Not to veer off-topic too much, but 1. the will of the majority is always wrong and even evil when it doesn't do what we want, but 2. possesses the wisdom of the ages when it agrees with us.
This can be absolutely true, both ways, depending on the type of majority one's talking about.
1. When you lump the entire population into a single, voting mass, on pretty much anything I can think about, the chance of that lump voting the 'right' way is slim; once in a while it gets it right, as much by charm offensive from the protagonists seeking the votes, as any argument they might forward.
I think this is borne out in general elections, for example, where successive left and then right governments have replaced one another fairly regularly. That their sentiments and policies ever change very much is not real; all that changes is the face presented to the voting public. Scratch the surface and the same beast bites you after picking your pocket.
2. Sometimes, within a peer grouping, the vote will be correct, because it will probably be based more upon dispassionate and clinical judgements.
In effect, democracy is still not a very good way of deciding anything, but we don't really have another working solution that excludes dictatorships and even worse circumstances hitting us all. It's not even as if education was going to solve it; you get as many lefties as righties in universities as anywhere else, but that may well be the product of youthful 'revolt' for some, or even of social/background grudge/prejudice on the part of others.
I really think that unless we reach a point where pretty much everyone earns the same salary, fiscal considerations will always divide people. There are those who don't earn much; those who earn a lot, and those who do as little as possible but want to share the goodies that the hard-working people sometimes earn. How can they vote with similar ethical points of view?
We'd have to begin with the losing of envy and the abolishment of greed. Impossible.
Rob
