Majority rule is good for some things. It's idiotic for an economy because everyone has different needs and desires, which don't always conform to the needs and desires of the majority.
It's idiotic to construct an economy where a small minority of participants decide what to produce, where to produce it, and how to distribute any surplus.
It's no more or less idiotic than the people making that call - ie the participants in the market. They're the ones who give their money to "a small minority".
What we're really contrasting here is the value of majority rule vs the market. Under majority rule every
person gets one vote, and everyone is compelled to honor the preferences of the majority. In a free market every
dollar gets one vote, and people are free to go their own way. ie spend their money how they wish
regardless of the majority preference. To me, the latter is a much better way to allocate power in society because it acknowledges and accommodates the fact that people have different values.
Obviously, you prefer the former, and, in a market system, you seem to think it's unfair that people with more dollars have more votes. From my perspective, that's a feature, not a bug. It's what makes the market
better than majority rule for making economic decisions.
The thing is, in a free market, how many votes (dollars) someone has isn't static. It changes depending on how well they serve the interests of the market. People who squander their votes (dollars) on goods and services that no one values, will lose them. People who efficiently provide people with the things they want and need will get more dollars - more economic power. Putting money into the hands of people who use it wisely is a good thing, even if those people are a "small minority".
