The Danger of Democracy

[Russell W. Shurts 0]

Recently our President and his top advisors have been touting the benefits of democracy to the world. The recent elections in Iraq, and other activities promoting democracy throughout the world, are seen by most Americans as a good thing, something moral and just that is likely to provide more freedom and security for people everywhere.

I profoundly disagree with this assessment. If it is not stopped, the idea of democracy will eventually lead to misery and ruin for us all. To see why I would state such heresy let’s examine both the word ‘democracy’ and the idea it is supposed to connote in depth.

Since I have been alive I have heard the American form of government referred to as a democracy, and I have also heard all the countries routinely thought of as ‘free’ referred to as democracies. Indeed, the words democracy and freedom have almost become synonymous. And yet when I investigate the actual word, ‘democracy,’ I find that its essential meaning doesn’t have anything to do with freedom. Here is the definition I found for democracy at Merriam-Webster Online:

Government by the people; especially : rule of the majority; a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

And here is the definition I found for freedom:

The quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action; liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another; independence

The word democracy refers to a method of government in which everybody has a say in who has the legal authority to use force in a geographical area, and/or how that legal force is to be used. Freedom simply states a particular condition a human being can find himself in. As an aside, if you think government is something other than “the entity that has the legal authority to use force in a geographical area,” try to think of a government that doesn’t fit this definition. You won’t find one.

There is nothing in either definition that presupposes the other, nothing in democracy that requires or even necessarily promotes freedom for individual human beings, and nothing in the word freedom that requires a certain type of government to ensure it being the state a human being will find himself in.

And yet, there is a general consensus in society, or at least American society that democracy means freedom and freedom means democracy. Why, when even today’s definitions do not make the two words synonymous, has this equating of the one with the other come about? Perhaps it started with the founding of this country, so let’s take our examination there next.

A review of history shows the Founding Fathers didn’t have any kind words to say about democracy. Specifically, I found the following quotes from delegates to the original Constitutional Convention of 1787:

“The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy.” Elbridge Gerry

“He observed that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the U.S. laboured; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the

turbulence and follies of democracy.” Edmund Randolph

“Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy.” George Mason

“This was the only defense against the inconveniencies of democracy.” James Madison

“The members most tenacious of republicanism, he observed, were as loud as any in declaiming against the vices of democracy.” Alexander Hamilton

And it is not just these quotes taken out of context that show our Founding Fathers’ distaste for democracy. Read the political views of virtually any of these men and you will find a complete revulsion for democracy.

And if you do take the time to read the political views of the most important Founders you will find; instead of a commitment to democracy a commitment to liberty, an entirely different idea. The Founders’ bedrock principle, upon which our government was built, was providing for and protecting the freedom of its citizens. They did NOT think the form of government known as democracy would achieve this end.

That is why they went to such extraordinary lengths to set-up a tripartite government where power would be shared by three separate branches. They had seen throughout history, that democracies, either governments run directly by the citizens or governments run entirely by an elected legislature, inevitably dissolved into anarchy to be followed shortly either by a tyrant or subjugation to a foreign power. Indeed, several of the Founding Fathers, among them John Adams and George Washington, predicted both the ‘Reign of Terror’ and the dictatorship that followed when the French Revolution burst onto the world stage in the early 1790’s. They KNEW that a pure democracy, such as the one the French had established, inevitably devolved into anarchy and tyranny. And if you think it was just the leaders who were wary of democracy please consider that it was the citizens themselves who refused to ratify the new constitution until their leaders guaranteed a bill of rights would be attached to it as its first amendments. Having just defeated a tyrannical government in a bloody war the new American citizens knew all too well how easily a government can infringe on the rights of its citizens.

So why over 200 years later is this government being referred to as a ‘democracy?’ Though the answer ultimately lies in the culture’s acceptance of a Kantian philosophy, which obliterates the specific, objective meanings of all words, the specific answer lies in the fact the people that run governments, by their very nature, seek to control the lives of the people around them.

The Founders understood this fact about men who would presume to lead other men. They understood human nature far better than today’s politicians do. As such they understood how absolutely necessary it would be, in the years to come, to keep the power of government shared, and to keep ALL of the future members of that government subordinate to the country’s founding principles as spelled out in its founding document; the Constitution.

