Democracy

Since I was a child I have been taught that democracy equals freedom.  But this is not the case.  Well at least it’s not the good kind of freedom.  To see what I mean let’s play the two codes game.  Consider two moral codes which both value “freedom” and despise “oppression.”  The difference is in what type of entity each code identifies as a candidate for freedom or oppression.  A holder of the first code believes the relevant entity is the individual and the holder of the second believes it is the collective.  You cannot simultaneously believe in individual freedom and collective freedom.  Here’s why.

If you take a free individual, his decision-making process is simple.  He looks at a situation, decides what he wants to do and then does it.   If you take a collection of individuals, the process is much more complicated.  The reason is that there is no way to aggregate preferences.   At least there is no way to aggregate preferences when you think of a collective as a collection of individuals.  If however, you consider the collective to be a monolithic being, then it becomes simple again.  You just ask it what it wants and then do that.  But how do you ask the collective to make a decision?  You have a vote of course.  And that’s democracy.  And as long as you only care about collective freedom you feel just fine about this because the collective always gets what it “wants.”  It’s free.

Of course if you care about individual freedom this just won’t do.  The reason is obvious.  This is tyranny of the majority.  If at any time, your life and or property can be disposed of by a majority of the other people in society you are not free.   This is problematic if you are not very popular.  But even if you are popular, you are bound to the whims of the masses at every turn and I think it is self-evident that the majority does not always make the right decision.  This, of course, is the view held by Bernays and the progressives which is why they devote so much energy to propaganda/public relations.  But it is also why they are such ardent advocates of democracy.  They believe the masses are idiots that they can convince to do whatever they want.  Of course not everyone is an idiot, but if you have democracy it’s ok, you only have to get 51% of them, the rest have no choice.

So progressives and I have one thing in common, we both don’t trust the masses to make the right decisions for society.  But we have different ways of dealing with it.  They want to vest as much power in the masses as possible (democracy) because they think they can manipulate them.  I don’t want to manipulate anyone, I just want to be free from the consequences of their potential idiocy.  To anyone who shares this desire, democracy is a terrible governing concept.

If you believe in collective freedom, then democracy equals freedom and all you would need to form the perfect union would be this:

“The government can do whatever it wants as long as it’s supported by a majority vote.”

If on the other hand you believe that government should be established for the purpose of protecting individual liberty then it is a much more delicate process.  It requires things like enumerated powers and a bill of rights.  These things exist to protect the individual from the masses.  These are the things which have been eroded by progressivism.  The perfect example is the case of income taxes I spoke about recently.  This allows the government to target certain people, and dispose of their property for the benefit of some other people.  Also we have the popular election of senators, socialized healthcare, etc.  And their justification for all these things is that it’s the will of “the people.”  As long as it’s what “the people” want, it’s ok. 

But it’s not my will.  I don’t want to be bound to a government-run healthcare monstrosity.  I happen to know that it’s a bad idea (in this case the majority seems to be on my side but they won’t be when it comes time to actually fix the healthcare system).  If we were left to our individual liberty, I could choose to participate in free market health insurance and the leftists could go voluntarily institute a collectivist healthcare collective.  The only difference would be that they couldn’t take money from those of us who think it’s a stupid idea in order to pay for it.  Then we could see which works best (even they know which one it would be that’s why they don’t do it this way) and make our own choices.  But progressives’ moral code holds that it is just to force anything on anyone as long as a majority of other people support it.  This makes it entirely incompatible with individual liberty, and that is why our founders did not establish a democracy.

I’m not very happy with this one but I have had writer’s block and I promised this one would be coming soon so I’m pushing it out, sorry.

Advertisements
  1. May 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm

    There is no denying that Eritrea, like all ctionrues in Africa and other parts of the world, will need to work on its human rights record. However, given the highly negative role that the British gov. has been playing in the Horn of Africa, I read this report with a large pinch of salt.I find the report to be self-serving, selective and highly political. The report stays mum on massive Human Rights abuses in a number of ‘friendly’ ctionrues.For example, the atrocities that have been committed in Ethiopia are completely ignored.The collective rights of the entire population of Eritrea have been abused historically by the international community in general and the British gov. in particular in denying Eritreans their independence and providing unconditional support to successive Ethiopian governments to commit unimaginable atrocities in Eritrea. The British gov. today not only turns a blind eye when the rights of Eritreans to live in peace is being violated and their land occupied in violation of international law, but is at the forefront of ctionrues that pushed for unjust and unfair sanctions against the people of Eritrea without presenting a shred of evidence to support it. An arms embargo is placed on Eritrea while Ethiopia is left scot free to wage unprovoked attack against it. Eritreans are denied their basic rights to self defence, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. The British gov has been providing Ethiopia a diplomatic, political and financial support to enable it avoid punishment for violating the final and binding rulings of the Boundary Commission and continue with its occupation of Eritrean sovereign land.Many Eritreans are still unable to return back to their ancestral land that has been occupied by force for over ten years. Isn’t this a violation of human rights? Am I now expected to believe that the British gov. sincerely care for the Human Rights of the people of Eritrea? It is a seriously sick joke.

  2. May 19, 2013 at 9:47 am

    QttmeR mkovdjkilvaz

  3. May 19, 2013 at 9:47 am

    HLaoHr pbiwlkfzrlch

  4. June 17, 2013 at 7:01 am

    We are concerned by alleged reports that sub-Saharan Africans, black Libyans and other minority groups are being targeted and subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, and mistreatment. We have raised our concerns with the Libyan authorities. We worked with international partners on UN Security Council resolution 2009 on Libya to secure language which condemned “all violations of applicable human rights and international humanitarian law, including violations that involve unlawful killings, other uses of violence against civilians, or arbitrary arrests and detentions, in particular of African migrants and members of minority communities”.The UK is providing a range of support to the Transitional Government to assist them in their efforts to reform the police and armed forces so that they can integrate the revolutionaries and re-establish a state monopoly on security. This support includes the provision of a UK policing expert to offer strategic advice to the Minister of Interior and the provision of strategic advice to the Ministry of Defence, through the secondment of a UK expert on defence reform.

    cheap auto insurance

  5. October 17, 2013 at 2:26 pm
  6. November 8, 2013 at 2:05 am

    Simon, You seem to be understating the siittuaon in Eritrea. I believe you are one of the Eritreans who are living in denial as a result of self underestimation to fight the dictator Issayas Afewerki along with fellow citizens to put the country out of its long lasting misery. Will need to work on its human rights record might be appropriate for America or even Britain. It is so mild. When we talk about Eritrea we are talking about young brothers and sisters confined in Iron containers buried under ground! What’s wrong with you? And you talk about border conflict with Ethiopia and our history with Britain ? are you serious? Are you telling me Issayas is dismantling Eritrea because of the border conflict with Ethiopia? or our history with Britain? Man uo and know the real issue in Eritrea brother! Don’t try to find someone to blame. You know the problem is Issayas Afewerki and his unprecedented ruthlessness. Have a focus and try to put your people before your loyality to the Dictator!

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: