is, the power difference can be lowered

Both socially and economically

And that’s what you see happening today. Government and parties attempting to do that.

It's a paradox, if you strive to create equality of power and you need power to do so, then you're creating a power imbalance

The harder you try to create a power equality, the less you can actually have it

The argument for that then would be, remove the barriers to getting that power. IE, allow people to run for office and government.

So even if there’s a power imbalance there, anyone could get that by running for office and getting elected by their peers.

That's too inefficient, no one would win

Why not? One offers something the other does not, something more beneficial to the voter.

It’s a free market of ideas. 😉

Who decides who has the best arguments?

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