Majority rules...

...but only if the majority votes.

Too many votes are decided by too small a portion of the eligible voters.

I thought of this because of the misnamed Freedom Caucus and Tea Party.

We have the freedom to govern ourselves, not to do as we please without any consideration of other people.

We have the ability to tax ourselves with representation instead of by some government we have no right to vote for.

Would it better to call the Freedom Caucus and the Tea Party anarchists? 

Questions for the “Freedom” caucus

Just what is this “Freedom” you lay claim to and who is free to do what to whom?

Is it the “freedom” to own slaves by a few or to make certain people second class citizens?

Or is it the freedom to be have a well-payiing job with respect from your employer?

Is it the “freedom” to gerrymander voting districts to give yourselves an unfair electoral advantage?

Or is it the freedom to know that your vote will count in a fair election?

Is it the “freedom” to be free from paying taxes for all the benefits that have helped you get rich?  Like public schools for educated workers, like roads to move your goods around, like courts to settle any disputes you may have, like police to investigate crimes committed against you, like fire departments to respond quickly to fires or medical emergencies?

Or is it the freedom to have all kinds of resources available that we can only afford collectively by contributing to the best of our ability?

Is it the “freedom” to have wider and wider highways to drive faster and quicker, regardless of the cost to tax bases, to individual families, or to the environment?

Or is it the freedom to be secure in your own house, knowing that the chances are almost non-existent that your house will be condemned to make room for an ever wider freeway?  Is it the freedom to not have to have a car because other forms of transportation are convenient and frequent?

Is it the “freedom" to reduce your own costs by polluting the air and water?

Or is it the freedom to have clean breathable air or to have safe, drinkable water?

Is it the “freedom” to donate large sums to “elected” officials to do your bidding?

Or is it the freedom to know the candidates you can vote for have received “small” amounts of money only from the people who have a right to vote for them.

See also "The false masters of words".

The false masters of words

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – – that’s all.”
Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll

We seem to have lots of Humpty Dumptys in politics, their words mean what they choose, not what most people think they mean.

Take the “Freedom Caucus”.  What do they mean?  It certainly doesn’t mean freedom to govern ourselves according to generally accepted rules.  To them it means freedom to do what they damn well please, to hell with whoever else's freedom they tromp on.

Just what are “conservatives” conserving.  It certainly isn’t resources.  It certainly isn’t careful consideration before making any changes.  To too many “conservatives” it means either conserving the power of large corporations or conserving a very narrow view of religion. ironically, the latter don’t hold the former to “you cannot serve both God and Mammon.” - Matthew 6:24.

As I’ve written more times than some of my readers would like, “free market” means, according to the Humpty Dumptys is again, free for the sellers to do as they please.  To them the free market is not providing buyers with all the information they need and is not avoiding externalities such as pollution and worker safety.  These to them are impediments to “free markets”.

“Liberals” misuse words also, but their goals tend to be more friendly to the general populace.  But sometimes their “liberality” works counter to the general welfare or unnecessarily creates opposition to certain desirable goals: like letting people lead the lives they choose.

I think “gay marriage” has lost a lot of otherwise “liberal” votes because many supporters have a different view of marriage.  I’ve always thought this problem should be dealt with by a “granny rule”.  If two grandmothers choose to live together, is it our business whether they sleep in the same bed or in different rooms?  It is “our business” if one of them dies.  Does the survivor have to sell the house to pay the inheritance of the deceased’s children and grandchildren?  To avoid this situation, any group of people who choose to live together should be able to have a civil contract that protects the interests of each member of the group.