Countering Objections to Democracy
I will post some common objections to democracy here, as well as my counter-arguments against those objections. Others should feel free to post objections that I may leave out, or your own arguments for or against….
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://realdemocracy.wordpress.com/countering-objections-to-democracy/trackback/
13 Comments Leave a comment.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Isn’t democracy just mob rule?
No, democracy does not equal mob rule. That is a simplistic analysis based on the idea that democracy is nothing more than making all decisions by a simple vote and following the path chosen by the majority, even when that majority is just a small margin. However, while THAT would constitute a majority tyranny, which is still different than mob rule, but which is definitely a result to be avoided.
The goal of democracy is to allow people to guide their own destinies, to prevent authoritarianism and tyranny of all sorts. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to have a democracy guided by rules. The method that makes the most sense to me for establishing such rules is through a Constitution. This has served the various republics of the world fairly well. My objection to republics is that too much power is concentrated in too few hands, and from what I have observed, it appears that the tendency in a republic is for those in power to legislate rules to ensure that power remains in their hands, and that
it becomes more and more concentrated.
Transforming into a democracy will only be beneficial if it causes deliberation to expand to include a wider range of viewpoints and interests, and forces more compromise among those, preventing any group from tyrannizing any other.
Written constitutions are no sure guarantee against the dangers of majoritarianism, for the simple reason that the legal authority of any democratic constitution must spring from the will of the majority. Thus it will always be subject to the majorities sufferance. There is no logical and democratic way around this paradox.
“The goal of democracy is to allow people to guide their own destinies, to prevent authoritarianism and tyranny of all sorts.”
No democracy is not a goal, nor does it presuppose a particular goal. It is a means to an end. However that end is not, ipso facto, determined by the means. The goal of allowing people to guide their own destinies is an issue of “liberty” which has nothing to do with democracy. Indeed, democracy, because of its egalitarian tendencies stemming from its need for legitimization through political equality, will often be hostile to liberty. Democracy can become two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
The only criterion for applying the name democracy to any system of government is that decision making is decided upon by a politically equal electorate of the citizenry,and that the greater consensus prevails. 51% of an enfranchised electorate can establish a tyrannical government with repression against dissenters and minorities and still be a perfectly legitimate democracy.
kingcyrus Said: “the legal authority of any democratic constitution must spring from the will of the majority”
I must disagree. Since no simple majority could alter our current (US) constitution, either legally or by force, I do not see how you can even make such a claim. The authority of a constitution comes from those who ratify it and hold it in place. Our current constitution was ratified by small groups representing the interests of their states, and it is held in place by several things, including the unwillingness of the American people to rebel against it, the lack of two-thirds of Congress to recommend any amendment that would radically alter it, the lack of two-thirds of the states’ legislatures calling for a convention to radically amend it, and the lack of a massive popular movement to pressure Congress and/or the legislatures to begin a radical amendment process. Thus it is held in place by all Americans who do not actively move to change it, which is a much larger percentage than 51% or even 75%. This blog is one effort to move toward such a radical amendment process, and to replace the current system with a more democratic one by amending the constitution will indicate a similarly large proportion of the people support such change. While it is impossible to project exactly what percentage of public support would be necessary, it is safe to say that it would need to be at least enough to elect or lobby either a 2/3 majority in Congress or 2/3 of all the state legislatures to recommend such amendment, and majorities of legislators in three-fourths of the states to ratify it. Through a very simple mathematical calculation, a very carefully located 39% might be able to effect such change, but that is highly unlikely. Considering the current nature of our political system and those who inhabit it, the entrenched power of the two major parties, etc., a reasonable estimate might be more like 80%.
kingcyrus Said: “The goal of allowing people to guide their own destinies is an issue of “liberty” which has nothing to do with democracy.”
Liberty and democracy are inherently tied together. Without the latter, any semblance of the former is a sham. Liberty which is merely a gift from a ruling elite may be taken away, and is not really liberty at all, but merely license. Only when each person may participate equally in the decisions that affect his or her life can that person have license that may be equated with true liberty.
This oft quoted analogy of democracy as being like two wolves and one sheep deciding what’s for dinner is simple-minded and quite inaccurate in describing what true democracy would be like. True democracy must not only begin with the premise of political equality, but must maintain that equality by protecting the rights of all, not only to participate in the process, but also to not be victimized by it. A system wherein a simple majority can override the objections of the minority is not really democracy but another form of tyranny. Democracy must invest power equally in all the people, which means that rather than a simple majority, a process that seeks consensus is required. Of course, a balance must be struck to avoid minorities to tyrannize the system through vetoes, but it is entirely possible to devise a system that forces some level of compromise into any discussion of issues which carry a majority but not a consensus.
