What's the Argument for Democracy?
Though it is easy to characterize democracy, recent political theory has been marked by a conspicuous omission. Virtually no argument is ever offered to support the desirability of representative democracy, and the little that is available seems distressingly weak. Why ought democracy to be either instituted or promoted, let alone exported, as a recent book by Joshua Muravchik (Exporting Democracy) advocates? One would think that as important a question as that of the best political system would have generated an enormous literature. In point of fact, most writing on the subject simply takes for granted the desirability of democracy and inquires how existing democracies may be improved. The issue of whether democracy is a "good thing" is not thought worth raising. [Full Article on LRC]
Comments (18)
There are at least two arguments for exporting democracy. First, democracy gives the masses the illusion that they have some control over their existance even when both parties are controlled by the same money as in the USofA.
Second, democracy makes it easier to infiltrate and corrupt the population, break down the moral structure, feed on our greed nature, and open markets. This is, in part, how the USSR was defeated - by jazz and blue jeans and narctoics.
Third, I have concluded that pragmatically "freedom" boils down to being controlled or owned by one's own kind of people. For example, if Ire was to gain control of Northern Ireland the only pragmatic difference would be that the Catholics would FEEL freeier and the Protestants would FEEL oppressed.
Published: January 26, 2005 11:24 AM
I still like Aristotle's definition of Democracy as "rule by the poor". For me, at least, this also entails poor in spirit.
Published: January 26, 2005 11:37 AM
There is only one argument for "exporting democracy", and that is the barrel of a gun. Such "exporting" isn't done by selling books on street corners, it is perpetrated by armies. Imposing a government on someone is a crime, I don't care what the flavor of that government may be.
It's all just force.
It's easy to feel "liberty" if what you choose to do isn't on the prohibited lists. The great lesson of history is that it is difficult for individuals, and impossible for governments, to allow someone else the "liberty" to choose for themselves if they dare to choose differently.
Published: January 26, 2005 12:28 PM
This issue quickly calls to mind the title of Professor Hoppe's book: "Democracy--The God That Failed." How the typical individual can consider a system that necessarily degenerates into nothing but insidious majoritarian dictatorship and tyranny a god in the first place, does not give me much respect for the ethical underpinnings of most people when it comes to their views regarding social interaction and government. Any system of government, democracy included, that does not fully respect the economic and civil liberties of individuals, based on each individual as sovereign over his or her person and property, is unjust. As our Declaration of Independence states, unjust governments should be replaced.
Published: January 26, 2005 2:23 PM
Billwald, are you aware that after the British withdrawal from the Irish Free State there were about as many Protestants in the south as in the north? That figure has declined markedly over the generations, and it is a pragmatic change.
Published: January 26, 2005 11:07 PM
It seems to me that it is the proper work of the philosopher and the scientist to start at the beginning and refuse to move forward without establishing the proper grounds on which to do so. However, nearly everybody else will confuse the issue and start their thinking from an arbitrarily given beginning. In the Western world, most everybody begins their political philosophy with democracy.
I also hear it said that democracy is an "ideal" - e.g., "we must spread our ideals of democracy." What a destructive use of the word! Democracy is a best a crude concept, and the word "idea" should not be used except for the things to which it truly pertains - God, the Universe, and Human Freedom.
But I would like to challenge Mr. Gordan's point even further - in considering the question of human interaction, civilization, and society, by what virtue is government itself taken as a starting point?
It seems to me that considerations of logic, ethics, and economics would condition any thought in the political realm. And if the laws brought forth by those prior considerations are to be followed, I think that the concept of the state must be utterly rejected.
Published: January 26, 2005 11:50 PM
After reading Hoppe's remarkable book (got it for Christmas!), it's hard to come up with any redeeming features of democracy. Most of the advantages that its proponents promote are illusory, while its deficiencies and oppressive characteristics can (and do) fill books.
Published: January 27, 2005 1:51 AM
In a recent LRC article, I believe Rep. Ron Paul noted that the word “democracy� is not mentioned even once in the Declaration of Independence. The words and phrases that are used in the Declaration are “life�, “liberty�, and “endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights�. While the phrase “pursuit of happiness� creates ambiguity, Marco Bassani, in a recent JLS article, has provided an excellent analysis and interpretation of the meaning of the phrase as understood by the founding fathers. Unfortunately, in the Declaration, Jefferson did not explicitly use in the context of a right the word “property�, as George Mason did in a contemporaneous document regarding Virginia, the title of which escapes me.
