American Democracy versus The American Democrat
Years ago, H.L. Mencken noted that "every election is a sort of advance auction of stolen goods." Since then, the tendency for electoral politics to undermine property rights has grown exponentially. For example, current presidential candidates treat it as a bragging point to claim that the shower of benefits they promise is "paid for," even though that payment steals other people's property, backed by government's coercive power.
This widespread violation of America as "the land of the free" requires returning to first principles. A good place to rediscover them is a book by one of America's most famous authors: James Fenimore Cooper's The American Democrat. Cooper's focus was defending private property rights against abuse by political majorities as necessary to defend our "right of self-government," long before democratic violations took the Brobdingnagian proportions they have now. His understanding, echoing our founding fathers, that "vigilance in the protection of principles is even more necessary in a democracy," is equally important today.
The rights of property [are] an indispensable condition of civilization…
If we would have civilization and the exertion indispensable to success, we must have property; if we have property, we must have its rights; if we have the rights of property, we must take those consequences of the rights of property inseparable from the rights themselves.
[I]t is a great mistake…to take sides with the public, in doubtful cases affecting the rights of individuals, as this is the precise form in which oppression is the most likely to exhibit itself in a popular government.
So long as there is civilization there must be rights of property, and so long as there are rights of property, their obvious consequences must follow. All that democracies legitimately attempt is…that it shall have no factious political aids.
[T]here is the safe and just governing rule … permitting every one to be the undisturbed judge of his own habits and associations, so long as they are innocent, and do not impair the rights of others to be equally judges for themselves.
As property is the base of all civilization, its existence and security are indispensable to social improvement …
The principle of individuality … lies at the root of all voluntary human exertion … because we know that the fruits of our labors will belong to ourselves, or to those who are most dear to us. It follows that all which society enjoys beyond the mere supply of its first necessities is dependant on the rights of property.
The first great principle connected with the rights of property is its inviolability…
[A]ll who love equal justice, and, indeed, the safety of free institutions, should understand that property has its rights, and the necessity of rigidly respecting them.
[M]an…is privileged to use his own means…in the pursuit of his own happiness, and they who would interfere with him, so far from appreciating liberty, are ignorant of its vital principles.
[P]roperty is an instrument of working most of the good that society enjoys … it encourages and sustains laudable and useful efforts in individuals.
Property is desirable as the groundwork of moral independence, as a means of improving the faculties, and of doing good to others, and as the agent in all that distinguishes the civilized man from the savage.
As between the public and individuals, therefore, the true bias of a democrat…is to take sides with the latter. This is opposed to the popular notion, which is to fancy the man who maintains his rights against the popular will an aristocrat …
The habit of seeing the public rule is gradually accustoming the American mind to an interference with private rights that is slowly undermining the individuality of the national character.
With the decline of respect for property rights since Cooper wrote, The American Democrat doesn't read like current civics books. But Americans today would benefit from renewed attention to that "old school" approach, rather than the dominant view today, which is to use government power to give majority coalitions whatever they want by blatantly violating the property rights of others.
Comments (21)
For those interested in purchasing Cooper's "The American Democrat," the Liberty Fund has an excellent and reasonably priced version: http://www.libertyfund.org/details.asp?displayID=1587.
H.L. Mencken wrote the Introduction.
Published: April 29, 2008 1:50 PM
H.L. Mencken misunderstood what democracy is.
Democracy is not as he stated a means to achieve liberty.
Democracy is a benign system of decision-making amongst a voluntary group of two or more people.
Democracy leads to decisions being made that reflect the views of the majority. If these views are liberty then be it so. The case at the moment is however that there are many other rights and freedoms people desire in-front of pure liberty.
Until pure liberty is desired by at least 50% of all voters, it will not be the case.
The "Tyranny of the Majority" is a legitimate criticism of democracy however despite this, there is currently no system that is "fairer" than democracy for making decisions. This is because if you start to make decisions not based on majority opinions you must somehow decide whose opinions hold more weight than others.
All systems that put decisionmaking in the hands of a chosen few, on behalf of the many, without the consent of the majority have suffered rebellion.
Democracy is not perfect, but based on the capacity to rebel against rule they do not want, it is the most stable method of governance within a group of people.
