Democracy Sucks

The Tyranny of the Majority

The very notion that democracy is acceptable must be called into question. I certainly consider it a problem that it is used as the justification for much of what the government does. How often have you heard people talking of the “Democratically elected candidate”, as though being democratically elected lent any sort of credence to that person or their views?

If 51% of people agree to something, does that make it any more morally acceptable or correct? What is it about the views of the 51% that makes them better than the views of the 49%? I find that there is no answer that actually satisfies this question. Still, whenever we talk about democracy, it is afforded quasi-sacred status. There is nothing preventing the majority’s tyranny of the minority.

In response to this, a democrat may claim that the answer is to have constitutionally enforced rights. This is not sufficient:

  1. These protections are easily circumvented, and therefore are not absolute – For an example of this, see the way US citizens can be redefined as “illegal enemy combatants”, which then allows their rights to be stripped away.
  2. The protections themselves are decided by democracy – How can this be regarded as morally fair? In Australia, all it takes is a double majority to amend the constitution. This is like dodging around the rights of every individual by just saying “Well we needed a really big majority to take away your rights”. Obviously the number of people voting for an action has zero bearing on the morality of that action. 99% of people could vote to murder somebody, but that doesn’t make it moral.
  3. Basic rights allow wide limits – As long as certain rights are upheld, there is nothing stopping violation of non-constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of association or the right to private property. Neither of these are upheld in a society that will aggress against you should you refuse to pay your taxes.

Now, it may be that democracy is believed to be the “best of our options”, but this is not true and that’s what this blog has been created to show you. I hope you find it interesting.

November 9, 2007 - Posted by Stephan | politics | , , | 2 Comments

2 Comments »

  1. I do find your blog interesting Steven but please forgo the suspense and just outline how a government should be run. I understand that you don’t think governments and democracies work but I want to know what you think does work. Law and majority rule have existed for as long as people have gathered, majority rule is a key function for not only humans but many animals survival. Some would argue it is as primal as our instincts to eat and sleep.

    Comment by Uncle Sam | November 15, 2007 | Reply

  2. Sam,

    Well holding back the solution was actually part of the plan, because I feel that once people see the word “anarchy” they might think “what a nutcase, I’m leaving!” (see my comment on the other post). I was more going to just lead into it slowly, but seeing as you asked, I’ll tell you: anarcho-capitalism is the solution. It’s a completely rational and reasoned out theory, contrary to what the average person might think, and this blog is designed to show visitors that.

    And I would definitely argue that majority rule is not a ‘primal human instinct’. If you look back at the founding fathers of the US constitution, I think you’ll find that they too, realised democracy was a poor system of governance.

    “That government is best which governs least” – Henry David Thoreau

    Stephan

    Comment by Stephan | November 15, 2007 | Reply


Leave a comment

| Next »