The idea that a 51% majority may impose its will on the remainder of a society and still call itself a democracy does not imply that such a system is the only way a democracy may be devised. Part of this project is specifically to avoid such systems. While that particular scenario is incredibly simple to avoid, trying to envisage all the possibilities and devise a system that will maximize personal liberty and minimize the ability of any group - majority or minority - to tyrannize the rest is the goal of this blog.
Thank you for your contribution.
Realdemocracy said: “Since no simple majority could alter our current (US) constitution, either legally or by force, I do not see how you can even make such a claim. The authority of a constitution comes from those who ratify it and hold it in place.”
I never used the term “simple majority,” in this context. It is true that it would likely* take more then a mere 51% of the electorate in America to change the system as it is this is far from saying it could not be changed. Indeed, if it could not, the whole point of this blog is lost is it not?
Not that it really matters because even if I were to concede that our current constitution does not owe its legitimacy to essentially “democratic ratification,” any new constitution establishing a “real democracy” would need such ratification and thus the paradox returns.
I am merely pointing out the fallacy of believing that a democratically ratified constitution can protect a nation from the more unsavory possibilities of democracy. There is really no escape from this paradox. For as I wrote above, by trying to change our current constitution democratically you posit that a constitution is not inviolate from the will of a majority yourself.
Realdemocracy said: “Liberty and democracy are inherently tied together. Without the latter, any semblance of the former is a sham.”
This is not an argument; democracy either is or it is not. It cannot be a “sham” unless you mean it is not actually a democracy. If this is what you mean then perhaps you could explain to me what is undemocratic about a majority’s decision to suppress a political, religious, or ethnic minority? Assuming that said minority participated in the initial process that resulted in the decision one could logically argue that they were complicit themselves and must, having been participants, accept the outcome. Keeping in mind that, as per the issue of the constitutional paradox illustrated above, any constitutional laws which would invalidate such a decision would be themselves, in a true democracy, subject to democratic review and repudiation.
*Of course it could be much less in a revolutionary situation. Perhaps even less then your 39%
kingcyrus Said: “this is far from saying it could not be changed”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never suggested that it could not be changed; indeed, as you suggest, anyone who assumed that would see my efforts here as pointless, so it should go without saying that it was not my belief.
—————————————————
kingcyrus Said: “I am merely pointing out the fallacy of believing that a democratically ratified constitution can protect a nation from the more unsavory possibilities of democracy….”
“If this is what you mean then perhaps you could explain to me what is undemocratic about a majority’s decision to suppress a political, religious, or ethnic minority?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
First off, perhaps we need to clarify what I mean when I say “democracy.” I do not mean a simple shift to referendum voting to pass laws, but rather “rule by the people” and by that, I understand it NOT to mean “rule by SOME of the people.” That is a republic and/or and oligarchy. A democracy must mean rule by all the people. It is self-governance. If it tyrannizes, or merely excludes, any group(s), it is not democracy.
Of course, democracy is an ideal, and I do not necessarily expect to reach any perfect democracy, certainly not without progressing through a gradual process of reforming the republic, both politically and culturally. However, one element of process that I consider part of the agenda is moving away from passing policy by simple majority. Rather, I would suggest a method which requires that any proposal that achieves at least a majority, but less than full consensus should be referred to a committee to hammer out compromises among the various factions so that consensus can be reached. And any measure that cannot achieve consensus is obviously something that is seriously objectionable to some part of our society.
—————————————————–
Realdemocracy said: “Liberty and democracy are inherently tied together. Without the latter, any semblance of the former is a sham.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
kingcyrus Said: “This is not an argument; democracy either is or it is not. It cannot be a “sham” unless you mean it is not actually a democracy.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you will reread my words, you will see that when I say “latter” I refer to democracy, and by “former” I mean liberty. So, I was not suggesting that democracy would be a sham, but rather that without democracy, liberty is a sham.
—————————————————
kingcyrus Said: “any constitutional laws which would invalidate such a decision would be themselves, in a true democracy, subject to democratic review and repudiation.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. All laws, whether constitutional, statutory, or common law, are subject to amendment or repeal through designated rules for doing so. In a democracy, these processes for both creating and changing laws would aim at consensus to avoid majority tyranny, but keep measures approved by the majority from being simply vetoed by a minority; and therefore, must seek compromise that is suitable to all.