But a determined human can find a way around anything, and talented leaders even more so. One way around all of the restrictions on power laid out in the Constitution is to change the meaning of the form of government we live under. As noted above and in previous writings, The Human Faculty of Reason as the Foundation of Civilization, a Kantian philosophy that does away with the objective meaning of words has made this process far easier than it otherwise would have been.

Here’s how it has worked in America. Because a popular leader has the support of the majority of the people it is easier for that leader to do whatever he wants if he can convince the people he leads that democracy, i.e. the governmental method where the majority decides how the government is to be selected and run, is the bedrock founding principle of the government. If that is INDEED the founding principle, then anything the popular leader of such a government wants to do, he CAN do. It is not too hard to see, then, why power-hungry leaders would endeavor to obfuscate the true original bedrock founding principle of this government with something much more malleable, i.e. the concept of democracy.

And so, over a period of 200 years, our leaders have slowly changed the founding principle of this government from ‘freedom’ to ‘majority-rule.’ But because there remains a residual love of freedom in the citizens of this country the leaders found it necessary to turn the concept ‘democracy’ into what Ayn Rand referred to as a package deal. A package deal consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. In this case the concept ‘individual freedom’ has been packaged together with the concept ‘government by majority rule’ in order to get the package deal ‘democracy.’

For power-hungry leaders of all stripes this package deal works terrifically, because if someone wants to question their commitment to the freedom of the citizens they lead, all they have to do to defend themselves is invoke the fact they were elected in a democracy, even if all the while they are imprisoning and torturing thousands of their citizens for the ‘crime’ of disagreeing with them, a la Iran. Since ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ are now synonymous, they often can get away with it.

America, fortunately, hasn’t quite gotten to that state yet, but every little diminution in our individual rights, be they the ever-expanding powers of eminent domain as recently confirmed by the Supreme Court, or the countless usurpations of rights by the Congress with everything from the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to the establishment of Social Security to the Endangered Species Act to the recent Sarbanes-Oxley Act, ad infinitum, to one President ordering the return of a small Cuban boy to the Communist-enslaved country from which his mother died in freeing him, to his successor making the scientific investigation of stem cells in a Petri dish into a federal crime; every single instance of your life where the government has stepped in to tell you what you can and cannot do with your life, your freedom, your property and your pursuit of happiness is a step towards that hideous day when a man’s right to freely run his own life will be entirely wiped from the face of the earth.

As one of the insidious tools used to further us to that fate, I revile the word ‘democracy’ with the same intensity as the founders of this country; even more so since it has been abhorrently packaged with the most important word in the English language: Freedom.

[TuesdayIsComing 0]

This is quality. Very in depth as well.

May I post it elsewhere, with a link to this original and all credit being given to you?

[Guest danielmryan]

And it is not just these quotes taken out of context that show our Founding Fathers’ distaste for democracy.  Read the political views of virtually any of these men and you will find a complete revulsion for democracy. 

And if you do take the time to read the political views of the most important Founders you will find; instead of a commitment to democracy a commitment to liberty, an entirely different idea.  The Founders’ bedrock principle, upon which our government was built, was providing for and protecting the freedom of its citizens.  They did NOT think the form of government known as democracy would achieve this end. 

I suggest that it would be prudent to assume that every politically active member of any big-government faction knows this, and protects him- or herself from the charge that his or her disagreement with the Founders' assessments of democracy is a legitimate exercise of his or her right to citizen's opinion, and is also justified on the grounds that the Founders' distaste sprung from their fear of the then-unknown effects of introducing universal suffrage to the polity of the United States specifically.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Russell, interesting essay. I have a few questions:

1. On what basis did the Founding Fathers revile the idea of democracy?

2. Can you be more specific as to why the word democracy has begun to be cited as the ideal type of government in the past 100 years? In other words, is there something else other than just vagueness of definitions that you can trace this phenomenon down to?

3. I assume you to be saying that there's something inherent in democracy that leads to statism. If so, why? Historically I haven't found it to be so. You yourself said,

[There is] nothing in the word freedom that requires a certain type of government

which implies that a variety of governments, not just a particular one, can serve the purpose of protecting freedom (and I agree). So again, the question is: what is it in the nature of democracy, which is merely a type of government, that implies statism, especially if historically this has not been the case? In other words, before America, as the Founding Fathers were crafting the founding documents together, there wasn't an example of democracy that lead to great statism, that they were really concerned about. Plus, America is itself not a democracy, so citing the example of that rise of statism won't help...