Democracy being a voluntary grouping of people, exists within a state of anarchy and allows anyone to exit the group at any time and be an individual. However if you go outside of the democcratic group you go into "no-mans land" between groups where there is no overarching enforced laws to determine your interactions with others such as the democratic group.
The only authority recognized outside of government sanctity is the rule of force. This is referred to as the "state of nature".
Published: April 29, 2008 6:57 PM
Democracy is anything but voluntary.
Published: April 29, 2008 7:06 PM
Indeed, a form of "self-rule" which in fact involves majorities or big enough minorities imposing their will on others, by force if need be. I'd say that Mencken understood democracy better than most modern intellectuals.
Published: April 29, 2008 7:22 PM
No one is forced to be a member of a democratic government or society.
In this libertarian society you can be on your own or join in group with others if you wish.
Just so happens that your efforts to establish relations based on your idea of "rights" will clash with the beliefs of other voluntary groups ideas of "rights".
So which court of law will you take your disagreement to when you disagree with the largest voluntary group (called government)? You can try arbitration but sadly they do not want to. So what will you do?
Between free individuals and/or groups in an anarchist state force will ultimately determine the outcome of that interaction.
You are free to join the government or start your own group or be on your own or join another group. Just so happens though that you are unlikely to be able to assert your "view" of rights upon the larger group because...well you don't have enough guns.
It is the state of nature. Get used to it.
Democracy is a decision-making method within a voluntary group.
Published: April 29, 2008 7:42 PM
How did we go from "the land of the free" to the "land of the free lunch"?
Published: April 29, 2008 8:04 PM
Owen,
Until pure liberty is desired by at least 50% of all voters, it will not be the case.
This contradicts your statement:
Democracy is a benign system of decision-making amongst a voluntary group of two or more people.
Voluntary membership implies freedom to act.
Published: April 29, 2008 10:16 PM
Owen,
This statement (yours),
No one is forced to be a member of a democratic government or society.
Is contradicted by your statement: It is the state of nature. Get used to it.
Consistency is not your forte.
Published: April 29, 2008 10:19 PM
How are you not free to act FT? It seems (using the Market For Liberty as a guide) in an anarcho-Libertarian society if you don't have property nor much money you'll be quite unfree except to keep moving on.
Published: April 29, 2008 10:26 PM
Francisco Torres:
'It' in the second proposition does not refer to a deomocratic government. 'It' refers to a state of Anarchy.
The statements do not contradict because they have different subjects.
Published: April 29, 2008 10:47 PM
Limited government is supposed to protect everybody's basic rights of life, liberty and property. It is not about majority rule. If two people/groups were to have a disagreement over property, then that dispute could be arbitrated. The parties involved would agree in advance to be bound by the decision of the arbitrator. It doesn't have to come down to a case of majority rule.
Published: April 30, 2008 2:34 AM
Owen,
I understand what you say, and find you expressed it very well.
Democracy has its limits. It's not the god that public opinion make out of it now. Still, there would be no libertarian society without it...
Published: April 30, 2008 3:01 AM
IMHO:
"Limited government is supposed to..."
...supposed to, supposed to, supposed to...
But what happens when one persons conception of their right to property infringes on the right of another/
"If two people/groups were to have a disagreement over property, then that dispute could be arbitrated."
The two operative words in that sentence being IF and COULD.
The more likely scenario - which is borne out by current world history to date - is that the majority group has no reason to give an inch to the minority group unless it is in their interest.
It ALWAYS comes down to a situation of "most powerful group rules". History could not prove you more wrong.
Published: April 30, 2008 3:05 AM
Artisan:
Democracy, as Churchill said is "is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried".
Major deficiencies of democracy include:
- some people (future persons, young persons, foreign residents and people in other countries) will be affected by government policies but are prohibited from voting therefore they can potentially be victimised by the government chosen because it doesn't represent their interests.
- The potential for representative leaders to become totalitarian leaders through their access to power
- Elections can be influenced by incumbant parties so that free and fair elections are never really achieved
- The tyranny of the majority leading to minorities both within the country and outside it being marginalised and potentially losing all or some of their rights
- It is inherently conservative in bias
- It engenders an air of righteousness in its adherents who then go out (like Grorge Bush) and try to democratize the world by force "for their own good".
