Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.
Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that
not about who has the most guns?
Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking. How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system? I'd be ashamed.
I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.
Democracy is not about a simple majority getting all it wants. There are always things like property rights. Your system has no such rights since the person who has most fire-power has an absolute law making power.
You say that its my problem if I don't think the siblings recourse is fair. You are proposing to replace the existing fair with your system. If your system is not fair, it will never get off the ground.
One problem you have is that when the facts or consequences of an argument don't suit you, you try to ignore them. As a suggestion, that's the point at which you take a step back and re-consider how you are going about things. There is more than one way to skin a cat; your idea that people should rely on public opinion to get their property rights is not a good one. Come back with a better enforcement method and the rest of your argument will at least have a foundation.
