Any situation where one group is forced to go along with what another group wants is tyranny, regardless of the sizes of the groups. When the first group is large and the second group is small you have an oligopoly or dictatorship. When the reverse is true you have tyranny of the majority, which isn't much of an improvement.
The democratic ideal is people coming together voluntarily to work toward their common interests, with no one being forced to participate against their will. The right to secede is key—it's not a legitimate democracy if you aren't allowed to leave.
I don't agree. Ideally, everyone could make their own decisions for their own so they aren't forced to go along with others. In that case there isn't even a need for democracy. But frequently, that is not possible – what you call "tyranny" I consider unavoidable and democracy the best way to deal with it.
Majority rule is inherently better than rule by any specific group in two respects: One, more people benefit from it. Even if you have two blocks who always vote together, it's better if 60% benefit at the expense of 40% than vice versa. Two, that doesn't actually happen: Sometimes you are on the winning side, sometimes on the losing one so it somewhat (not perfectly) cancels out.
And democracy isn't just majority rule. Separation of powers and a catalog of fundamental rights are also important to ensure everyone's interests are considered when making a collective decision. So is a culture of just doing so, when voting and in general.
And that is where we disagree. Aggression is often an easier path to achieving your goals—maybe the only viable path in some cases—but it's never "unavoidable". You just have to accept that you won't always get what you want.
> … it's better if 60% benefit at the expense of 40% than vice versa.
Maybe, if you had to choose one or the other. If you're of a utilitarian mindset (I'm not, so this 60%-vs-40% argument carries no weight with me) it would depend on exactly how much benefit vs. how much expense. And it seems to me that democracy more commonly results in a vocal, activist, well-motivated minority receiving concentrated benefits at the expense of the majority. The expense is just more widely distributed, making it hard to get the people on the losing side worked up about it. Example: If I can get $1000 in benefits in exchange for 5,000 other people paying $1 each, I have a strong incentive to lobby and vote for that arrangement. The 5,000 other people would each probably expend more effort fighting the measure (each time it's introduced!) than it would cost them to just let it pass. Not to mention that it makes them look petty and/or greedy, fighting over a mere $1 bill. Yet if the measure passes it would result in a net $4,000 loss to the group. Now repeat that for 1,000 other special-interest proposals… the group that benefits from each proposal varies, but in the end everyone loses.
> Sometimes you are on the winning side, sometimes on the losing one so it somewhat (not perfectly) cancels out.
While it would obviously be a very rare individual indeed who was always on the losing side, I wouldn't say it "cancels out" (even imperfectly). Some see a significant net benefit while others can expect a significant net loss. And then you have the net loss to society as a whole, both in terms of economic overhead (the transfers are not perfectly efficient, and also result in a less productive allocation of resources) as well as morally in terms of normalizing the use of aggression as a "legitimate" means of achieving policy goals.
> And democracy isn't just majority rule.
On that we agree, but in my opinion the "catalog of fundamental rights" recognized by all democracies which fit the definition of "government" (i.e. democracies which do not treat group membership as voluntary and subject to secession, or which fail to recognize and respect the natural personal and property rights of non-members) leaves out certain inconvenient rights which are equally or more fundamental.
Sure you could count every instance of someone not getting their will, which is unavoidable when decisions affect more than one person, as tyranny. But I don't think that's a very useful definition.