And those are just for starters...but democray is STILL the best decisionmaking system out there at the moment.
Published: April 30, 2008 3:21 AM
Owen said:
..........It engenders an air of righteousness in its adherents who then go out (like Grorge Bush) and try to democratize the world by force "for their own good".
And those are just for starters...but democray is STILL the best decisionmaking system out there at the moment.
Response: No it isn't. The free market is.
I consider the most important shortcoming of democracy to be that governments democratically elected still have the power to make decisions that Everybody disapproves of. And they do.
Elections are not fought over each issue. They are fought on party lines, and party manifestos tend to be crafted around the few biggest percieved burning issues of the day. So people choose their party on the basis of that partys stance on the big issues where they feel most strongly, and reluctantly or apathetically accept as part of th epackage the party positions that they weakly disapprove of.
And after getting in on the strength of the Big Issue, the politicians are free to do whatever they please on all other issues ( and there are thousands of them, such is the pervasiveness of government intervention in human life), even if the entire population that voted for them disapproves. this is where all the rot lies.
Published: April 30, 2008 5:38 AM
Democracy is the most perfect system of governing that is the most perfect system of exploitation. Allowing subjects ( so called citizens) to take part in formal ( not real!) decision-making democracy in this way drastically reduces their resistance. Under democracy people have the illusion that a government is “their” government or even that they are the government. ( like that meaningless formula “government of the people, for the people, by the people”.) So democratic governments can extract more income at less cost from their subjects than more primitive systems like monarchy or dictatorship.
Published: April 30, 2008 6:39 AM
A voluntary market is not "democratic" in the slightest. Just because the majority buys something in no ways implies that I will buy it, or anything like it. Nor that I can be compelled to buy it.
It is a tyranny, a tyranny of one. No one gets any of my money or participation unless I agree to it. And I need justify my decisions to no one.
Yes, "democracy" is a decision making process, so is "autocracy". They are methods of governance.
When combined with coercion, they become government. Government is defined by the existence of coercion, regardless of the system of decision making that it uses.
I do wish people would stop confusing government with governance, or vise versa, Owen.
Published: April 30, 2008 8:57 AM
First, Owen asserts this laughable chestnut:
No one is forced to be a member of a democratic government or society.
But then he reveals his true position on the subject -- if you don't want to be a "member," you can't do anything about that because you don't have enough guns.
What's that about "voluntary" again?
If I stick a gun in your mouth and tell you to hand me your wallet, and you do, that transfer of property is not "voluntary," Owen. If you don't like handing your wallet to me, well, do you know what your problem is? YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GUNS!
Just grow up, please, and embrace your inner totalitarian. Embrace your inner thug. Admit to yourself what you really are and what you stand for. It's obvious to everyone else.
Published: April 30, 2008 3:02 PM
George Gaskell, Curt Howland, Alexandrina &David C
I think you all misunderstand that "might is right" is the state of the natural world outside of governments and also within libertarianism/anarchy.
It was not imposed by "democracy". It was like that before democracy.
You also misunderstand what demorcacy is. It is not a form or government, but rather a way of making decisions amongst the members of a group or organisation.
It just so happens that the most powerful group in your countries makes their decisions by way of democratic means. Which means if they decide to tax you then a majority of those group members decided to.
If you don't like what the powerful group in your society does then fight against it. Because within this "state of Nature" anarchy that is how disputes are settled. If you don't or can't fight then you submit but you are never at any stage a member.
You are only a member of a democratic voluntary group within our libertarian society if you voluntarily decide to be.
Who said that you were going to have the same conception of rights and responsibilities as another man or group? You don't. It just so happens that the conception of rights by the most powerful group in your country is more expansive than yours and even extends to the earnings and actions of others.
Deal wioth it or oppose it. It is the state of nature.
Published: April 30, 2008 6:02 PM
"If you don't like what the powerful group in your society does then fight against it. Because within this "state of Nature" anarchy that is how disputes are settled."
So I should kill you, when you try to tax me?
Published: May 1, 2008 5:09 PM
Scineram:
I suppose many people have tried to kill the taxman for centuries. Sadly...most if not all of them were killed in the end. Usually by bigger guns.
Like I said it is the state of nature.
Published: May 1, 2008 6:25 PM