What the hell, I’ll bite; why is liberty a sham sans a democratic framework?
Also: “self-government” is no government. If you mean to say that everyone would have the freedom to decide all matters for themselves and act on those decisions the word you are looking for is “anarchy.”
If, on the other hand, you mean a government in which all decisions are made by a total consensus, I have to say that is a nice trick. You will have to explain how it is done in the specific sense.
Of course, I will probably object by saying that any attempt to manufacture a consensus will, by nature, be in conflict with liberty.
In any case the goals you describe for this new system, constitutional protection from majoritarianism, a committee established to hammer out policy when a consensus is not possible (which will be in every case), and “designated rules for doing so;” is, essentially a description of what we already have, if you replace “committee” with “congress.”
Also, these “designated rules” you describe in your last paragraph, they are not subject to the contract/constitution paradox how?
As a little help I will list some helpful terminology for this discussion:
Republic; from Latin “Res Publica” “The Issue of the People.” Implies a government who’s authority is predicated on the will of the people (as in the case of the United States), or the collective spirit of the people (as in Republican Rome); basically the state deified. Similar to “Commonwealth.” The important note to be made is that no specific form a government is implied by the word “republic.” A direct democracy or oligarchic junta could both be called republic so long as government’s legal authority stems from the public. Most Romans for example still considered their government a republic even after the establishment of the principate.
Democracy; a system in which governance itself is achieved via popular referendum, as opposed to a system in which only the government is established by referendum.
“Liberty” without democracy is merely a gift of the ruler(s), and hence, is not actually liberty, but merely license. Liberty must be endowed and maintained by the self in collective cooperation with whoever we choose to form societies. I will leave open the possibility that there is some avenue for a genuine liberty which I simply cannot fathom at present, but I am certain it is not something which can be “given.”
Indeed, self-government and non-government become nearly synonymous in their ideal forms. However, “anarchy” while currently often used in a context which connotes a scenario like that which you describe in which “everyone would have the freedom to decide all matters for themselves and act on those decisions,” that is a very immature version of anarchy. The anarchy envisioned by most anarchists is one not far from ideal democracy, although many of them would hesitate to use that word because of the same common conception that you share that it is majoritarian. My aim here is to fuse the ideals of anarchism and democracy. A more mature anarchy is one in which society work together cooperatively, and obviates any need for “rulers,” and similarly, in democracy, “the people” rule collectively, but there is not a hierarchical regime handing down laws from above.
While I would like ideally to be able to devise a system wherein consensus could always be reached, I know that is not possible. However, I believe that what cannot achieve consensus after all attempts at compromise have been made should not become law or policy for all of us. If we cannot reach consensus on something at the national level, it should not be a national law. Maybe it could pass some states or some municipalities. In that case, such laws and policies should only be passed in those places. The end result of this would probably be a very decentralized structure, and that would be just fine with me.
For more specifics about how I believe self-governance might be expressed, you can check out the pages on Amendment Proposals and Revised Constitution (see Blogroll). Neither of these is meant to be a final draft, but it should at least tell you something about my vision.
I agree with you that “manufacturing” consensus would be antithetical to liberty; however, accepting a compromise that will be beneficial for the society as a whole even though you may not get exactly what you wanted is still within the bounds of liberty. In fact, I would say that it is the most important aspect of liberty: being able to participate in the discussions and decisions that will affect one’s life, and being able to compromise rather than be subjected to the will of others, whether majority or minority.
The difference between Congress and the committees that would forge compromises is that the committees would be composed of the specific factions who most vigorously support and oppose each measure, rather than the same assembly to work on every measure.
And yes, the rules for passing, amending, and repealing laws are just as open to debate and amendment as any other. In fact, if you read the page titled Amendment Proposals, you will see that the first amendment I propose is about how the Constitution may be amended thereafter. And yes, at some later time, the people could decide to alter those rules. However, I believe that once democracy has been established, that the people will work in their own interest, and would only change the rules if they believed that such changes were in their interest. And I believe that would be their prerogative.
“Liberty” without democracy is merely a gift of the ruler(s), and hence, is not actually liberty, but merely license.”
