Democracy and Freedom

[NoNukes]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

In majority rules, it is those with the majority of the money running things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Contracting our voting rights down to male land owners as the founders intended is no path to enduring freedom. In an industrial society it is the path to ever greater exploitation of the entire working class.

You obviously haven't noticed that "the entire working class" tends to own a lot of property . . . in large part because this is a modern industrial society.

Also, as to MALE land owners, I have discussed on other occasions how suffrage for women, however nice it might have been for the individual women, has been a disaster for the nation as a whole.

 

[Dragon]

dblack:

Interestingly, I was just about to start a thread on a highly related topic, to be called "The Three Types of Government." Instead, I'll post my thoughts here.

To begin with, set aside issues of government encroachment on individual rights. ANY type of government, democratic or otherwise, presents a danger of that happening. That's why we have explicit bans on certain kinds of government action in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution. But those protections aren't there because democracy, particularly, is a threat to liberty -- they are there because GOVERNMENT is a potential threat to liberty REGARDLESS of what type of government it is.

One of the earliest such documents is the Magna Carta, which placed limits not on democracy but on a monarchy.

Now, that said: there are only three types of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. A monarchy is government by one person who holds (and delegates) all governmental power, and incorporates any form of one-person rule whether the ruler calls himself a king, emperor, dictator, Fuhrer, Great Stalin, or whatever.

An aristocracy is government by a privileged class of people. The aristocrats are always wealthy and powerful, and in some antiquated forms they also hold hereditary titles of nobility.

A democracy is government by the people as a whole. It exists in two forms, direct democracy and representative democracy. In theory, the U.S. has the latter sort of democracy, which is also called a "democratic republic."

Government by the one, the few, or the many: those are the only types of government that have ever existed. Monarchy, aristocracy, democracy.

A "republic" is either an aristocracy or a democracy in which government functions are performed by elected representatives. In an aristocratic republic, the representatives are elected, or otherwise selected and controlled, by the aristocratic elite. In a democratic republic, the representatives are elected by the people and serve the people's interests through public accountability in the form of regular elections.

A republic is incompatible with a monarchy. It is not incompatible with either an aristocracy or a democracy, but is always one or the other.

The Roman Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were both aristocratic republics (except during periods when they were dictatorships, i.e. monarchies, e.g. under Sulla or under Stalin). The United States at its inception was a blended republic, with both democratic and aristocratic elements. I believe the reason for this is that the Constitution was drafted and the power held at the time by rich, privileged men, but they operated in a context of widespread unrest and demands by the common people for democracy. The House of Representatives was the concession of the aristocrats in this country to popular demands for democracy; the Senate and the presidency were their protection against the encroachments of democracy on their aristocratic privileges.

Since then, popular demand has gradually expanded the democratic elements in our republic at the expense of the aristocratic elements. However, the aristocrats have managed to find an end-run around our ostensible democracy in the form of legalized bribery of elected officials through campaign financing. Because of this, although we have in theory a democracy, we have in practice an aristocracy.

Democracy does not inherently threaten the rights of minorities -- or no more so than any other type of government. Regardless of government type, we need protections of human rights against potential government encroachment, but that's a separate issue entirely.

What democracy DOES inherently threaten are the privileges of the aristocrats. If we don't have a monarchy, then we have something along the aristocracy-democracy spectrum, and the more power the people have, the less power the aristocrats do.

Those who object to democracy are thereby favoring either monarchy or aristocracy. There is no fourth alternative.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not getting what you're worried about. Constitutionally, we can't have a direct democracy.

A lot of people (the OWS crowd, for example) are calling for it though. And more and more people seem to think democracy should trump constitutionality.

That's because direct democracy is fairly simplistic, one might even say childishly so. It sounds good in theory, and really, how much do people like OWS know about practical reality anyway?

One of the things that a republic does is provide the system with a set of what you might call pressure valves: aspects of the process that slow things down and provide time for information to be accumulated, thought and discussion to be engaged in, and cooler heads to prevail, rather than allowing the mob - and it pretty much always ends up being a mob - to run off half-cocked and make sweeping changes based more on immediate emotion than any sort of deliberation.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

In majority rules, it is those with the majority of the money running things.

Newsflash, punkin: there will always be people who have more than others do, and they will always use it to make life better for themselves. That's human nature and life, and you ain't gonna change either one. Learn to work with it.

 

[Mr.Nick]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason..

 

[Dragon]

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason..

That reason has nothing to do with democracy.

 

[Dragon]

We are suppose to be a Republic not a Democracy.

We are supposed to be a democratic republic. Those who say things like the above, as if there were a conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, are revealing their support for aristocracy, because a republic that is not democratic is automatically aristocratic -- there is no third alternative.

 

[Mr.Nick]

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason..

That reason has nothing to do with democracy.

It has everything to do with democracy...

Hell, the First Amendment allows democracy to exist...

 

[Dragon]

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason..

That reason has nothing to do with democracy.

It has everything to do with democracy...

Hell, the First Amendment allows democracy to exist...

Well, that's true. What I meant was, the Bill of Rights isn't there to protect against dangers that are particular to democracy. They're there to protect against dangers that emerge in all forms of government, democratic or otherwise.

 

[Mr.Nick]

We are suppose to be a Republic not a Democracy.

We are supposed to be a democratic republic. Those who say things like the above, as if there were a conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, are revealing their support for aristocracy, because a republic that is not democratic is automatically aristocratic -- there is no third alternative.

Much like the Romans.. According to Al Sharpton tho they were a bunch of homos (which is true) ...

 

[Mr.Nick]

That reason has nothing to do with democracy.

It has everything to do with democracy...

