Democracy can be a bad thing

I agree to the extent that I only support a right to person and property because it allows people to achieve the best possible outcome in pursuing their self determination and individual progress. If it became apparent that society would better function, to this end, without private property, through communal ownership or something, then I would support that instead. In my mind, private property is as much a socially contrived tool as democracy.

Which is founded by the legislature. It inevitably comes back to general social will.

It already is, accept its called a 'super majority' isnt it? Oh and by absolute democracy, I meant direct democracy, not absolute as in unquestioning, but at the end of the day I guess all democracy is inherently absolutist.

If you change the super to ordinary, then in the eyes of the law, yes.

Well that's my point. I prefer a system where crimes or poor conditions, can be reversed or changed with the greatest efficiency. Democratic principles seem to provide such an avenue of social order. As for the dtails of that order, as I say it really comes down to the most efficient, amongst other things.

 

our founding fathers saw this as a problem with democracy (with the exeption fo radical federalists like hamilton.) and thus created the constitution at the constitutional convention. this would not be a problem if the (*)(*)(*)(*) politiicans actually followed the constitution.

 

Yes, the great achillies heel to constituional beliefs. If the politicials and leaders decide to ignore it....

Or as Gw. Bush junior put it "It is just a peice of paper"

 

Human beings have a just claim to the fruits of their own labor. I do not consider this a social construction or outcome-based.

Courts were not founded by legislatures when common law first began to be developed. Common law derives from customary law, which requires no legislature. Legislatures aren't required at all.

Well, if you're willing to stretch the definition of democracy to include super-majorities, we could stretch it still further to include unanimous consent and say that all laws should require unanimous support from the voters.

I'm talking about ethics, not "the eyes of the law."

What if we had an official chosen randomly by lottery with the power to veto laws passed by the legislature? I'd say this would be a positive thing because most laws legislatures pass are bad. But is it democratic?

 

In most places. The Senate and electoral college rule out democracy here.

 

Thats because we arent a democracy...

 

At best, we are a collection of democracies. On a national level, we are just flat out AFRAID of democracy.

 

"Liberty" is a useless and vague term.

"Individual liberty" is almost as useless.

 

We ARENT a democracy.

 

Then why do we spend so much time and effort spreading it?

 

This is classic libertarian confusion between legitimacy and morality. Democracy is about establishing what is legitimate force, not about what is moral force. Indeed, a society that democratically establishes slavery is establishing a legitimate form of slavery, even though it is immoral. Moral questions must be left, ultimately, to the individual, to express through their votes. These is no contradiction here. Legitimate governments can be immoral governments, just as illegitimate governments can be moral governments. What democracy ought to establish is a government that is both legitimate and moral, though there is no inherent protection preventing immoral activities by a democracy. The libertarian-style "individual liberty" is not, in fact, liberty at all--it is just a system that establishes an illegitimate tyranny of the powerful, by creating a society where might makes right.

 

"Democratic" can simply mean "adopting modes of decision making similar to a democracy". Any system that elects representatives is a democratic system--merely a democratic republic, or representative democracy. Democracy doesn't always mean direct democracy.

 

So what's "legitimate" mean? Does it simply mean whatever the majority agreed to? If so, it's an unimportant term. I'm talking ethics here, and you yourself admit that democracy is not necessarily ethical. Well, that's the problem with it then. I prefer a government that is as ethical as possible, as opposed to one that is as legitimate as possible.

 

But the people involved didn't all agree to it. Only some of them did. If every person agreed, it would no longer be a "democratic" state but a voluntary--and therefore private--organization.

 

America is a democracy, but not a direct democracy. America is a representative democracy a.k.a republic.

 

Well, that is what it is SUPPOSED to mean. "democratic" and "Democracy" aren't the same thing. To be A DEMOCRACY is to imply it is direct. ANd it is a horrible and inefficient system. That is why we are a Republic.

 

It is a fascist state, manipulated by corporate conglomerates.

 

It's true that democracy isn't perfect. People are perfectly capable of voting for bad ideas.

But people are less likely to make mistakes when they're the ones that have to face the consequences for the decisions they make, whether those decisions are made democratically or otherwise. And it's only right that people should have a say, and a vote, in the decisions that affect their own lives.

What I mean is, people are more likely to make good laws when they're making laws that they have to follow themselves, as opposed to when they're making laws that they think only other people will have to follow.

 

And yet we get so many bad laws. Indeed, there are a number of practical disadvantages to electing officials, one of which is that the people who get elected will tend to be those who want power most and are most talented at getting and keeping it. In other words, precisely the opposite sort of people you actually want as rulers will tend to be elected as rulers; they're the only ones who will even throw their hats into the ring.

But the bottom line is that majority rule doesn't legitimate the state even a little bit. Being granted a vote amongst a vast sea of people does not equate to consent, if you never voluntarily joined the group in the first place. And this idea that I have a "say," well, it's nonsense. A huge voting majority may have a say, but I don't. My lone vote affects nothing. I only have a say in a purely collectivist sense, if we imagine that my will and identity to wholly subsumed into an arbitrary collective group. But as an individual, I effectually have zero say.