That is a crude understanding of liberty. Liberty, if by that we mean the totality of the various freedoms enjoyed by the citizens, could always be said to be a gift of government regardless of what that government is. As long as the power to remove or restrict those freedoms is within the power of an authoritative body it could be called a gift. This would be equally true in a direct democracy as in a limited republic or even an absolute dictatorship for that matter.
If by liberty you mean some innate quality of the human will, that is quasi religious position and without ontological foundation. However, since freedom in this sense is a perception of the mind its only qualification for realness would be as a function of the mind. Or, as Lovelace said “Stonewalls do not a prison make, nor Iron bars, a cage.”
“If we cannot reach consensus on something at the national level, it should not be a national law… The end result of this would probably be a very decentralized structure, and that would be just fine with me.”
The actual end result of that would be increasingly dissimilar societies with local identity. This is a mere return to the political primitivism of ancient times. The inevitable rise of a efficiently bellicose demi-state will harbinger the subjugation of all the others or the adoption of similar systems by them for self preservation; along the lines of what happened in Europe after the French resurrected conscription during their democratic revolution, after which all states had to do likewise.
“I agree with you that “manufacturing” consensus would be antithetical to liberty; however, accepting a compromise that will be beneficial for the society as a whole even though you may not get exactly what you wanted is still within the bounds of liberty.”
This is true, but it ignores one historical problem; that is that the desire for democracy comes from the egalitarian sentiment of man. All democratic revolutions have had this in common at some level. The only reason equality in politics was desirable was because it potentially granted equality in law, and most went even farther than that with equality in all things being the eventual goal. The reason this is, is that it is the only way to avoid conflict in the democratic system once it is established. If the system can be dominated by a mega party, official or otherwise, it simply will be. This is the origin of totalitarianism. The desire to see no one above you, and the slightly more noble desire of seeing no one below you, will ultimately lead to a completely horizontal society which will not be capable for compromise because of the irony that in a horizontal society compromise upsets the balance, creating internal conflict which will, unfailingly, be won by the greatest number.
“However, I believe that once democracy has been established, that the people will work in their own interest, and would only change the rules if they believed that such changes were in their interest.”
Which is, historically, an easy thing to convince people of. You see, we come again to the problem I wrote about above, mega parties & totalitarian movements. In a society were all are equal, all are theoretically competitors, and so the people will have to congregate into associations because they are more efficient and thus offer the only security. It is ironic that you have to join a mass movement to protect yourself against a mass movement but if the 20th century has shown, irony or not, it is nevertheless true.
I do apologize for the various grammatical lapses in my last post. As excuse I plead exhaustion at the time of writing. I do hope though that you will continue to discuss my objections which I believe are still - despite the aforementioned errors – cogent.
kingcyrus said: “Liberty…could always be said to be a gift of government regardless of what that government is. As long as the power to remove or restrict those freedoms is within the power of an authoritative body it could be called a gift. This would be equally true in a direct democracy as in a limited republic or even an absolute dictatorship for that matter.”
But in a republic (except a direct democracy) or a dictatorship, the person(s) whose liberties stand to be repealed would not be consulted or have any ability to prevent that removal, aside from protesting in the streets or other such measures. However, in a direct democracy, first, the body restricting these liberties would be the same people whose liberties were to be restricted (making it seem quite unlikely), and second, each person within that society who wished to maintain the liberty(ies) in question would have some ability toward preventing that repeal.
kingcyrus said: “The actual end result of that would be increasingly dissimilar societies with local identity. This is a mere return to the political primitivism of ancient times. The inevitable rise of a efficiently bellicose demi-state will harbinger the subjugation of all the others….”
Ancient politics was not generally comprised of constitutional democracies. And even given the decentralization…or as you put it “dissimilar societies with local identity,” it seems more logical to me to assume that these smaller democracies would still be banded together by trade and treaties of mutual aid and protection from external invasions, as such agreements would benefit all concerned. Certainly, there would be some who would try to alter or take advantage of the system, but by increasing the breadth of deliberation on virtually every issue, as democracy must do, it actually would further limit the likelihood of an authoritarian takeover. For instance, if those of us who could see the fascism underlying the words and plans of the Bush administration had been able to slow down the deliberations, and if we had had equal exposure to people as the corporate media, who banged the drums for the march to war, then we might have had some chance, certainly more chance than there actually was here, to avoid the slip into neo-fascism that took over our country for five years.
