Examining the Theory of Democracy by Ahov
(libertarian)
Friday, October 8, 2010
There are many reasons we have a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy. For example, if my Congressman voted with the majority of my constituents, gay marriage would never be upheld. It is a mystery why liberal commentators/politicians may support pure democracies yet ardently promote gay marriage as a constitutional issue. The people of California spoke, and they voted down Gay Marriage. The very system that many politicians/pundits praise as a fantastic way to voice the average man in wake of the special interests' hold on policy will inevitably fail.
The tyranny of the majority, as it is called. Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch. Use whatever phrase or expression you will, the point is obvious: Democracy cannot protect minority freedoms. Democracy cannot protect you from slavery. It cannot support your freedom to thrive as a business. It cannot protect you from The Government, because it is, in essence, total government on any given year, according to majority rule.
A pure democracy may hold stable on many issues, such as murder being illegal, but the chaos that ensues from a transforming Public mind should be obvious. Any valid political issue currently on the table will always have varying support. In the spring 65% of voters may support the law, while the following year only 40% may support it, and a majority may favor repeal of the law. How would a pure democracy handle this? This question is especially important when massive shifts in governmental power and bureacracy occur. For example, how would we plan for long-term government programs, if they are voted for by The People?
Through basic logic, it would be difficult to sustain many long-term government programs, including war. The idea that Pure Democracy is evil is akin to saying a benevolent dictator is evil. Some libertarians see the benevolent dictator as the ultimate solution, however unachievable because of human faults, the drawing of power to control and conquer. Democracy may prevent unnecessary wars, considering most controversial wars in America's history were heavily protested and unsupported by The People. To say Democracy has no possible upsides is far from the truth. Democracy could, in theory, prevent all of government's most hated programs. The problem returns to how minds change over time. A Pure Democracy may support freedom of speech, but soon that will change. This highlights the primary fault and downfall of Pure Democracy: it lacks principle under law.
Some perceptions that democracy is out of the Statist playbook may be misguided, if you consider what would actually occur under a Pure Democracy. Think of starting in the center of the Nolan Chart, constantly traveling around liberalism, conservatism, and statism, bypassing libertarianism, and you wind up with anarchy. It is an intriguing concept, but I think the every-day anarchists would see what I'm getting at.
In a Pure Democracy, the State stands for nothing, because the People rule. How is this not akin to anarchy and neo-marxism? However, Pure Democracy, like anarchy, will never last. The moment The People give the government too much power, or too much chaos ensues, the Pure Democracy will crumble into Statism. The misconceptions between Statism and Democracy may exist, but don't let that trick you: Authoritarians readily rely on unprincipled States, or democracies, to achieve power.
Allowing all majority opinions to turn into policy is to stand for everything, which in turn is to stand for absolutely nothing.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Ahov only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Ahov is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: October 11, 2010 04:45:07 PM
Hi Ahov,
Good article. I wonder why we accept in government and public policy what no manufacturer would? It would be easy to apply scientific observations to the cause and effect of various policy decisions and adopt those that yield consistent consequences for consistent behavior. If industries can strive for awards in continuous process improvement then I'm sure government could also. Over time the will of (tyranny of) the majority would be tempered to avoid oppressive, protectionist policies and immoral funding. Instead, we let the politics of the day cause mass herds of voters to choose the same failed paradigms over and over.
