Just remember, a self-selected 10% of the population imposing unwanted hardship on the remaining 90% is less of a revolution and more of a tyranny.

The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny, unless you're arguing that the interests of minorities don't matter?

I should clarify that I don't mean to say that this makes the protest valid, just that the argument that protest is only acceptable if an arbitrary number of people are involved is not all that good.

>The 90% imposing unwanted hardship on the 10% is also easily described as tyranny

10% of people oppose nearly everything and it isn't tyranny so, unless you're an anarchist, your point is ridiculous.

The tyranny of the majority is not an anarchistic idea and yet is exactly what is being invoked when the argument is made that it's acceptable to ignore the concerns of a minority population because doing otherwise would be unfair to the majority.

I think this quote from Tocqueville explains it well: "So what is a majority taken as a whole, if not an individual who has opinions and, most often, interests contrary to another individual called the minority. Now, if you admit that an individual vested with omnipotence can abuse it against his adversaries, why would you not admit the same thing for the majority? Have men, by gathering together, changed character? By becoming stronger, have they become more patient in the face of obstacles?"

What matters is not how many supporters each side has but what the merits and demerits of each side are.

> but what the merits and demerits of each side are.

And who decides that? It's either going to be a tyrannical minority, a tyrannical majority or a literal tyrant according to those who oppose the decision.

Ultimately you must ask if you would prefer tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority.

It critically depends on what you mean by "impose", I think it's a well known lesson by now (and actually very low-status and cliché to bring up) that masses can be convinced of anything, so the deciding factor is often who has the most efficient consent-manufacturing machines.

You could argue that consent, as traditionally understood, doesn't even meaningfully exist in a population above a certain threshold (say 10^6). Consent implies knowledge and understanding, in a population of 10^6 and up, in even a moderately complex environment, there is no way even 1/10 of the population understand more than their own very narrow slice of what their environment and society are doing.

You're aware of the imposition of the government upon the before-they-were-protesting protesters, right?

Congratulations, you have discovered democracy.