Unjust Democracy

You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you
--The Who

Democracy is a system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making. While it is often associated with the form government currently practiced in the United States, democracy was not what the framers intended. The word 'democracy' does not appear in any of the founding documents, and many of the framers were on the record as opposing democracy.

Why on earth would the framers be opposed to democracy? Because democratic systems are biased against the individual. The 'majority' rule principle pits the coercive force of government, and those special interests that can marshal enough votes to secure it, against people in the minority. The freedom of the few is thus destined to be compromised in favor of the many.

The framers understood this, and endeavored toward a form of government where all people would be treated equally under the law. Democracy does not facilitate such equal treatment. Instead, it facilitates predatory action of the majority on the minority.

A nice example of the injustice of democracy is demonstrated in the classic film Twelve Angry Men. A young man with a shady background is on trial for murder. After the courtroom phase, the jury heads off to deliberate. Eleven of the 12 members come into the jury chamber thinking that the defendant is slam dunk guilty, citing everything from circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution to the man's demographic position.

If the decision to convict required the majority rule of a democracy, then there would have been a quick rendering of a guilty verdict. But the decision rule in jury trials is not based on democracy. A decision to convict requires unanimous agreement. As the film progresses, the observer comes to understand what a tragedy a majority ruling would have been, as the single dissenting juror proceeds to turn other jurors toward the truth.

Which bids the question: If democracy is an unjust decision rule in legal contexts, then why should it be a just decision rule in political contexts?

Deceptive Democracy

You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
--The Beatles

The United States was founded as a federal republic. 'Federal' refers to a form of government in which a group of states or regions defers some power to a central authority while maintaining a measure of autonomy. 'Republic' refers to a form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives.

Today many refer to our form of government as a democracy. Among the modern definitions of 'democracy' is this one: a system of government where the power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. This meaning of democracy overlaps considerably with the definition of a republic, which seems to justify interchanging the two terms.

However, democracy has another meaning--one that has been held for a much longer period of time. Democracy also refers to a decision-making process where decisions are made by majority rule.

Decision by majority rule was not the intention of the Founders. We know this for a number of reasons. The word 'democracy' does not appear in any of the nation's founding documents, including both federal and state constitutions--although the concept of decision by majority rule was alive and well back then. Indeed, many Founders were on the record for their distaste of democracy. The republic design reflects this distaste. If democratic decision-making was intended, then why designate representatives when majority vote directly by the people would determine the outcome of an issue?

A primary problem with majority rule is that it discriminates against minority interests. If all decisions are to be decided by democratic vote, then any dominant coalition can, well, dominate. Essentially, majority rule does not facilitate equal treatment under the law. It is more likely to foster both predatory wealth and predatory poverty.

The Founders knew that equal treatment under the law required decisions grounded in the rule of law. Borrowing ideas expressed nearly one hundred years earlier, John Adams in 1774 wrote about 'a government of laws and not of men.' Decisions guided by principled law are likely to endure fashions of the day, emotions that distort perspective, and self-interest that drives human behavior.

Today, it seems clear that people have substituted democratic process in place of the rule of law. Obvious 'proof' in this regard is the size and intensity of the lobbying industry and the affiliated special interest groups. There would be very little market for SIGs in a system grounded in a principled rule of law.

Migration toward demcracy and its consequences as been discussed by many over the yrs (e.g., here, here, here). Toqueville and Hayek suggested that democratic societies had capacity to destroy themselves.

There is an argument to be made that democratic process is being misapplied in this country--perhaps because many people are condoning a process that they mistakenly identify with the country's founding.

Escalating debate of such a proposition seems a good thing--even if only to raise civic awareness.

Democracy and Minority Rights

Kreese: What's the matter? The boy can't take care of his own problems?
Miyagi: One to one problem, yes. FIVE to one problem, too much ask anyone.
--Karate Kid

Laughable statement uttered this morning on the radio by a well known political analyst (paraphrased): The definition of democracy is not majority rule but respect for minority rights.

This person is either delusional or hopes that listeners are stupid.

