The Logical Necessity of Democracy and Majority Rule: A Reductio ad Absurdum Proof Based on the Absoluteness of Human Rights

This paper aims to demonstrate that the concept of democracy logically contains majority rule within itself, and that the two are inseparable. The argument proceeds from the absoluteness of human rights, first rigorously deriving the equality of human rights, and then exhaustively classifying all logically possible collective decision rules into three categories: unequal weighting, the substitution of will-expression by external rules, and the equal expression and equal-weighted counting of wills. Within the third category, this paper innovatively employs a "method of division and reductio," dividing the majority into groups corresponding one-to-one with the minority, to prove rigorously that the minority vetoing the majority logically entails that one person's human rights are higher than another's, thereby violating the equality of human rights. Finally, this paper demonstrates that if majority rule is also rejected, then collective decision-making itself is rejected—and collective decision-making is the process by which each person exercises their rights of will and body in a collective setting. To negate this process is to negate the absoluteness of human rights itself. Thus, majority rule is not a decision rule that requires independent justification; it is the logically necessary content of the concept of democracy. Democracy itself means rule by the majority, and majority rule requires no additional argument.