The issue raised is very interesting not only from the perspectives / examples you highlight. However one aspect is difficult / impossible to determine: what means ' fake reality and real reality'? What counts in the end is how people perceive reality. There is nothing such as an objective reality, but reality is what people perceive, how they give meaning to what they perceive and also relating to what they perceive as their interests. We say that reality is socially constructed. If we have such perspective than it is impossible to talk of real reality or fake reality, but what counts is the majority’s reality. All other things would become even dangerous as this would give much more power to those who then would decide of what is real and what is fake reality? Who should do this? Politicians, scientists, business people? Like others also their realities are socially constructed. Let’s take another example: It is scientific paradigm that there is dangerous climate change, which will change the ways people live considerably; we and future generations will be more exposed to severe climate conditions, extreme hazards, etc. To mitigate this extreme changes are necessary. Now would it be justified when a few decide on such changes? A few who claim to have all questions answered, a few who have interests that changes are happening (or not)? Can we say that there are absolute answers to all of these questions, can we say that there is absolute reality, absolute truth? I feel that we cannot, and all we can do is to trust our principles of democracy as insufficient they are at times, but other ways of decision making in societies that were not democratic, were even more insufficient, more dangerous, causing even more harm.

I know that this must sound unsatisfactory, also realizing what often is at stake, but all we can do is to bring forward arguments, explain issues to people about the world we perceive it, and hope that people’s awareness changes und with it they way they act in elections and plebiscites.

What has been discussed often were, if there should be minority protection in one way or the other. However this is difficult to implement in plebiscites, where the response is ‘yes’ or ‘no’. There is also the discussion if there is a right to resist decisions that are against human rights, constitute crimes against humanity, etc. I would not classify the examples you have provided anywhere near to such categories, not even climate change, but what surely can and should be discussed is how to achieve decisions in a world where many things are happening that have the potentials to create huge hardship and suffering. ......

Dear Eberhard, thank you for taking the time to write.

It seems your comment is filled with other questions related to possible answers to my question from your point of view, an answer that you have not yet provided…You just found the question interesting…...

Some of your comments may be right and others may be wrong if you look at the situation from the normal democratic outcome side of majority rule. Some of your comments may be right and other may be wrong if you look at the situation from the extreme democratic outcome point of view of majority rule….

It seems to me your are commenting from the normal democratic outcome side of majority rule issues, which is normal: There is now a paradigm shift knowledge gap resulting from shifting from normal to extreme democratic outcomes, as the rules of normal democratic outcome do not work or should not be expected to work under extreme democratic outcomes, which explain why in both BREXIT and USEXIT even today the actors that lost and those who won and those in the media who cover democratic activity keep asking themselves why?......

I said in the background to my question, that I think there is a need for protection and I do not see any issue with defining what is fake reality and what is real reality, just think about them as non-science based vrs science based, fake facts vrs true facts, …

Please, if you agree with me, say so and share why. If you disagree with me, say so and share why. Then I will reply and expand.

Thank you again for your time.

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

To save democracy you must reinforce the autonomy of the individual / family / entrepreneurship through property. Thus the founding fathers, especially Periclés, expanded ownership and stimulated the work. Then Hume and the American colonies (James Madison and Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, will point the way, to which many continue to resist today

Dear Bladimir, thank you for taking the time to write.

You did not try to answer the question.

However, here a few comment on your comment:

a) "... reinforcing the autonomy of the individual / family / entrepreneurship through property through chaos, especially fake/manufactured chaos, internal and external was not probably on the mind of those great thinkers;

b) that goal could be done through responsible majority rule if that what the majority think it should be done;

c) in my view, the extreme version of " reinforce the autonomy of the individual / family / entrepreneurship through property' is the structure of the current President Trump's USEXIT program.

I am sharing here with you and friends the following unpublished paper as food for thoughts as it is related to the answer to my question:

Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory: Pointing Out The Structure of Normal and of Extreme Democratic Outcomes Analytically and Graphically.

Article Majority Rule Based True Democracy Under Complacency Theory:...

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Your question

Is there a need to protect majority rule based voting systems or democracies from fake internal and external driven chaos before it is too late?

My answer

You have a way to protect democracy. It is to establish a system where power rests in the individual / family / business triad protected by full private property and free trade. This has been adopted at different times: Pericles (Greece) Hume (United Kingdom) Madison (United States)

Your premise

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

Your posture/construct

In my next paper titled: “Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means”, I shared among the operational concepts the ones listed below:

26) BREXIT, the extreme democratic outcome supporting the UK withdrawing from the European Union.

27) BREXISM, the extreme democratic movements supporting the breakup of economic or territorial or state based unions.

28) USEXIT, the extreme democratic outcome supporting the USA withdrawing from the international and local order.

29) USEXISM, the extreme democratic movements supporting the breakup of the international and local order.

30) EXISM, the extreme democratic movements aiming at destroying majority rule based institutions and majority rule granted minority rights, locally and globally.

All these extreme democratic outcomes and extreme movements flourish under chaos, especially under fake internal and fake external driven chaos. In my opinion, majority rule based democratic systems were not designed for a battle between fake reality and real reality, they were designed for a battle between different views of real reality.....

Which raises the question I made above: Is there a need to protect majority rule based voting systems or democracies from fake internal and fake external driven chaos before it is too late?. I think yes, what do you think?.

Please if you agree with me state clearly so and share why or if you disagree with me say so and share why so we can have a productive interaction.

My point

Democracy is a way of making decisions. Each system tries to adopt it according to its idiosyncrasy. Let's say is the basic principle. However, the issue of majorities is part of the agenda of the Communist Manifesto, which attacks against the existing structure at the time: vote by census. Under the premise that the working class is majority, against the minority/ capitalist class.

