"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
- Benjamin Franklin
We frequently reassure ourselves that democracy is good, and that dictatorships are tyrannous. However, democracy is still tyranny. The only difference is who controls the tyranny, and people’s perception.
People have the opinion that democracy is good because everyone has a say in the government. They fail to realize that "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine" as Thomas Jefferson said. People also say everyone is equal under a democracy. That is only if the 51% allow equality. It could just as well happen that they subjugate the other 49%. Examine the slaves of the south.
Democracy leaves a nation open to the majority promoting its own interests (nothing inherently wrong with that) with no counterbalance to protect minorities’ rights. Essentially, democracy is mob rule. It is time we stop promoting democracy as the ideal of political systems.
Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.
Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.
7 comments:
I am not a philosopher, economist, or sage of any kind. I'm just an ordinary guy. But I am attracted to your thoughts. I would like to hear how you respond to the following articles:
"Spiritual Basis of Liberty" and "Spiritual Basis of Free Markets." Here is the address:
http://libertydiscourses.blogspot.com/
Don't forget that the minority is protected from the majority by the Constitution. That is the counterbalance.
What system of government would you suggest is more fair? What are you selling?
We are not a democracy. We are a republic. Democracy is rule by the people. They vote on the laws themselves. We have a republic with election of representatives. And I advocate republics.
We are indeed a democratically elected representative republic (in theory at least.) And that is what is meant most times when one speaks of "democracy." A pure democracy is impractical and, as far as I know, has not been tried, or even suggested, on a large scale.
Democracy was vilified by the founding fathers. They spoke of establishing a republic. The term democracy's current meaning started in the early 20th century with the rise of the progressive populists. The term democracy is an abused one for we are not a democracy. We are a republic.
Well, the article I mentioned, "The Spiritual Basis of Liberty," claims we don't need a legislature. Can a republic be constituted without a legislature?
I suppose it could, but without giving it much thought, I'm not sure how it would be instituted. The idea of a republic is to elect those who represent you and that naturally creates a legislature (in the meaning of a congress).
In addition, a legislature is created to legislate laws (examine the roots of the words). So for the majority of people it is a necessary branch of government. But I suppose you could have a government without the power to enact new laws. In other words, the original Constitution creates the laws and the government enforces it, but new laws are created. In such a system, I suppose you wouldn't need to elect a congress because no new laws are to be created. So I suppose (again without much deep thought regarding the subject) that if you remove the legislative ability you remove the congress, but you can't remove the congress before the legislative ability..
Post a Comment