I Believe in Democracy. Do You?
You are a democrat if you believe that people will always disagree as to what the law should be, that the violence that can come from this disagreement is undesirable, and that competitive elections are a peaceful way of managing this disagreement. You are an opponent of democracy if you believe either a) that the source of law is not from the minds of human beings such that what the law should be is not to be determined by human beings or b) that the law can be determined by human beings and that unanimous agreement as to what the law should be can be achieved by removing from society the source of disagreement thereby removing disagreement from society.
posted by modlib at 12:30 PM
13 Comments:
"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities, and still remain democratic." -Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
If a person criticizes capitalism by saying that under capitalism, industrialists can pollute lakes and streams with impunity, a supporter of capitalism would say no, under capitalism, properly defined, such cannot happen. Likewise, under democracy, properly defined, such things as tyranny cannot happen.
Sure it can. Haven't you ever heard of the Tyranny of the Majority?
Can you give me an example in which democracy resulted in tyranny?
What they're trying to say, modlib, is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. When 50.5% of the people can vote pretty much whatever they want from the other 49.5%, that certainly can (and does) amount to a Tyranny of the Majority. This is especially true when you consider that nearly everything in America is subject to government control or a people's vote.
You are correct in stating that democracy could be said to constitute tyranny of the majority. But it is better than tyranny of the minority or a spurious unanimous rule. And there are no other choices.
It's not necessarily better if you're the 49.5% minority. Was it Winston Churchill who said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others?
By elimination, I assume this means that you support unanimous rule. A realist would say that this is not possible. One way to minimize any bad aspects of democracy is to divide the world up into small parts, "countries", within which people who think more alike can live.
Not Unanimous Rule. Let's keep damage to a minimum.
There's no easy answer on how to make government work. To suggest Democracy, though, as an answer, is a bit out there.
Point well made, Mike. However, I think the issue does deal with things that matter for practical purposes, at least to some extent.
Democracy is used by many to justify whatever restrictions are placed on our freedoms. You know, the old "The people voted for it..." routine?
Bush uses Democracy as an excuse for attacking other countries, well...at least one of his excuses. The way he and everyone else references Democracy, seems to me as to equate that word with Freedom, and isn't necessarily so.
People need to recognize that just cause 55.5% of the voters vote for something doesn't make it right. To be sure, waxing about democracy can confuse the issues. You are correct about that. But it also tends to make people ignore the real issues, like whether they should be restricting other people's freedom by voting on something in the first place.
The reason I mention democracy: the voters will not vote for any party or candidate who is hostile to democracy. And radical libertarians are hostile to democracy.
No LP candidate has ever stated directly that they oppose democracy. Instead, they do things like define democracy as 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch, or complain that democracy is tyranny of the majority. They also claim that all non-libertarian policies enacted by any level of government are "unconstitutional" which is to intimate that the U.S. should have one-party rule.
Anyone ever heard of proportional representation?
Post a Comment
<< Home