Democracy is in fact majority rule--the process of putting majority opinion into law. It is an expression of positivism. If a group can conjure the majority of votes, then what this group says, goes. Why? Because they control the government agents who tote the guns.

By definition, minority rights are subservient to the whims of the majority in a democracy. In fact, the majority is likely to rationalize aggression on minorities to no end.

Because it grants privilege rather than preserves rights, democracy discriminates against minority interests.

Respect for minority rights requires rule of law. Democracy facilitates rule by discretion--unequal treatment under the law.

Federal Republic

"Now, you're not naive enough to think that we're living in a democracy, are you, Buddy?"
--Gordon Gekko (Wall Street)

When quizzed about the form of government put forth by our founding ancestors, many people reflexively call it a democracy. This is mistaken. The United States was designed as a federal republic.

Federal refers to a system of government where states unify (the United States) and delegate some authority to a central (federal) government. The states retain all powers not expressly delegated to the central government so that they can remain independent in their own affairs.

Republic means that the people hold the supreme power of the land. They exercise that power through elected representatives, through laws and a legal system that represent them, and the right to secession. Representation via elections does not necessarily mean that all citizens of a republic are allowed to vote, that all votes count equally, or that decisions are based on simple majority (50%+) vote.

Classically defined, democracy is a system of government where decisions are made by the faction who can marshal the most votes. It its purest form, democracy constitutes discretionary rule. Laws are determined by the dominant faction and change when the faction changes.

One way of thinking about the difference between a republic and a democracy is that in a republic, sovereignty rests with the individual while in a democracy, sovereignty rests with a group.

Our founding ancestors were famously skeptical of pure democracies. The word 'democracy' does not appear in the Declaration, the US Constitution, or any of the original state constitutions.

The founders did, of course, envision that much of the power vested in the people of the United States republic would be enacted through voting and elections. But few decisions regarding federal government representatives were specified to be made by classic democratic majority rule-type voting. The president was to be elected via an Electoral College that, while requiring more than half of its votes to be cast for the winning candidate, overweighted the votes of smaller, less populated states in order to increase their voice in the matter.

Senators were to be chosen by state legislatures (subsequently modified by the 17th Amendment). The six year senatorial appointments (subsequently elections) were staggered so that 1/3 of the Senate would change every two years. Supreme Court justices were to be nominated by the president with the approval of the Senate.

Only the House of Representatives (house of 'commons') was to be composed of representatives "chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." But even in this case, because there is no constitutional specification for a majority vote, it can be assumed that each state has discretion in deciding how the voting process would work.

It should also be noted that the framers specified several situations requiring super-majority votes. Treaties proposed by the president, for example, required 2/3 approval by the Senate. Constitutional amendments required 2/3 approval from both the House and the Senate followed by ratification of the amendment by 3/4 of the states.

Indeed, our founding ancestors seemed intent on avoiding, and in some cases confounding, pure democratic majority vote decision making processes in order to preserve the federal republic design.

Democratic Tyranny

With one foot in the past
Now just how long will it last
No, no, no, have you no ambition?
--Tears for Fears

Many people like to say that democracy is a necessary component of a free society. I'm not sure where the broad adherence to such a wrongful association originated.

Surely it could not have come from study of America's founding documents. While the Declaration and Constitution are chock full of references to liberty, there is not one mention of the word 'democracy.'

However, enough people espouse the freedom-democracy link to make me think it was brainwashed into their heads as part of schooling. Of course, mainstream media play a role as well.

Liberty is the freedom to pursue one's destiny without forceful interference from others. Democracy is a group decision-making rule whereby the alternative supported by the largest number of people is pursued.

The reasoning mind quickly concludes that democracy impairs, rather than supports, liberty. Unless the vote is unanimous, any decision made by democratic process discriminates against those in the minority as they are forced to succumb to the desires of those in the majority group.

Democracy's common label as the 'majority rule' could not be more accurate. The majority rules the minority.

The framers understood that tyranny by the majority was just as detrimental to liberty as tyranny by some small group. Which is why they designed a republic grounded in rule of law rather than discretionary rule by any person or group.

Democracy and freedom have little in common.

