Competing to have the public want you to represent them. How is that not competition? Competing to have a greater majority consider you a viable representative.
With that definition of competition I suppose even a burglar is engaged in "competitive activity", "competing" against other burglars.
Technically burglars compete against security.
A majority enslaving the minority is not "competition" in any reasonable meaning of the word. Competition means A doing their thing, and B doing their thing.
You say enslaving when there is no enslavement. A competition requires A andBto be doing something against one another. It isn't competing if the actions of each are not related.
Majority rule (democracy) means enslavement if the majority says so. YouTube and Vimeo doesn't have to be at war to compete.
YouTube and Vineo do compete. War is irrelevant.
Sure, in that absurd example people can force slavery. That doesn't mean democracy equals slavery. You are really stretching.
What absurd example? Majority rule is majority rule, unless constrained by something else. It doesn't *always* result in slavery obviously.
Saying that democracy is slavery is an absurd example. Yes a government can be constrained by a constitution.
Then you need to outline exactly in what ways the constitution would constrain majority rule (or whatever you mean by "democracy").
Look at the real world. Do you really need me to give you a lesson on constitutions? Judges shoot down laws that are unconstitutional. Judiciary over rules the government.
You are the one introducing the concept of a global constitutional government. Do you know what you mean by that or not?
Yes... I've been jumping back and forth between national and global discussions. That said it would be the same as in all western nations. A court would overturn unconstitutional laws.
Democracy is mob rule by definition. Two wolves and a sheep discussing dinner, as they say.