Note, in regard to this question, that I'm not saying that a democracy is immune from statism, merely that it has been used to protect freedom, historically, and that any weakness toward statism it has lie more in the nature of free government as such rather than in some kind of intrinsic statism weakness. Although I do consider republic to be the superior form of government, I wouldn't say that other governments are in principle invalid.

[Russell W. Shurts 0]

The basis for any essay I write is my general reading and life experience. I am not attempting a scholarly paper with all of my points researched and footnoted. As such what you are getting is my opinion based on that general reading and life experience and as a free man, you are free to consider my arguments and reject them if they do not persuade you.

As to this particular essay, I have read a number of biographies of the Founding Fathers in the last few years, and I would say that the term 'revile' would fit most of their opinions of the concept democracy very well. Most of the Founding Fathers regarded democracy as a mob rule that would eventually degenerate into anarchy eventually turning into some form of tyranny or subjugation by a foreign power. They had several instances in history to back them up.

In particular the Athenians, the Romans and the Carthaginians in ancient times all had thriving democracies at one time that eventually degenerated to either tyranny or subjugation. These ideas are not my own but mostly come from C. Bradley Thompson's "John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty," John Lewis' tape set "Aristotle and the Constitution of the Athenians" and Cicero's "On Government." The best example of this is Julius Caesar's expropriation of the Roman government after almost 500 years of democratic/republican rule.

Another classic example of democracy run riot is The French Revolution, with it's Reign of Terror eventually degenerating into the military dictatorship of Napoleon. It was precisely this kind of anarchy that many of America's Founding Fathers most feared.

But to be fair some of the Founding Fathers were more pre-disposed to Democracy than others. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was more fearful of the potential for a single dictator than he was of democracy. He initially thought the French Revolution was a grand turn of events, and only later, after the mass executions started, changed his opinion of it. Benjamin Franklin also was initially more in favor of a pure democratic form of government than the eventual tripartite republic that was created.

But John Adams, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton all were absolutely dead-set against Democracy, and Adams and Washington predicted the eventual outcome of the French Revolution when it first happened.

Essentially the theme of my essay was that the concept of democracy, with all of its connotations of majority rule. has overridden what was originally the FIRST principle of the founding of this country, liberty. Everything I have read about John Adams' role in creating most of the state constitutions prior to the revolution, to the eventual creation of the American Constitution itself by men who had been trained in the principles Adams had repeatedly fought for and embedded in these state constitutions, to the creation of the government itself by Washington and Hamilton tells me that the first principle these men were working on was to devise a lasting government that would continue to guarantee the freedom of the citizens it governed. This was why they went to such great pains to separate power, because they knew that concentrated power, be it in the hands of a King, or in the hands of the electorate or in the hands of an aristocracy would eventually lead to the diminution and eventual eradication of the liberty they had fought so hard to win.

There are a number of things that have happened philosophically in the years since the country's founding that have contributed to just such a diminution in our freedom. It is my contention that one of the principle philosophical weapons used has been to slowly replace the concept freedom as our government's first principle with the concept democracy. As to how this happened, I speculated in the essay that popularly elected politicians who are hungry for power were more than happy to promote democracy as a first principle, but I haven't done the research necessary to say this with certainty. Whatever the reason, I do believe the modern habit of making freedom and democracy synonymous is one of the main, if not biggest, reasons why our freedom continues to be whittled away.

I say this because I see all the time that the only justification for the myriad actions taken by our government to expropriate property and violate people's freedoms is that the majority voted for it. Our dumbed down population believes, rightly so, that democracy means everybody has a say in how things are run. Because they have been taught that democracy means freedom and freedom means democracy, they believe that having this say, i.e. the right to vote, is the very essence of freedom. As such they continue to vote away their (and my) real freedom.