Changes of Mind Pt 4

"Would you tell me please, Mr Howard, why I should trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away? An elected legislature can trample a man's rights as easily as a king can."
--Benjamin Martin (The Patriot)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Democracy. Prior to my return to the history books, I used to think that America was designed as a democracy. Democracy is a governance system where laws are established by majority vote. But our original design was not a democracy. The US was built as a federal republic.

Much ink has been spilled on these pages that chronicles my mind change w.r.t. democracy. I have come to realize that democracy can threaten liberty because it facilitates discretionary rule rather than the rule of law. Those in the dissenting minority are forced to comply with the wishes of the majority. Law becomes arbitrary, and depends on the whims of whomever can martial the most support. Majority rule is a form of positivism.

Under the auspices of natural law, all individuals are endowed with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this legal system, as Jefferson astutely observed, the inalienable rights of the individual are self-evident and require no vote or approval.

What must be established are the authorities and limitations of government. The authority of government is necessarily limited, lest individual liberty is compromised. Procedures are also established to make the restraints on government difficult to loosen by discretionary vote. The Constitution was the framer's imperfect step in the direction of establishing rule of law rather than discretionary rule by men.

Rather than perfecting the rule of law set forth in the Constitution, we have been rendering it irrelevant as one special interest group battles another in a quest to gain control of central government power via majority vote.

Government. At least as far back as my generation, American students have been taught that the federal government is a benevolent entity. There is little discussion of the 'healthy distrust' of government that shaped the views of those who framed the initial design.

It took me a long time to realize that government is force. This truth is rarely put forth in classroom studies.

Government force is put to valid use when it is employed to help individuals protect their property (broadly construed) from aggression by others.

Government force is illegitimately used when it goes on the offensive--forcefully invading the life, liberty, and property of some for the benefit of others. When it does so, government becomes a strong-armed agent for hire and, as Bastiat astutely observed, society slides down a slope that is difficult to reclimb.


The issues noted in this and the three preceding missives constitute major changes of mind for me over the past 10+ years. Because quest for truth is never-ending, more changes of mind undoubtedly await.

Tocqueville's Warnings

"You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
--Morpheus (The Matrix)

GMU's Dan Klein discusses some important points from Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America. In 1831 Tocqueville and a colleague were sent by the French government to study America's prison system. For the better part of a year, they toured the US and some parts of Canada. 

After returning home and reporting their findings, Tocqueville continued on, writing a two volume set with the first volume published in 1835 and the second in 1840. Although titled Democracy in America, Tocqueville's work was really a treatise on democracy in general, a phenomenon that in his view had been in motion for centuries.

Klein focuses primarily on Tocqueville's conclusions, or warnings, many which appear near the end of volume two in a chapter entitled, "What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear." It turns out that Tocqueville had been worried about the ultimate outcomes of democracy for some time, and his whirlwind tour of the US did not quell his fears. According to Klein, Tocqueville feared two scenarios in particular.

One was despotism from a "tyranny of the majority." Tocqueville was not the first to envision such an outcome, as similar concerns appear in the writings of our founding ancestors. Tyranny of the majority is bad not only because it rules by shallow, group-inflicted dogma (rather than by rule of law), but because of its constant expansion of government and its dominance in social affairs. Even if citizens do not regard it as tyranny, Tocqueville argues that it is because it is not in each citizen's interest. It "monopolizes movement and existence" even though "it does not ride roughshod over humanity."

Tocqueville's point is that tyranny of the majority can subtle, gradual, and perhaps even enticing enough for citizen subjects to demand it.

This leads to a worse scenario. Citizens "renounce the use of their wills" and lose "little by little the faculty of thinking, feeling, and acting for themselves." They outsource their faculties to rulers believed to make decisions in their interest--often under the guise of equality of condition.

Such a belief is delusional. Tocqueville writes that a small group inevitably assumes control of the machinery of government for its own interests. Tyranny of the majority becomes tyranny by minority rule. The power proceed to destroy or modify institutions and customs. 

Ironically, people come to prefer "equality in servitude to inequality in freedom." Wow. Well said.

A citizen enjoys "goods as a tenant, without spirit of ownership." A "miserable person" can understand "robbing the public treasury or selling favors of the state for money...and can flatter himself with doing as much in his turn."

At the time of his writing, Tocqueville opined that "the majority...still lacks the most perfect instruments of tyranny...If ever freedom is lost in America, one will have to blame the omnipotence of the majority"

It is difficult not to spot manifestations of Tocqueville's warnings in current affairs.

Majority Opinion. So What?

Louden Swain: Can 800 million people be wrong?
Tanneran: Frequently.
--Vision Quest

Nice missive on why the 'majority opinion' decision rule (a.k.a. democracy) is problematic. Humans are social beings, and we have a strong need to belong. However, this need to belong often finds ourselves abandoning the search for truth in favor of conforming to what other people think.

Those who refuse to comply with majority opinion are seen as being behind the times, social deviants, or just plain crazy.

Yet, as the author notes, the majority opinion is usually wrong, particularly at society's pivotal moments. Great discoveries and innovations are always the product of individual thought that breaks from the majority view.

Motivation to think creatively in groups is low. Instead, collectives are prone to groupthink that aims to preserve their institutions at all costs. This groupthink takes the form of propaganda, lies, and deceit.

As noted many times on these pages, America was born as a republic, not as a democracy. In a republic, the rights of individuals are protected so as to not be subject to the mood swings of the masses.

As the author correctly observes, even if 99%+ of all people believe that, say, certain forms of weaponry should be abolished, such a strong majority opinion does not make it true or legitimate. Minorities that believe otherwise are not required to conform to majority opinion.

This country was founded on the principle of individual liberty. A free person is not held hostage to 51% of the population, or any other claimed percentage.

When a politician claims that the majority of people favor gun control or other government sponsored initiatives, a free person responds, "So what?"

Liberty vs Democracy

And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide
And the shotgun sings the song
--The Who

Consistent with the thread developed on these pages, Prof Williams argues against democracy as an ideal, or even desirable, system for organizing human conduct. The ideal system, as Jefferson observed, is one that upholds man's natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Contrary to popular belief, "liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites."

Quotes from Madison, Randolph, Adams, and Hamilton clearly demonstrate our founding ancestors' understanding of democracy's threat to freedom. In Federalist #10, for example, Madison observes, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority."

The proper role of government is to protect man's inalienable rights from invasion--not to infringe upon them. The founders clearly understood that "because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible."

Their resulting framework was not a democracy. The design was a federal republic. In fact, the word "democracy" does not appear in our founding documents. Limited powers were enumerated for central government along with a design to check power among the branches.

Changes to the design were not to be made by majority vote. Instead, supermajorities such as 2/3 congressional approval and 3/4 state ratification to pass constitutional amendments were required.

The intent of these measures was to support rule of law--durable law. Not discretionary rule of democracy that changes with the reigning dominant coalition.

Democracy and Propaganda

"Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?"
--Dr Yen Lo (The Manchurian Candidate)

Ron Paul observes that propaganda has conditioned Americans to believe that democracy is associated with freedom and liberty. It isn't, of course. In fact the opposite is true. Democracy, defined as a process for making political decisions by force based on the desires of the voting majority, compromises the freedom of some for the benefit of others.

A favorite tool of propagandists is to manipulate language to create 'positive substitute symbols.' Take a word that people value in a positive manner (liberty), and gradually connect it to a new word (democracy) initially associated with a concept that people are prone to dislike (democracy = system of decision-making by majority force). With enough repetition, the negative connotation linked to the new word is likely to decline in favor of a positive connotation (democracy is a component of liberty).

Presto, the new word becomes cherished and people are berated for treating it in a negative light.

Perversely, then, if you don't support democracy today, then you are viewed as an enemy of freedom.

Spectrum of Freedom

"These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so you depend on them. That's institutionalized."
--Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding (Shawshank Redemption)

A fine little video framing the American form of government in the spectrum of possibilities. A few notes:

-->Contemporary framing of the left side of the political spectrum towards socialism and the right towards fascism is inaccurate as both ends represent government controlled by a small group of rulers. (Personal note, this is precisely my conclusion as when you really think it through the political endgame pursued by 'liberals' and 'conservatives' is not readily distinguishable.)

