/lit/ - Literature

>>14519744
>Why is that a good thing though? Like why should that be the aim?
i was simply using the terminology of "average worker" because our good friend :3 poster did. but, as the average worker constitutes almost the entire population, i still think it holds true. As the question, why is it good that the majority of the population benefits from a political establishment? and why this should be the aim of politics? this is a question that drills to the core of the question of politics, and is quite difficult to answer satisfactorily, owing to the problem with validating first-principles that, by their nature, cannot be reasoned to, only from. but anyway, it has often been posited that the most important principle for organizing politics is justice. the argument for this generally goes something along the lines of 'justice, being the principle concerned with the fair dealings between men, naturally forms the core of politics, which is the management of the many as it concerns their common interests'. whatever you make of that argument, people tend to hold justice and it's subsidiaries (equality, fairness, privilege, etc.) as highly important guides to social action and direction. but, even if you are to grant that justice is the guiding light of politics, this far from settles the debate, as there have been countless and vastly differing accounts of what it entails. but generally there has been a concordance in the idea that the principles of justice ought to apply to all who are considered a part of the political community—note, this is not synonymous with political franchise. by popular government, i mean the mode of government that draws its legitimacy from the people. this contrasts from non-popular government, in which legitimacy is derived either from an individual or a higher power. so, democracy is a form of popular government, while divine right monarchy is not (as the king derives his legitimacy from God); however, it should also be noted that fascism is a form of popular government, as it at least claims to derive its legitimacy and act in the name of the people.
So with all that out of the way, back to the question: i would say that it is an imperative of justice that all within a political community be bettered by its establishment.
why is the justice of a popular government superior to that of a non-popular government? rather than simply say more people=more justice, and more justice=better, as i think that misses the point. in truth, i'm having a hard time coming up with a positive argument for it, but i'll throw up something like this:
>(P1) justice exists within and is a product of the interaction of intelligent beings (premise)
>(P2) justice concerns the fair dealings between individuals (premise)
>(P3) as far as one's actions involve another intelligent being, that interaction involves some relation of justice (P1, P2)
>(P4) politics involves the direction of a population within a certain area (premise)