Contrary to the idea that any number of governmental forms would guarantee freedom I believe the intitial governmental form the founders gave us is probably the only one that would guarantee liberty; but only if Objectivist philosophy was at its foundation, and only if there were proper provisions in it to guarantee property rights. In the end, however, it is only philosophy, and in this case, only the Objectivist philosophy that can ever truly safeguard freedom, because only philosophy provides the reasons why men should be free.

For those interested in where many of the ideas in this essay came from; below is a listing of the books I have read that relate to this subject.

"Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow

"John Adams" by David McCullough

"Benjamin Franklin" by Ronald W. Clark

"Washington" by James Thomas Flexner

"Founding Father" by Richard Brookhiser

"Benjamin Franklin" by Edmund S. Morgan

"A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States" by Joseph Story

"Thomas Jefferson" by Willard Sterne Randall

"Founding Brothers" by Joseph J. Ellis

"John Adams and the Spirit of Liberty" by C. Bradley Thompson

"On Government" by Cicero

"Aristotle and the Constitution of the Athenians" tape set by John Lewis

Also James Rothering's email series on Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention provided much of my understanding of the ideas and sentiments of some of the lesser lights among the Founding Fathers. Rothering's email series on The Federalist Papers also was quite illuminating.

[JRoberts 0]

In particular the Athenians, the Romans and the Carthaginians in ancient times all had thriving democracies at one time that eventually degenerated to either tyranny or subjugation...The best example of this is Julius Caesar's expropriation of the Roman government after almost 500 years of democratic/republican rule.

←

(Emphasis mine).

Can you please provide me of an example of Roman Democracy, or explain to me how Rome prior to Caesar was Democratic (as you mean it)?

[Paul's Here 0]

-----------------------

There are a number of things that have happened philosophically in the years since the country's founding that have contributed to just such a diminution in our freedom.  It is my contention that one of the principle philosophical weapons used has been to slowly replace the concept freedom as our government's first principle with the concept democracy.  As to how this happened, I speculated in the essay that popularly elected politicians who are hungry for power were more than happy to promote democracy as a first principle, but I haven't done the research necessary to say this with certainty.  Whatever the reason, I do believe the modern habit of making freedom and democracy synonymous is one of the main, if not biggest, reasons why our freedom continues to be whittled away.

-----------------------

←

One of the major events that happened in the US to move away from representative govt. to democracy was the passing of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in which Senators were to be elected by popular vote. The Constitution originally required the Senators be appointed by the State legislatures. With the passage of this amendment, the Senators were no longer bound to supporting issues that prevented the Federal govt from encroaching on States powers (Amendment 10). Senators are now simply agents of the Federal govt. elected by people who don't worry about violating various state powers.

[Free Capitalist 0]

Most of the Founding Fathers regarded democracy as a mob rule that would eventually degenerate into anarchy eventually turning into some form of tyranny or subjugation by a foreign power.

Yes, but the question is, why, based on what precedents in history?

The best example of this is Julius Caesar's expropriation of the Roman government after almost 500 years of democratic/republican rule.

That you've separated 'democratic' and 'republican' by a slash, implying them to be practically synonimous, highlights an important point in respect to your essay: sometimes you appear to view democracy as inherently (almost philosophically) bad, and at others you seem to view it as only more bad, and only potentially so in the first place. Thus, it would be helpful if you clarified which view you adhere to, and also to define the word 'democracy' in order to show how that view is in accordance with the definition.

Just to clarify, I agree with you that democracy is dangerous. What I'm trying to do here is to see your reasons for saying so (i.e. what inductive premises led to the conclusion), and also whether that assessment of its danger is qualitative (democracy is bad by definition) or quantitative (democracy is just another proper form of government, but can very frequently become bad, and is thus simply not as good as some other forms of government).

[Stephanie Bond 0]

...

Just to clarify, I agree with you that democracy is dangerous. What I'm trying to do here is to see your reasons for saying so (i.e. what inductive premises led to the conclusion), and also whether that assessment of its danger is qualitative (democracy is bad by definition) or quantitative (democracy is just another proper form of government, but can very frequently become bad, and is thus simply not as good as some other forms of government).

I know this is an older post but I hope it is okay to resurrect it with a fresh comment.

Russell, I enjoyed your essay and agree with you.