-->A more reasonable political spectrum looks like this: 100% government <------------> 0% government.

-->There are five categorical choices across the political spectrum: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic, anarchy.

-->In reality, monarchy, or rule by single individual, doesn't exist. Even highly visible ruling personalities are supported by their small group of administrators. In practice, all monarchies are really oligarchies.

-->Oligarchy is rule and control by a small group. The elite set policy and govern as they see fit. Most governments in the history of the world have been oligarchies.

-->Anarchy means no government. Freedom is not supported by anarchy, since people are constrained by constantly trying to protect their property from theft. Anarchy is an unstable form of government, and has historically marked a transitional phase toward oligarchy.

-->Democracy is government by majority rule. Many believe democratic government was the founding principle of the United States. It was not. Did you know that the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration or Constitution? Many Constitutional framers were concerned about the consequences of an unrestrained majority that results from democracy. A democratic majority (a.k.a. 'mob rule' or 'tyranny of the majority') can vote to end lives, or to seize property from individuals as they see fit. Historically, democracies have proven an unstable form of government that typically morphs into oligarchy.

-->Republic represents rule of law. The scope of law is limited to establishing and enforcing protection of person and property. Republic was the form of government intended by many (but I personally would argue not all, based on study of history) of the Constitutional framers. Republican government is the position on the political spectrum most consistent with the principle of liberty. Government's role in a republic is to enforce law that protects person and property, which facilitates freedom.

-->Finally, government growth reduces freedom. Government power increases with size. These conditions are supportive of oligarchy.

It seems clear that that America is losing its grip on republican form of government, and that we're sliding toward oligarchy.

Egypt, Democracy & Freedom

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
--The Who

Many people are hailing the overturn of the Egyptian government as a great day for freedom. In the sense that a mob was able to successfully throw off an undesirable dictator, it can be said that some Egyptian citizens were exercising freedom of choice.

However, this by no means suggests that the future of Egypt will be supportive of freedom in the classic liberal sense. More likely, the current power vacuum invites a new oligarchy, whatever its form, that will exercise a new brand of control over the country.

Calls are loud for democracy in Egypt. If by democracy it is meant that decisions are made by majority rule, then democracy is no friend of freedom. Democracy is mob rule. Whatever group can marshal enough votes in its favor rules the day. Interests of the minority are necessarily compromised.

The Founders understood the dangers of democracy. Their study of history told them that democracy creates instability rather than stability. This instability tilts the system toward chaos, and is a constant threat to liberty.

The word 'democracy' does not appear in the founding documents of the United States. Instead, the US was founded as a federal republic, to be governed by the rule of law rather than by the arbitrary rule of men.

If Egypt employs a democratic decision rule to decide their next form of government, then chance favors the advent of another ruling elite elected by whatever group can marshall the most votes. Mob rule and tyranny, rather than the rule of law and freedom.

Palm Sunday Justice

It's Palm Sunday in the Catholic church. The reading of the Passion has always been frustrating for me. I tend to imagine being there and stepping in to help Jesus when he was in trouble. Of course, Peter thought the same. The story tells us it's easier said than done.

One thing that struck me this time around is the decision making process that led up to Pilate's verdict. Pilate is usually painted as the bad guy as he was the one who passed judgement. But he wasn't alone. Although Pilate was the ultimate 'judge' who rendered the sentence, essentially he was merely following thru on the jury's verdict. The jury was the people.

Based on his review of the evidence, Pilate proclaimed that Jesus had not broken the law, that no 'capital crime' had been committed. But the people didn't care about the law. They didn't like Jesus and wanted him dead.

So Pilate caved. He 'washed his hands' to symbolize that he was merely executing the Will of the People.

It struck me today how the closely this situation resembles modern government process. The Founders understood the dangers of democracy, of majority rule. Perhaps they even studied the Passion for how extremely wrong things can go when large groups exact their brand of justice thru the instrument of State power. The Founders knew government is full of Pilates more than willing to cater to these interest groups.

