If your worldview were universally majority

[Meow Mix]

If enough people in the world accepted your worldview such that they became the majority in every country, controlling every government:

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

Would people on this forum be affected?

Would there be freedom of religion?

Would people be able to express themselves?

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

 

[Augustus]

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

Yes and no.

The core tenet of my worldview is that political decision making should be massively decentralised. Nations would be federations of municipalities which have decision making powers over most issues outside of defence and foreign policy.

In addition, at least half of the positions would be assigned via sortition, rather than election so that government would genuinely reflect the population rather than a certain class or type of person.

This reduces the democratic deficit of modern nations, and decentralised decision making reduces the complexity of problems making them easier to solve.

If it were up to me people would not lose their rights, but with decentralised political units it is clear that some would adopt harsher policies than others. Regardless of how unpleasant you find them, mutual non-interference requires accepting this as their right.

On the other hand, people can move to municipalities that are more amenable to their politics or lifestyle.

Much of the problem with modern politics is fear of being ruled by 'the other'. In the US for example you guarantee half the country loses every 4 years in a winner takes all contest. Far more people would get to 'win', or at least not lose, with decentralisation.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Don’t know how anyone else would be affected, but if I found my worldview put me in step with the majority, I’d be seriously worried.

 

[Secret Chief]

Oh good, wild speculation! A "Controlling" government? Well, here goes...

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

The "right" to hate speech (as in UK law) or own weapons. Rights of the individual is only one side of the coin. The other side is responsibilities to others.

Would people on this forum be affected?

The gun owners, the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, certainly.

Would there be freedom of religion?

Possibly. With the proviso of the hate speech thing and bigly well-rounded education for all. If your freedom of religion means killing in the name of, you're going to be struggling.

Would people be able to express themselves?

Yes. No hate speech please.

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

Of course. But no corduroy.

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

The same as all other humans.

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

Banned? Hate communication (yes yes but this is speculating off the top of my head). Apart from that just the obvious one of the death penalty for performing or listening to reggae and opera. Oh and C&W of course.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes and no.

The core tenet of my worldview is that political decision making should be massively decentralised. Nations would be federations of municipalities which have decision making powers over most issues outside of defence and foreign policy.

In addition, at least half of the positions would be assigned via sortition, rather than election so that government would genuinely reflect the population rather than a certain class or type of person.

This reduces the democratic deficit of modern nations, and decentralised decision making reduces the complexity of problems making them easier to solve.

If it were up to me people would not lose their rights, but with decentralised political units it is clear that some would adopt harsher policies than others. Regardless of how unpleasant you find them, mutual non-interference requires accepting this as their right.

On the other hand, people can move to municipalities that are more amenable to their politics or lifestyle.

Much of the problem with modern politics is fear of being ruled by 'the other'. In the US for example you guarantee half the country loses every 4 years in a winner takes all contest. Far more people would get to 'win', or at least not lose, with decentralisation.

What about successes of centralization, such as the abolition of slavery?

Now, I know that's not nearly as clear cut as US history classes make it out to be; but it's good enough as a starting point question.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh good, wild speculation! A "Controlling" government? Well, here goes...




The "right" to hate speech (as in UK law) or own weapons.



The gun owners, the racists, the misogynists, certainly.



Possibly. With the proviso of the hate speech thing and bigly well-rounded education for all. If your freedom of religion means killing in the name of, you're going to be struggling.



Yes. No hate speech please.



Of course. But no corduroy.



The same as all other humans.



Banned? Hate communication (yes yes but this is speculating off the top of my head). Apart from that just the obvious one of the death penalty for performing or listening to reggae and opera. Oh and C&W of course.

What's C&W?

 

[Secret Chief]

What's C&W?

Country & Western

 

[Subduction Zone]

Country & Western

Yep, besides rap (when you spell it the "c" is silent) one of the worst music genres ever.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Country & Western

I’m afraid I have to object.


And so do this pair of cultural icons…

 

[Meow Mix]

I like some rap, R&B, country, and western. Jeeze ^.^

 

[Augustus]

What about successes of centralization, such as the abolition of slavery?

Now, I know that's not nearly as clear cut as US history classes make it out to be; but it's good enough as a starting point question.

The abolition of slavery worldwide was mostly a consequence of imperialism and military might.

While US history is not a strong point for me, it seems to have required plenty of the latter too.

Abolition was obviously a good thing, but the things that made it possible are not exactly without their own costs.

No system is perfect and there are arguments for and against anything. For me decentralisation is the least bad.

 

[Viker]

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

No.

Would people on this forum be affected?

Some would likely complain. But no. It wouldn't be any different for them.