I think you are correct in calling your position as the rule of the majority. Others see it as plesbicitarian tyranny.

I believe radical ( you say extreme) expression, and that fits within your arguments / structure / construct of analysis. At sea or minestrone on the left you can complement your construct and predict the extreme results in democracy / democratic elections.

Interesting Trump theme, because the census system breaks with most complacent: the people choise?

Most in the sense of the left is to break the freedoms based system, as you define, in the extreme USEXIT

Remember that the Greeks used democracy to build settlements to resolve how to defend themselves from Darius (Persians). Under the premise that I have exposed, and in what fits for its time

Dear Bladimir, thank you for your addition to the discussion.

Yes, “democracy is a way of making decisions”, and under normal democratic outcomes it means decisions that are for the common good or that advance the common good are decided by majority rule….if everybody's right to participate is granted and there are two groups, the right and the left, then it is a normal democratic outcome if the right or the left have a majority and sold as a program for the common good….if there were 4 groups, radical left, center left, radical right, and center right and if everybody's right to participate is guaranteed and every body votes then any group winning the democratic contest is a normal democratic outcome supported by majority rule….and all the above assumes no complacency or no chaos, everybody votes for the candidate or view of their choice; and they are different visions of how majority rule based world can be traveled…

In the case of extreme democratic outcomes, the world where the true minority wins the election because of widespread true majority complacency or chaos, we have a situation that is fueled not by the tyranny of the majority as it was the case of the cases in the past you refer to, including the communist manifesto, but driven by the tyranny of the minority. And we should expect the tyranny of the minority to destroy or weaken common good friendly local and global institutions; and destroy or weaken common good friendly granted minority rights including human rights and freedom of expression…..

I expand on this idea in my next paper, title and abstract provided below, and to be shared before publication in the coming weeks as it is practically done after completing the references:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

By

Lucio Muñoz*

* Independent Qualitative Comparative Researcher / Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada Email: [email protected]

Abstract

It can be said a) that the world of democratic outcomes(DO) is the world where the democratic process(V1) bring together competing group of individuals in order to determine who rules in that democracy; and b) that without clear participation and voting rules, the resulting democratic outcome(DO) can be a normal democratic outcome(NDO) where the majority view rules or an extreme democratic outcome(EDO) where the minority view rules depending on whether the will of the majority(T) or the will of the minority(M) is reflected by the group who wins the democratic process(V1). In other words, if there are no clear rules governing participation and winners and losers in a democracy anything can happen.

It can be said that the world of normal democratic outcomes(NDO) is the world where the majority view(T) wins the majority rule based voting contest(V = TM ) one person one vote as everybody is expected to participate and vote. In other words, this world operates under no complacency(NC) or no protest behavior. Here, there are clear rules governing winners and losers as well as there are clear participation expectations: the true majority(T) wins under no complacency(NC) and the true minority(M) loses as all members vote for the candidate of their preferred choice. And therefore, in true democracies under majority rule the following holds true: V1 = V = TM, where T wins.

If we look at extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) as the total opposite of normal democratic outcomes(NDO), then it can be said that the world of extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) is the world where the true minority view(M) wins the majority rule based voting contest(V) one person one vote in a true democracy and where the view of the true majority(T) loses as the democratic process is operating under some kind of minority rule friendly complacency behavior(C = ?). In other words, extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) take place when democratic systems are under some time of extreme democratic outcome friendly complacency(C = ?) or protest behavior. This is true because the opposite of no complacency(NC) is complacency(C) so extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) can be seen as normal democratic outcomes(NDO) when upside down, but extrme democratic outcomes(EDO) require a special type of complacency(C = ?) to take place and to persist, a minority rule friendly one.

And notice that if we know the specific type of minority rule friendly complacency(C = ? = C*) that leads to extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) then we can device ideas on how to reverse them totally or partially or we can see ideas on how to avoid them all together. As you may know, in 2017 the UK decided to seek a wider mandate for BREXIT and the BREXIT side lost the referendum, a result that signaled a weaker mandate reversing the EDO tendency partially; and notice that democracies that were supposed to go extreme in 2017, the Netherlands, France, Germany, and so on stayed within the normal democratic outcome(NDO) world, and the question in all those cases is why that was the case?.

Therefore, the sudden coming of extreme democratic outcomes(EDO) in 2016 such as BREXIT and USEXIT raised important questions relevant to understanding the behavior of the majority rule based democracy when upside down. Among the relevant questions raised are the following: a) What type of complacency(C = ?) leads to extreme democratic outcomes(EDO)?; b) What is the structure of BREXIT and USEXIT in terms of this specific type of complacency?; and c) What can be done to reverse and also what can be done to avoid extreme democratic outcomes(EDO)?. Among the goals of this paper is to provide an answer to these questions both graphically and analytically using qualitative comparative means.

-----------------------------------------------------------

My warm greeting Bladimir!

Respectfully yours;

Lucio

Dear friends, you can now read when you have time the unpublished version of ART122 here and use it as food for thoughts:

Upside Down Democratic Outcomes: Stating the Complacency Conditions Under Which Extreme Democratic Outcomes Such as BREXIT and USEXIT Should Be Expected to Take Place Using Qualitative Comparative Means

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320443702_Upside_Down_Democratic_Outcomes_Stating_the_Complacency_Conditions_Under_Which_Extreme_Democratic_Outcomes_Such_as_BREXIT_and_USEXIT_Should_Be_Expected_to_Take_Place_Using_Qualitative_Comparative_Mean

Respectfully yours;

Lucio