Published: January 27, 2005 12:08 PM
Regarding Mises' assertion that democracies are more stable and less prone to revolution:
Certainly, all other things being equal, less violence is better than more. But what if some type of major change is needed that the vested interests will not abide by? Didn’t Jefferson say that we need to have a revolution every 20 years or so? The point is, that the stability of democracies could very well be an indication that tyranny has become so well entrenched that the majority cannot overturn it.
Published: January 27, 2005 3:13 PM
Honestly, I think it really comes down to a lack of imagination. Liberal democracies came on the heels of monarchies. That is, we went from forms of minority-rule to forms of majority rule.
While democracy could easily be considered an improvement over minority-rule, too many people are willing to overlook the flaws of democracy because they can imagine nothing better. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." Such alternatives that have been presented to them are still too little-known or too radical for them to seriously consider. Yet.
Published: January 27, 2005 11:07 PM
Good point, Michael, one which seems to have forced status quo defenders to stifle any-and-all whispers of alternatives. I surmised this from personal experience.
Published: January 28, 2005 1:22 AM
I think Michael's point is important. Alternative systems should be debated. Let's have at it. I don't think there will be any stifling (as Vanmind suggests) on this website. Though for alternative systems that haven't been imagined yet, I guess we need to encourage people to let their imagination fly.
Published: January 28, 2005 9:27 AM
Well, that's one of the things I like best about this site--not many here are defenders of the status quo.
Now if we can all just get past our tendencies to only "talk the talk..."
Published: January 28, 2005 5:30 PM
A simple explanation of why democracy is wrong and evil:
Three people of an island community possess the following wealth:
Person A: 24 ounces of gold
Person B: 30 ounces of gold
Person C: 5,000 ounces of gold
In their community, it is suggested that democracy be adopted to determine how to best provide for social insurance. [They have already democratically decided that a social insurance plan is a good thing and shall be implemented.] The outcome is predetermined: Persons A and B vote in favor of mandatory insurance, Person C votes against it. Property rights are destroyed, along with the will to create, save, or invest wealth. Socialism has triumphed under another name: democracy.
Published: January 29, 2005 12:40 AM
Gold has no intrinsic value. It was only a marker for keeping score in the game of life. We now have electronic score keeping.
I propose that "money" as a marker be dumped and replaced by work-hour. One w-h is the amount of work that can be done by one person with a shovel. This would give people a better tool for evaluating the use of their life enegry.
One w-h could initially be set to 10 dollars. People would be paid in fractions and multiples of w-h.
Published: January 29, 2005 1:01 PM
Any way of keeping track of one's wealth could be "money". Call it dollars, call it work-hours, call it electronic credits. It's all money. The main question is what's the best form of money, a form that cannot be easily manipulated, stolen, devalued, lost, etc.
Published: January 29, 2005 1:08 PM
No use in repeating past errors. Read about the liberals (classical liberals) around the time of Lysander Spooner. They (but not Lysander) tried to create a society at least once in which labor hours were the form or money, and the experiment failed miserably. Money cannot be chosen artificially; it developes out of actual use, not theory.
Back to the topic at hand: democracy is evil because it is the most palatable form of theft and socialism.
- Dewaine
Published: January 29, 2005 10:50 PM
Bill,
Gold does have intrinsic value in certain industrial applications. But for the most part, it gained its initial value for its decorative and artistic purposes. It would not have become money (on the free market) if it was not initially valuable for some reason. According to Mises, nothing will.
Labor is not, and cannot be, equal to value (sorry, Karl). Every worker tends to overvalue his contribution to production. Take a government bureaucrat (please). What does he do that's valuable? As PJ O'Rourke pointed out, the bureaucrat tends to put in a lot of overtime: you can't measure his output, so you measure his input.
If a system of labor-input ever becomes currency, people will start digging ditches with spoons instead of backhoes. The money's the same, right?
Published: January 30, 2005 2:03 PM