Democracy can be a bad thing

Democracy seems to be the chief justification many people give for aggressions and abuses committed by government institutions against individuals. "The people consented to x, y, and z by their votes" they say.

Of course, when backed into a corner, they'll usually admit that democracy can't justify such things as slavery or genocide. Nonetheless, they awkwardly retreat to the old democracy bit whenever they wish to rationalize some oppressive act of state that they support.

There is nothing particularly ethical about democracy. Democracy is not a comprehensive system of governance but a method. All democracy really means is rule by majority. And it is no more ethical for a majority to violate the rights of a minority than visa versa. Two people robbing one person is no better than person robbing two people. Democracy, at it's best, is a tool by which rulers might be held accountability. But democracy is a double-edged sword and can just as easily be a means for a majority to vote away the rights of minorities.

The true litmus test in any political disagreement should not be which position is more democratic but which position is more likely to advance and protect the rights of all individuals to their person and property. Sometimes the pro-liberty position will also be the democratic position. But sometimes the pro-liberty position will be the anti-democratic position. Liberty should take precedence over democracy.

For example, trial by jury is not democratic. Jurors are chosen at random and their decisions must be unanimous. "Democratic" trials would mean that the whole community could vote whether or not to convict, with the majority winning. But who would want that? The Constitution is not democratic either because it requires a super-majority to amend. But who would want the Bill of Rights subject to mere majority vote? No one favors pure democracy. Most everyone favors democracy when it advances what they consider more important priorities and opposes democracy otherwise. Our top priority should be individual liberty.

 

Democracy no longer matters because judges are deciding everything important nowadays.

 

The only people who advocate for Democracy are leftists who want the whim of the majority to bring down the "Bourgeoisie."

 

How do you think Republican presidents were elected?

Divine intervention?

 

Intreseting idea. I'm taking a guess, but would the OP go for a republican form of government?

 

Our top priority? You can't think of anything that comes before individual liberty?

 

Electing someone to represent you does not make you a democracy. It makes you a republic. Big difference.

 

Nope. Read the Declaration of Independece lately?

 

Often! I seem to recall a number of priorities established therein. Liberty was one of them.

 

A republic is a form of government, not a method of appointing a government.

Sheez.

 

Which is why we are not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. A democratically elected Constituional republic sure. But not a democracy. Your splitting hears to justify your previous response now. The op talks about the form of government. Not the manner of which we elect our representatives. I love to watch just how far people will go to justify their previous statements when they know they are wrong. Keep it up.

 

The problem is that some small factions, or individuals interpret things like "individual liberty" in an unusually broad fashion, one that makes governing them all but impossible if one were to take their definitions at face value.

Which is why we have 3rd parties, courts, established to decide the standard legal definitions of terms such as "individual liberty" and what they encompass. But alas, certain individuals seem to think "a well ordered liberty" means virtually no coercive Police Powers granted to the Government.

The problem isn't with "Democracy" at all. The problem is with minority factions who refuse to accept 3rd party interpretation of legalities that don't meet their ideological smell test.

 

No police powers? Then how do you defend individual liberty? Surly liberty must be sacrificed to defend liberty but I fear your definition of police powers goes beyond the defense of individual liberty doesn't it?

 

North Korea is a republic. Try to spot the difference in how your government and theirs are elected.

On reflection, maybe there is little difference. In North Korea, they have a virtual hereditary monarchy which "elects" itself. In the US, you have a virtual hereditary oligarchy which "elects" itself.

 

Once again. Your escaping the fact that the op is speaking toward the form of government. Not the manner of which it is elected. And there is nothing republican about NKorea. We are, whether you like it or not, a Constituional republic. Democratically elected sure. But that doesn't take away from the fact that we are a constitutional republic. Nor does it make us a democracy. The problem is that you've heard that word "democracy" thrown around so much that you actually think we are one. We're a Constituional republic. It is because we recognize individual liberty and the soverignty of the indicidual that we are democratically elected. NKorea believes in the collective at the behest of a dictator. Can we both be considered a form of republic? Sure. Are either of us democracy's? Nope!

