We don't really want majority rule... the thing that democracy is. I mean, if you are in the 49% that lost, you wouldn't be happy.
Rather, lets get into "no government rule" so that we are free. Government should only exist to protect private property for the people. Some of that protection comes in the form of judging between claims of wrongdoing between people.
That's it. No other government over the people.
You are saying that morality is the responsibility of some vague other, 'government', rather than oneself.
Are you telling me what I said? I don't see that in there at all. What do you mean?
If you go to the most primitive society on the planet and a hostile person attacks you then the primitive people will grab the attacker.
In a government oriented society like ours people will usually either join the attacker if it seems he might win, or wait for 'the government' to solve the problem.
What if government is the attacker, like most often in the United States?
There are some things government is useful for. Building roads, organizing complex projects etc.
Government is simply organization. If I and a few of my neighbors get together and build a road through our properties, we better be organized in our effort or it won't work. The organization is government. When the job gets finished, the government is not needed any more; disband it. If somebody who is not of our group wants to travel on our road, charge him. Toll road. If we need to form a government of ourselves to enforce our road toll, then we need to do it.
Have as many governments as you want. But as soon as I am forced to be part of your government, then that is slavery.
Freedom of speech is the first protection against any dangerous gang, including the scum who hide in governments. As long as speech is free, unhindered, it is clear who is dangerous. Democracy ideally is just free speech with a few other trivial bells and whistles.
Freedom of thought comes ahead of freedom of speech.
The United States is not a democracy. It forces taxation. That's slavery.
1) You say 'govt should only exist to protect private property' and 'judge claims of wrongdoing' etc.
Those matters were well handled before govt took over. Among people who lack some necessary civil value there is a transfer of responsibility from the group to the individual, so the individual learns. That process is eliminated when you have a 'responsible' govt.
Example
A person does not know that it is wrong to steal someone's hat.
They steal someone's hat.
~here the scenario forks
fork 1 / People who have that value act as individuals and correct the mistake. This has been the history of mankind. It works.
fork 2 / Responsibility for teaching is transfered to a group, e.g. govt. Long story short it does not work and has never worked and will never work. It is a sly gang trick, not civilization.
2) "Government" does not really contain something that is capable of being responsible, except for individuals. If you are in the United States govt or any other govt, and you kill a whole bunch of innocent people, is it your fault or the fault of whichever govt? I'm happy to criticize the scum in the United States govt who act malignantly. Those individuals are responsible for their acts. Some vague 'government' is not responsible. When you have a gang in which each member can be trusted to act poorly then it is reasonable to generalize, but it's a stretch to do that with the entire U.S. govt.
It is reasonable to say "this group of people acting for govt x, e.g. the U.S. govt, is responsible for their mischief".
It is not reasonable to say "Govt x is responsible for the mischief of the people who did such and such under its banner".
So you can say colloquially that "The U.S. or whichever country attacked xyz", but the truth is that it was individuals who attacked, even if those individuals were hiding behind a flag.
3) Sure, if you and your neighbors can build a road without govt, and you need a road, do it. But there are, in general terms, a lot of useful things that are best done by govt. The. problem arises when ambitious people see opportunities in this.
4) Freedom of thought is even less anyone's business than freedom of speech. There is a serious problem in many countries with gangster scum who limit freedom of speech. Not so much an obvious problem yet with limiting free thought.
As for taxation I don't care. In most countries taxes are not oppressive. Maybe they are not fair. A capable government would be limited by the revenue it could earn rather than what its citizens could afford in taxes. But that kind of minimalist government is not realistically likely any time soon.