Hell, the First Amendment allows democracy to exist...

Well, that's true. What I meant was, the Bill of Rights isn't there to protect against dangers that are particular to democracy. They're there to protect against dangers that emerge in all forms of government, democratic or otherwise.

I'm a libertarian..

The Bill of Rights is to protect the people and state from the federal government...

Sorry for the sloppy wording but oh well...

 

[dblack]

To begin with, set aside issues of government encroachment on individual rights. ANY type of government, democratic or otherwise, presents a danger of that happening. That's why we have explicit bans on certain kinds of government action in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere in the Constitution. But those protections aren't there because democracy, particularly, is a threat to liberty -- they are there because GOVERNMENT is a potential threat to liberty REGARDLESS of what type of government it is.

Agreed. One of the issues I'd hoped to address here is a fairly persistent claim by progressives that democracy is, in fact, different from the other forms of government as a potential threat to liberty. There's seems to be a common assumption (which isn't limited to progressives) that more democracy equals more freedom, or that it alone protects us from tyranny (i.e. without accompanying constitutional limitations).

I'm particularly troubled by the growing desire for more direct democracy. As expressed by occupied earlier in this thread:

To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

I'm sympathetic to that view because I believe it's true that a moneyed elite is currently controlling out government. But I believe the dangers and impracticality of direct democracy would be a cure worse than the sickness - though both are obviously (to me at least) bad.

 

[Dragon]

dblack, I invite you to download and read the pamphlet linked in my signature. It's free.

One of my beliefs is that institutional and cultural changes are technology-driven. The world had chattel slavery for thousands of years, then the industrial revolution made slavery economically obsolete and it vanished in a historical eyeblink. Same for the emancipation of women, replacement of monarchies with democratic republics, and many other changes.

Government derives its powers, just or unjust, from the consent of the governed. The consent of the governed depends on communication, and thus on communication technology. Representative democracy could not widely replace monarchy until the printing press made universal literacy feasible. Once it did, the rise of representative democracy and the demise of (real) monarchy became inevitable. Representative democracy is compatible with a literate population; absolute monarchy is not.

The Internet represents another advance in communication technology as profound as the printing press. It makes direct democracy technically feasible over a wide area, which it wasn't without the Internet. (Decision-making require discussion; representatives can all go into the same room and talk face to face but the whole population can't.) We are seeing expanded direct democracy in popular movements and in other contexts because of it. We haven't seen representative democracy fully replaced by direct democracy as yet anywhere, but the change is young. It took several centuries to complete the democratic-republic transformation throughout the advanced world and it still isn't complete in much of the developing world.

By the way, anyone who thinks democracy is immune to abuse or avoids the need for protection of rights simply isn't thinking clearly. Democracy isn't two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner because sheep always outnumber wolves, but it can certainly be two white sheep and a black one voting on which color of wool is superior.

 

[paulitician]

We are a Republic. Democracy plays a part of course but we are above all a Republic. So pure Democracy is a bit different than what we have here in the U.S. It can get pretty complicated. We don't have direct Democracy here. There are many problems associated with direct Democracy. It can lead to a bit of chaos and paralysis. In either case,Freedom & Liberty should always be the number one priority. And that has been slipping away in recent times. We need to reverse the course.

 

[Ravi]

I'm not getting what you're worried about. Constitutionally, we can't have a direct democracy.

A lot of people (the OWS crowd, for example) are calling for it though. And more and more people seem to think democracy should trump constitutionality.

I have not heard that. For what reason are they calling for a direct democracy?

 

[dblack]

dblack, I invite you to download and read the pamphlet linked in my signature. It's free.

:0) What do you think prompted this thread?

 

[paulitician]

This could be of some interest to the OP. It is very interesting...


The story goes that Benjamin Franklin was standing outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia after the constitutional convention had ended. A lady walked up and asked the great man, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" Ben Franklin thought about it briefly and responded, "a republic, if you can keep it."

And so began the greatest experiment in governance ever undertaken. The republic Ben Franklin feared for, has lasted 220 years and is still going strong. Yes, it is presently being sorely tested but it is still intact and I believe will remain that way far into the future. The sad thing, is that many people in this country, don't even know what a republic is, much less that they live in one. Many people will tell you that the United States is a Democracy. While there are elements of Democracy woven into the fabric of our country, it is absolutely not a Democracy in the strictest sense. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Paper No. 10, "Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking."

In other words a democracy allows for mob rule where the majority always gets their way. If the majority votes to take away your land, you lose your land. If the majority votes to outlaw your business, you lose your business. It's that simple and this is what Madison was referring to when he talked about a democracy being "incompatible with the rights of property." The founders were well aware that a democracy will eventually implode as the majority votes themselves largess from the treasury and special privileges. This is why they set the Country up as a Representative Republic.

Check out more...
http://www.conservativeoutpost.com/we_are_republic_not_democracy

 

[occupied]

I'm not getting what you're worried about. Constitutionally, we can't have a direct democracy.

A lot of people (the OWS crowd, for example) are calling for it though. And more and more people seem to think democracy should trump constitutionality.

I have not heard that. For what reason are they calling for a direct democracy?

Yes that's a new one on me, personally I would just like to make lobbyists as they are now a thing of the past, that alone would do a lot to bring things closer to a satisfactory balance.

 

[Defiant1]

A lot of people (the OWS crowd, for example) are calling for it though. And more and more people seem to think democracy should trump constitutionality.

I have not heard that. For what reason are they calling for a direct democracy?

Yes that's a new one on me, personally I would just like to make lobbyists as they are now a thing of the past, that alone would do a lot to bring things closer to a satisfactory balance.

Wow, and now you want to change the First Amendment.