 

But you said you were not a democracy.

Didn't you?

 

That's right. We are a federal constitutional republic. What's not to understand? By the way. The op is talking about the form of government. Not the manner of which it is elected. Being elected democratically doesn't make you a democracy. Especially when your a federal Constituional republic.

 

So, how do you elect people to your "constitutional republic"?

The same way we elect people to our constitutional monarchy?

BTW, the title of the thread says it is about democracy, not constituional republics.

 

Ideally, I'd prefer a fully voluntary, private system of law. But insofar as we have some sort of monopolistic state, as I said, my way of thinking is to judge each element of government separately and apply a simple, universal litmus of what would best protect individual rights. Thus, I don't think so much in terms of an overarching system, i.e. a republic, so much as I judge each element constituting the structure of government separately.

For example, imagine a government in which the head of state was a hereditary monarch. However, the monarch was entirely ceremonial (as in the UK), except for one power: to veto any legislation passed by the democratically elected legislature. A totally negative power, in other words.

I consider the vast majority of legislation that is passed in most legislatures to be quite bad and anti-liberty. Therefore, I would have no problem with such a monarch, since the monarch's sole power would be to make legislation more difficult to pass and this would likely have a pro-liberty effect. If the choice is between such a monarch and a president with a whole slew of dangerous powers to invade the liberty of the people, I would likely prefer the king. This doesn't make me a monarchist per se, for my preference there is relative and dependent on the specific situation.

 

The form of government has nothing to do with the manner of which the people elect their represenatives. Our Constituion is specifically designed to prevent democracy. We do not have equal representation, we have an electoral college, you can still become president with a minority vote, we do not observe simple majority votes with respect to our constitution, we must gain approval from the states to enact a lot of our laws, in fact, the senate was originally not popularly elected. We are not a democracy. The form of government has nothing to do with the manner of which we elect it. The op is talking about the form of government. Is it not?

 

It's a lot more ethical than monarcy, or aristocracy, which is what conservatives today really want, and why they have been having a mass campaign of these anti-democracy posts over the last several years.

Capitalism isn't supposed to be a form of governance either, but the right is trying to brainwash people into believing it is.

 

It's the sole priority as regards government for if government has a purpose, it is to guarantee the rights of the persons within its jurisdiction.

 

Such a veto can go in the direction of more liberty or less liberty. Not necessesarily in the direction you favor most. And everyone knows that if that old hag excersized her veto it would cause a constitutional crisis. Though I would like to see it.

 

Limited conservative constituional government prevents centralized power. Modern liberalism not only strengthens it, but it creates a system of which rewards only those dependent on and voting for the political elites. Which of these two is closer to monarchy or aristocracy? A system where governments only purpose is to defend your natural individual rights or a system where your individual rights may be sacrificed through the whims of the political class for political dependence? Shall we accept the individual responsibility of liberty or enslave ourselves by squabbling over favors from the political class?

Liberalism: That guy earned too much money! Take it from him my king and buy me some healthcare. In return I will vote for you again. What village shall we legally plunder next my lord?

That's slavery. On one hand you have one man enjoying the fruits of his labor, and in the other, you have the monarchy supported by his army of voting moochers demanding that you work harder to solely support them against your will. What class of hard working sucessful citizens shall we plunder next my lord?

 

That is not necessarily always the case, as I argue in this post. But also, that's a simplistic false dichotomy. Democracy is not really system and neither is hereditary aristocracy. Rather, they are possible elements within a governing system. Some countries have both. They are not mutually exclusive. Nor are they the only issues in the structure of government. What about separation of powers? What about common law and independent judiciary?

Filtering the whole complicated issue of how best to structure a government through a prism of "democracy" vs. "dictatorship" is grammar school thinking.

Capitalism isn't an aspect of government at all. At best, it's an aspect of law. But I don't really know what it, since even though it's every socialist's favorite word, not one of them has ever gone to the trouble of explaining to me what they mean by it. Now ditch the snarky, partisan one-liners; I'm interested in thoughtful discussion.