Would there be freedom of religion?

Yes.

Would people be able to express themselves?

Yes.

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

Absolutely.

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

Much better than now.

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

No.

 

[Secret Chief]

I’m afraid I have to object.


And so do this pair of cultural icons…
View attachment 54963

You'd be first against the wall.

 

[Secret Chief]

I like some rap, R&B, country, and western. Jeeze ^.^

Yeah I got some rap.

 

[Meow Mix]

Perhaps ironically, this song just came up on random. This is good homework music, come on

@Subduction Zone @Secret Chief

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps ironically, this song just came up on random. This is good homework music, come on

@Subduction Zone @Secret Chief

Though maybe not as bad as most that is still a bag of "Nope"s.

Give me some classic rock or classical music for that.

 

[danieldemol]

If enough people in the world accepted your worldview such that they became the majority in every country, controlling every government:

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

Only the alleged "right" some people feel they should have to oppress others, but I feel pretty comfortable with the rights given to people by recent left leaning Australian governments.

Would people on this forum be affected?

Personally I find the rules on this site ok, but a bit on the restrictive side when it comes to things such as moderation of swearing and also I'd personally let people proselytize even though its not always productive.

Would there be freedom of religion?

Yes, with the general caveat that your freedom to swing ends where my nose begins

Would people be able to express themselves?

To the extent they don't advocate for violence.

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

I couldn't care less whether women wear a hijab or nothing at all (although I do prefer the later)

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

Hopefully well

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

Nope

In my opinion.

 

[Meow Mix]

Though maybe not as bad as most that is still a bag of "Nope"s.

Give me some classic rock or classical music for that.

Thanks for reminding me I need to add GnR to my list.

Someone was saying something about a GnR "greatest hits" recently somewhere. I was like "that already happened. it was called Appetite for Destruction"

 

[Erebus]

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

I think that would be inevitable since people's rights are heavily impacted by societal values. People would lose some rights but likely gain others. Gun ownership is an easy example here since I think the UK's approach to guns is probably about right.

People would also lose the right to unlimited wealth, particularly when it's gained via exploitation and a reckless disregard for the environment. You could still be wealthy enough for you and your family to live in luxury for the rest of their lives in my dictatorship utopia. Anything over 100 million would be redistributed though.

Would people on this forum be affected?

Probably. Again, see gun ownership.

Would there be freedom of religion?

In the sense of personal practice, sure. I'm a firm believer in secularism though so values based solely on religious views wouldn't be enshrined in law. I know some people view that as an infringement on their freedom of religion.

Would people be able to express themselves?

Does that expression cause harm? If not then have at it. If it does, then possibly not. I don't think it's wise to attempt a one size fits all approach here.

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

Yes.

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

They would be seen as just as unremarkable as heterosexual, cisgender people.

The question of trans people in professional sports would be a non-issue. Since most people wouldn't care about sports, the industry wouldn't really exist. Sport would be just be a hobby.

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

No power tools, including lawnmowers and hedge trimmers, before 9am on weekdays and 10am on weekends. Nobody needs to cut the grass at 7am Sunday morning. Stop it.



As a final note: This society wouldn't last long. I'm an anti-natalist so humanity would probably end up extinct. Anti-natalists don't typically have many children.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for reminding me I need to add GnR to my list.

Someone was saying something about a GnR "greatest hits" recently somewhere. I was like "that already happened. it was called Appetite for Destruction"

I didn't like Guns and Roses when I first heard them. But they are like a fungus, they grow on you.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If enough people in the world accepted your worldview such that they became the majority in every country, controlling every government:

Would it cause anybody to lose their rights in some way?

Would people on this forum be affected?

Would there be freedom of religion?

Would people be able to express themselves?

Would women be able to wear the clothing that they want?

How would homosexual people, trans people, nonbinary people fare?

Would anything that people commonly do today be banned, like any books, music, or other media?

Dear Meow Mix
This is a very good post; thank you!

If the majority of us, collectively really managed to live as I aspire to in my daily life, my faith’s idea is that worldliness would no longer be required and would simply cease to be - for that majority.

For those in minority, unable or unwilling to let go of ego and desperately trying to cling on to worldliness; this would be a hard phase though. For they would have to look on as more and more of us retreat away from their reality, abandoning the aspirations and values that rule it.

As they would not understand our choices and new experience of being, in their view, we’d simply be withering away. To them it would look like suffering; to us it’d be anything but.

As more and more of us vanish into peacefulness, their world would get harsher, more desolate and tougher to remain in. Christians call this time of need for great spiritual adjustment Rapture. But I am certain that it goes by as many other names as there are religions.


Humbly
Hermit