I've occasionally wondered, is that not reality for all of us? Even us living in democratic nations? Is democracy at its core not a "might" (through a greater cardinality) makes right of sorts?
The tyranny of the majority? Absolutely. The trajectory along which many ethical arguments about power roll is to start with the 'Redbeard' straw-man and then offer up increasingly diluted forms, social contracts and so on, until an acceptable proxy is found for universalisable systematic violence [1] in kind.
[1] This may not be a literal violence at all. The point at which it passes under an acceptable threshold, as sublimated power, says a lot about each culture. For example, acceptance of brutal inequality may be taken as such a sublime violence - the measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members.
You might wonder if we do enough, for example making sure commercial entities are kept under control. Democracy is work, it is not a guarantee you will keep having it. You can lose it, and many entities are fine with destroying it too further their own self interest. You don´t have it because of how exceptional you think you are. So take an active role to protect it.
In actual democratic systems, the stronger great majority (eg the 75% or 90%) can do anything they want to with a weak minority. There are many prominent examples of democratic systems being used to implement might makes right via majority abuse of the minority.
You have to intentionally neuter democratic systems with strict constitutions that protect individual rights, to prevent might makes right from always taking over democratic systems. You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.
I encourage you to think critically and at the same time ask you to cherish what you have. It is you duty to defend democracy and keep it functioning, or else you will lose it. I am not saying that do you do that personally, but I see a lot of spoiled people in the west that shit on their own chair, by dismissing democracy, even sometimes equaling it with autocratic regimes. Those don´t know what they ask for.
They are often associated only because places where democracy is strong also tend to acknowledge human rights, at least in the abstract. (Obviously autocrats will not acknowledge it.) But it was, and is, often not so. Ask any Jim Crow victim. Or widow of a police violence victim.
If someones right got trampled, that is something to take to the court. The law is there to protect the single man or minority from 'the terror of the majority'.
That's why we mean with democracy not just the ability to vote, but also the rule of law . We also mean the trias politica: law making powers, executive power, and judiciary power al separated.
No one said that in a democracy everything will be perfect. It requires work. It at least gives you the tools to improve it. It is a living system.
So, no. Democracy or something like is generally a prerequisite for the notion of rights to even have meaning. But it absolutely does not demand them. Each has to be fought for over many generations. You have to hope your democracy lasts long enough for that. Often enough a neighboring autocrat crushes it.
> You have to put very strong constraints in place to prevent the stronger majority from harming the weaker minority; you have to put the democratic majority in a straight-jacket that limits their possible actions for the protection of the minority.
if i have more money and power than you, at the ballot it doesn't matter, you and your weaker friends can overrule me no matter how much money i had
The point is that if your country is 51% Catholic and votes to exterminate the 49% of Protestants, that's democracy.
> The point is that if your country is 51% Catholic and votes to exterminate the 49% of Protestants, that's democracy.
Protecting rights is more a consequence of the rule of law, and equality under the law.