To Free Capitalist, I hold democracy to be a bad form of government because its essential characteristic, majority rule, is the essence of collectivism and can only result in a statist regime, with all its attendant horrors. It is the glorification of the group over the individual, and as such is the antithesis of individual rights. In a democracy, even a slim majority can vote away the rights of almost half of the population. In time, and as proof witness the recent events in the USA, the result will be some kind of dictatorship.

[Eknath Ende 0]

I know this is an older post but I hope it is okay to resurrect it with a fresh comment.

Russell, I enjoyed your essay and agree with you.

Stephanie has done something thankful by what she calls as 'resurrecting' an old but good essay (of the days when I was not a member). There is all-round confusion amongst knowledgeable people as to why so much of the great things that had been achieved in the past are given up, and how slowly communists entered the white-house. The list of govt’s infringements, not only as Russell, but many others say, is infinite – all without anybody ever coming anywhere nearer to declaring the intention to overturn America, rather every president talking about citizens’ welfare! (Many more horrific things have happened after 2005 when Russell made the OP.)

An important clue to this is to be found in Russell’s first post

QUOTE And if you think it was just the leaders who were wary of democracy please consider that it was the citizens themselves who refused to ratify the new constitution until their leaders guaranteed a bill of rights would be attached to it as its first amendments. Having just defeated a tyrannical government in a bloody war the new American citizens knew all too well how easily a government can infringe on the rights of its citizens. UNQUOTE.

This is what got changed, viz. the culture, the social atmosphere, people’s knowledge, emphasis on that earlier way of life, demand for freedom etc. It would be a mistake to primarily blame the politicians alone – the better politicians, for e.g. the Founding Fathers, would not get elected today! Today’s style is to pay lip-service to their greatness, while step-by-step dismantling all their policies. The people and the politicians are going down-hill together, hand-in-hand. The politicians offer to the masses only that which will be lapped up by them, securing a seat for themselves in senate or where-ever – and the competition has been leading them down year after year, so that today nothing remains of the original constitution.

It is obvious for Objectivists that the erosion started with the Kant virus spreading into society, though out-side not many would give any importance to this fact. Under the circumstances, the most important question to ask would be: What was there prior to Kant that raised those “people” far above today’s people, those who originally built America out of wilderness? The answer will bring forth the fact that, despite the existence of Christianity, avowed mysticism was on decline, and Aristotle, to the extent inducted, was sacrosanct, at least to the English, the best amongst whom culminated in America. With Kant, it was not merely Aristotle, but Aristotelian sense of life that eroded. The erosion is to such an extent that, as Russell found it, it is difficult to convey simple concepts like “freedom” to the masses – the ones who eventually determine the government. The reason why Aristotle (to the extent inducted) was sacrosanct was because the horrors of the just-ended Dark Ages (the underlying causes, related philosophies etc) were strong in peoples’ memory – today, they have tasted a lot of easy life as a result of founding farmers’ courage, sweat and blood, further spoiled by the dollar printing factories post Nixon detaching it from gold.

The other important factor to be considered is the other philosophies (of other large groups that matter in a democracy) that have now grown appreciable and are competing side-by-side the Anglo Saxon individualistic way of life! This is a very important factor that has to be considered when analyzing the downward trend – other-wise no good analysis will be possible, means no good solution. One has to remember that when the foundation of America was being laid, the Anglo-Saxon culture of individualism was almost inviolable – today it is almost unutterable, being universally damned as “the evil of selfishness”!

It would be, not an understatement, but a joke to say that Objectivism is a good philosophy – I consider that I became a human being from whatever else I was prior to just because of a casual reading of “the novels”, India is a very backward society with some pockets of civilization imparted by the British -- but can you tell all this to the masses, can you imagine getting an Objectivist elected as president primarily on the ground that he is a rational person, an Objectivist? Rather, as I saw (and responded to) on this very forum, within America itself but out-side the Objectivist fold, they are considered as nut-cases, nazi-like-cult etc. With Ayn Rand, some reason has again come back into the game – but the number of people adhering seems to be dwindling fast. (That tea-party affair just seems to be GOP gimmick, as usual, to use Ayn Rand’s name to get back into power – use her when out of power, and dump her when back in.) The trouble is, with “reason” gone out of society (or at least society being down-hill), the scales are tilted in favor of irrationality, and as far as I see it, it will not be possible to stop the slide till one more collapse occurs. Unfortunate part is: it will be one more repeat of Greek, Roman etc performances, from where the Founding Fathers had taken their lessons, while the progeny has forgotten / given up.