kingcyrus said: “ultimately lead to a completely horizontal society which will not be capable for compromise because of the irony that in a horizontal society compromise upsets the balance”
What? Compromise upsets the balance in a horizontal society? Well, at least you admit that it is ironic, but I’d have to go a little farther than that. Compromise doesn’t upset the balance, it preserves it. It is the only thing that can.
kingcyrus said: “In a society where all are equal, all are theoretically competitors”
Not if the spirit of cooperation over competition can win over the disease of competition caused by capitalism. If the people realize that being able to share in the decision-making is better than not having that ability (and to reach the point of democracy, that realization must have already been reached, because it shall not be simply given to the people by their previous rulers), then they will also realize that cooperation must be fostered in order to preserve their new and better society.
Sorry for this late response;.. end of semester chaos and such.
Realdemocracy said: “However, in a direct democracy, first, the body restricting these liberties would be the same people whose liberties were to be restricted (making it seem quite unlikely).”
“Seem quite unlikely,” but historically this has not been the case. Historically it has only been those democratic societies with an aristocratic origin which have favored individual liberty as an ideal. This is because, historically, liberty has always been the ideal of minorities.
“and second, each person within that society who wished to maintain the liberty(ies) in question would have some ability toward preventing that repeal.”
A meaningless amount of power. A participant in a militarized mob of a mere 10,000 will always have more political power than an individual voter in a sea of millions. Thus the appeal of mobs. Personally I do not care; if a dictatorship offers me more freedom then a democracy I’m all for the former. The idea that one guarantees either liberty or oppression by its nature is not a historically — or even a philosophically — justified position.
“Ancient politics was not generally comprised of constitutional democracies.”
Not constitutional no, but the farther you go back in time the more democrat the society will be, until you reach anarchy. Governments were the product of social hierarchies, which were originally the product of kinship ties and specifically the charisma of certain individuals. But it was basically a voluntary system. Democracy, or rule of the “greatest number,” is the most primitive of governments. This is why, although it may be surprising to the ears of contemporary progressives, Disraeli, the great British Prim Minister of the 19th century said “The tendency of an advanced civilization is Monarchy. Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development.”
“Certainly, there would be some who would try to alter or take advantage of the system, but by increasing the breadth of deliberation on virtually every issue, as democracy must do, it actually would further limit the likelihood of an authoritarian takeover.”
History has shown just the opposite. Take the Roman Republic for example; it was never more democratic then right before it became an dictatorship. Or the Weimar republic for that matter. I recommend you read Plato’s republic, which gives almost an exact model of what happened in Germany.
“What? Compromise upsets the balance in a horizontal society? Well, at least you admit that it is ironic, but I’d have to go a little farther than that. Compromise doesn’t upset the balance, it preserves it. It is the only thing that can.”
No, compromise theoretically preserves stability, but not in this case. It does not in this case because it does not preserve the horizontalism I was referring to. The desire for democracy comes from the horizontalist impulse. Compromise with this impulse in the name of liberty doesn’t lead to stability but to conflict and the idea of social injustice. This is why most democracies lead to totalitarianism. The goal of a totally homogeneous society is the consummation of this impulse, and so the only way to create stability is to enforce it. This will be done either as an official activity of the government (see Nazism and Communism), or through the more subtle censure from the polity through what is essentially “peer pressure.” This “pressure” will always have more force the more democratic the community.
“then they will also realize that cooperation must be fostered in order to preserve their new and better society.”
And if man was perfect there would probably be no need of any government period. In the real world however there is no such thing as “the New Man” or an “ever perfectibility of humanity.” Humanity is what it is, and will not change without force.
KC:
“Historically it has only been those democratic societies with an aristocratic origin which have favored individual liberty”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
I hold that no democracy has yet existed in history. There have been only democratic governments. By that, I mean, some governments in history may have operated according to democratic procedures, but none has been inclusive of all the members of society (although I have heard that some Native American tribes may have been democracies, but since we have no written verification of that, they are ahistorical, at best). Since there have been no democracies, it is not particularly relevant to consult history in referring to any potential democracy(ies) that may be created.
Furthermore, I would assert that any society “with an aristocratic origin” is by definition not a democracy, although again, it may be democratic.
*****************************************************
KC:
“A meaningless amount of power. A participant in a militarized mob of a mere 10,000 will always have more political power than an individual voter in a sea of millions.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD: Any “voter in a sea of millions” is not participating in a democracy. He/she is perhaps participating in a referendum vote or an election of his/her rulers, but a democracy is one in which participation is not merely voting, but also the discussion/debate of issues. Furthermore, the democracy which I am suggesting would operate according to a consensus model of decision-making. Thus one participant would be able to at least stall any decision long enough to voice his/her concerns and objections to the group for consideration (there are several different methods for proceeding from an objection within the consensus model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making).
Thus, a single individual in a democracy has considerable more power than either a member of a mob or a simple “voter.”
*****************************************************
KC:
“if a dictatorship offers me more freedom then a democracy I’m all for the former.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
And what do you do when your benevolent dictator dies and a more authoritarian one assumes power?
*************************************************
KC:
“Not constitutional no, but the farther you go back in time the more democrat the society will be, until you reach anarchy.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
This does not sound like the history I learned. The original governments were small dictatorships. As you say, they were probably largely derived by kinship ties, but also by who was most powerful, militarily or commercially. Basically, they were probably not much different than the “warlords” of Afghanistan today. Over time, through amalgamation and accumulation, these small dictators grew into feudal lords, who then progressed into a noble class, with the most powerful within a group being designated “king,” “khan,” “shah,” “sheikh,” or some other supreme title. Certainly, it is possible that some people formed associations which had democratic elements rather than a lordship construction, but there is no evidence of these as far as I know, so as far as I know, they are also ahistorical, at best.
***************************************************
Unfortunately, time is short, and I will have to respond to the remainder of your post at some later time (probably tomorrow night).
KC:
“Democracy, or rule of the “greatest number,” is the most primitive of governments.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
Defining democracy as rule of the greatest number is an over-simplified, if not altogether wrong way of doing so. Even in a simple majoritarian system, without any attempt to reach consensus, issues are not often decided merely by a plurality (although certainly in the US, we do decide some candidate races that way…but the US is not a democracy, except in the most modern, perverted sense that it has come to be used since the advent of the US and other so-called democracies, which really just means an elected republic).
However, I see democracy not as rule by the greatest number, or even rule by majority, but rather rule by the people, or perhaps we might say, rule by all.
And this is not a primitive idea, has not been tried, and until recently, could not be tried on any large scale due to technological factors. It is only due to the advances in communications and transportation, in combination with nearly universal literacy that it becomes feasible.
**************************************************
KC:
“This is why, although it may be surprising to the ears of contemporary progressives, Disraeli, the great British Prim Minister of the 19th century said “The tendency of an advanced civilization is Monarchy. Monarchy is indeed a government which requires a high degree of civilization for its full development.””
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD: It is not surprising that a high-ranking official in a parliamentary monarchy would say such; however, the fact that it was said does not make it true, or even credible. The level of civilization required for monarchy was attained millenia ago in Egypt and China, at least.
****************************************************
KC:
“History has shown just the opposite. Take the Roman Republic for example; it was never more democratic then right before it became an dictatorship. Or the Weimar republic for that matter. I recommend you read Plato’s republic, which gives almost an exact model of what happened in Germany.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
Again, being “democratic” does not imply that a state is a democracy, but merely that it uses democratic method. Voting for rulers may be called a democratic process, but having rulers at all is undemocratic. Also, again, there have been no historical democracies, so history cannot be used to demonstrate flaws in democracy. History may be shown to have situations which approximated democracy in certain aspects, and perhaps such examples may provide a comparative reference, but these will be inexact at best. Furthermore, the Weimar Republic was decidedly less democratic in the last three years before Hitler was APPOINTED chancellor by President Hindenburg, with Hindenburg appointing the last three chancellors before him as well, creating laws by decree, and dissolving parliament whenever it threatened to veto any presidential decrees. Thus, in effect, it was already a dictatorship even before Hitler came to power.
******************************************************
KC:
“The desire for democracy comes from the horizontalist impulse. Compromise with this impulse in the name of liberty doesn’t lead to stability but to conflict and the idea of social injustice.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RD:
Perhaps you can formulate a hypothetical situation (possibly based on a historical example involving a parliamentary republic) in which compromise in a democracy would have such an effect.
***********************************************
KC:
“And if man was perfect there would probably be no need of any government period.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Depending on what you mean by government, I would argue that no government is necessary, unless you mean the civil servants hired by the people to carry out the functions agreed upon by all. This does not require that man be perfect, but merely that our system of decision-making is just, libertarian, cooperative, and that the people recognize that such a system is more beneficial to all of them than one that is not so.