This is why the Founders designed our country as a republic rather than a democracy. The word democracy, btw, appears in none of America's founding documents. Instead, the point of reference for right and wrong, for justice, was The Law. The Constitution provided the general framework and idea for the law and what it should represent. Their idea was that law would rule, not people's desires or wishes as expressed by majority vote.

It's interesting that Rome was the first republic. As the Founders knew, Rome collapsed when they quit following the law, when they quit being a republic. The Passion demonstrates the consequences.

Today, we seem much like that angry mob in Jerusalem, demanding bread, circuses, and our own brand of arbitrary 'justice' from the government. We have our modern-day Pilates and Roman soldiers, acting as compliant agents on behalf of their principals with coercive force.

A moral of the Passion story that I hadn't considered before: the dangers of government driven by majority rule rather than The Law. Mix majority rule with State power and you get a situation that produced the single worst event in the history of the world.

Democracy and Diversity

You declared you would be three inches taller
You only became what we made you
Thought you were chasing a destiny calling
You only earned what we gave you
--The Who

Many proponents of democracy, defined as a social decision-making process where decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority, also claim to support diversity, defined as acceptance and respect for differences among people. However, these two concepts are clearly incompatible.

Democracy promotes sameness and compliance as the will of the majority is imposed on all. Differences between people are not respected, but ignored and repressed. Democracy is a collectivist concept.

Diversity, on the other hand, promotes innovation and creativity as people are free to pursue their interests unencumbered by the wishes of the dominant coalition.

Democracy is consistent with despotism and tyranny while diversity is consistent with liberty.

Democracy and Liberty

All for freedom and for pleasure
Nothing ever lasts forever
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

We can take Prof Williams' observation a step further. Not only are democracy and liberty not the same, but they work against each other.

"Democracy and liberty are not the same. Democracy is little more than mob rule, while liberty refers to the sovereignty of the individual."
--Walter Williams (@WE_Williams) pic.twitter.com/u5XjkJqPWt

— Larry Elder (@larryelder) August 24, 2019

Democracy, defined as decisions made by majority rule, implies that those who can marshal a majority vote can trample on the liberties of those in the minority.

The greater the reliance on political decisions using democratic process, the lower the liberty.

Our founding ancestors understood this negative relationship well.

Smokescreen of Democracy

So glad we've almost made it
So sad they had to fade it
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

It is increasingly amazing to me that people associate democracy with liberty. Democracy is a decision making process whereby the alternative that receives the majority of votes is the one that 'rules.' Of course, in some cases where the options are many, it takes merely a plurality to rule.

Unless the vote is unanimous, then democracy results in one entity ruling over another against the dissident's wishes. This, of course, equates to tyranny.

The founders understood this. This is why you will not find the word 'democracy' in any of our founding documents.

Since the Progressive era, history books have been rewritten to suggest otherwise. Today, 'common wisdom' says that democracy is a fundamental principle of a free society.

Don't be fooled by the smokescreen. Democracy is a mechanism by which some can take from others through the use of force.

Democratic Despotism

So glad we almost made it
So sad they had to fade it
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

Many people believe that the framers designed a democratic form of government for the United States. These people are mistaken. Democracy is a form of governmennt where government acts based on the will of the majority.

The framers were deeply aware of political history, and they knew that governments grounded in majority rule were destined to self-destruct. One reason is that, like any individual, people who comprise majorities seek to satisfy their interests using the least amount of effort possible. And, if given the opportunity to grow wealthier by political means rather than through productive effort, majorities will vote themselves more weath thru use of government force. Special interest groups perpetually wrestle to gain majority control of government's wealth redistribution mechanism.

That wealth comes out of the hides of the minority vote, who are forced to comply at the point of a gun.

When push comes to shove, therefore, majorities trample the rights of minorities in democracies.

The framers knew that the only form of government where people could be treated equally under the law and maintain freedom was a constitutional republic. Citizens elect from among themselves those people judge as most apt to represent their interests. But because the constitution is written in manner that places strict limitations on what central government can do, majorities or even supermajorities cannot employ government as an instrument to better their condition on the backs of minorities.

Majorities could not rule minorities if the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, was respected.

The framers assumed, of course, that the Constitution would be respected. This has proven to be a bad assumption.

Absent respect for the Constitution, government has become a wealth redistribution agent for any group that can marshal political favor from Washington. Those who ride that special interest wave are, of course, vocal proponents about the virtues of democracy.

However, democracy's primary feature, despotic dominance of the many over the few, can hardly be considered a virtue.

Democracy and Individual Rights

George: The coach is dimissed by a vote of 68 to 45.
Opal Fleener: I think we should vote again!
--Hoosiers

These pages have periodically questioned the fit between democracy (i.e., decisions by majority vote) and liberty (search here). Here's a small missive, including a video, that sums the issue.

The primary problem is a simple one. If government (i.e., legitimized force) is simply an expression of what the majority wants, then minorities are forced to do things that they do not want to do. This is not liberty, but 'tyranny of the majority.'

The missive highlights the Kelo v City of New London Supreme Court decision as an example. A woman who did not want to sell her home to developers lost her property when the Supreme Court ruled that the development's benefits to the community exceeded the woman's private interests--essentially the same 'common good' argument that legalized invasive pollution in the 19th century.

The extra sad postscript to Kelo is that the development as planned never got off the ground (after Ms Kelo's house was bulldozed) when corporate welfarist Pfizer (PFE) pulled up its stakes and left town.

Of all ideas built up by education and media propoganda machines, democracy as being compatible with liberty is near the top of the list.

no positions

Democracy, Incrementalism, and State Power

Louden Swain: Can 800 million Chinese be wrong?
Tanneran: Frequently
--Vision Quest

Jeff Deist discusses the danger that democracy poses to freedom over time. Using past examples of income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare, as well as the present situation related to gun control, he argues that these programs evolved over long periods of time as a result of incremental gains gradually obtained thru democratic process.

This is not a new argument, of course. Growth of state power thru incrementalism (a.k.a. gradualism or fabianism) has been discussed on these pages before. A necessary ingredient of incrementalism is ability to foster compromise, the favored strategy of statists for getting people to cede liberty over time.

He makes a particularly insightful remark near the end of the piece:

"Democracy is nothing more than the process of politically vanquishing minority viewpoints."

Indeed--as these pages have long observed. Democracy, defined as decision-making processes based on majority vote, strips rights from some for the benefit of others. Although the dangers of democracy were well known to our founding ancestors, they are little understood today.

Seemingly, democracy's incremental compromises that erode liberty grow chains of bondage so gradually that most people fail to notice.

Extremism and Liberty

"Tonight, our country, that which we stand for and all we hold dear, faces a grave and terrible threat. This violent and unparalleled assault on our security will not go undefended...or unpunished. Our enemy is an insidious one, seeking to divide us and destroy the very foundation of our great nation. Tonight, we must remain steadfast. We must remain determined. But most of all, we must remain united."
--Adam Sutler (V for Vendetta)

It's difficult to imagine that this administration doesn't lose more political support each time it opens its mouth. Last night Biden spoke like a geriatrically challenged version of Adam Sutler, declaring that supporters of Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again ideology constitute a "threat to our country."

If one infers that those who voted for Trump in 2020 comprise this group, then it numbers at least 70 million.

The president's press secretary added the e-word. The president, she said, sees this group as "an extreme threat to our democracy."

Moreover, "when you are not with where the majority of Americans are, then, you know, that is extreme. That is an extreme way of thinking."

Setting aside questions involving what precisely in MAGA ideology is inconsistent with the views of the majority of Americans, or, for that matter, whether MAGA ideology itself doesn't actually constitute the majority viewpoint, any American with a modicum of grounding in US history understands that our founding ancestors designed a government that protected the rights of those who not aligned with the whims of majority opinion. 

If the press secretary's definition of extremism is employed, then opinions inconsistent with the majority are to be protected from tyrannical treatment. Government is legally barred from acting against 'extremists'--again defined as those who think differently from the 'majority.' 

My sense is that Americans still understand this founding principle well enough they are are turned off by the caustic 'extremist' claims of leftists.