Anyway, I have written a lot about this topic, but if some people find it difficult to communicate the meaning of freedom to the masses, then my attempts too are futile for the same reasons. Just happened to view this, and thought to put something on paper – other-wise this is a very big topic.

[Henrik Unné 0]

I have on a few occassions written debate pieces here in Sweden, in which I condemned the political system of "democracy", i.e. the dictatorship of the majority. My pieces were not well received.

So many Swedes today take the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy for granted. As soon as someone criticises democracy (the sytem of subjectivism) people leap to the conclusion that he advocates an authoritarian dictatorship (the system of intrinsicism).

Swedes who read my criticism of democracy would ask me rhetorically afterwards - "So you want the same kind of system as Pinochet´s Chile?" - despite the fact that I had explicitly stated that I was opposed to *both* the tyranny of a majority and of a minority. It is frutstrating. The enemies of freedom here in Sweden understand this issue much better than the "non-socialists" do - and they are exploiting the confusion between the conceptof democracy and the concept of freedom in order to abolish freedom. The entire reason that the Communists here in Sweden so ardently advocate "people´s democracy" is that they understand that the institution of a *consistent* democracy will wipe out freedom. And the Swedish conservatives are so ignorant that they argue - "Oh, no - the Communists are not *genuine* advocates of democracy. They do not mean it. We conservatives want *real* democracy!"

[Henrik Unné 0]

I have on a few occassions written debate pieces here in Sweden, in which I condemned the political system of "democracy", i.e. the dictatorship of the majority. My pieces were not well received.

So many Swedes today take the intrinsic/subjective dichotomy for granted. As soon as someone criticises democracy (the sytem of subjectivism) people leap to the conclusion that he advocates an authoritarian dictatorship (the system of intrinsicism).

Swedes who read my criticism of democracy would ask me rhetorically afterwards - "So you want the same kind of system as Pinochet´s Chile?" - despite the fact that I had explicitly stated that I was opposed to *both* the tyranny of a majority and of a minority. It is frutstrating. The enemies of freedom here in Sweden understand this issue much better than the "non-socialists" do - and they are exploiting the confusion between the conceptof democracy and the concept of freedom in order to abolish freedom. The entire reason that the Communists here in Sweden so ardently advocate "people´s democracy" is that they understand that the institution of a *consistent* democracy will wipe out freedom. And the Swedish conservatives are so ignorant that they argue - "Oh, no - the Communists are not *genuine* advocates of democracy. They do not mean it. We conservatives want *real* democracy!"

I believe that the confusion between democracy and freedom ultimately comes down to the instrinsic/subjective dichotomy. A genuinely free society would be based on objectivity. But most "ordinary" men, and also the conservative politicians here in Sweden, assume that there is only intrinsicism and subjectivism. They take "freedom" to mean that they themselves, the "ordinary" men of the society, have a say in the affairs of the government. And they assume that the only two alternatives are - they have *no* say in political matters (which they view as dictatorship, the system of intrinsicism) or they run the entire show (which of course is democracy, the system of subjectivism).

The objective system of government (a constitutional republic, or capitalism) is not easy to achieve. It took geniuses like Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers to conceive of the American system (the only system close to objectivity created so far) and to write the Constitution. Nowadays, most Americans and Swedes are so philosophically ignorant and/or misinformed that they do not understand that the government should serve a limited function, protecting rights, but that it should not rule. They have no conception of objectivity in politics, and therefore no conception of limited government. And, of course, they prefer a government where they decide everything, without any restraints on their power (democracy/subjectivism) over a government where they decide nothing (dictatorship/intrinsicism).

Of course, in a dictatorship it also really is the dictator´s *subjective* whim which determines political events, but from the "ordinary" citizens´ point of view the dictator is an external force, so they perceive dictatorship as being intrinsicistic. And, also, democracy eventually devolves into either a dictatorship or sheer anarchy and civil war, so democracy and dictatorship are not really alternatives at all. But there is so much that the philosophically ignorant do not see.

I suppose that the key to saving freedom is to promote an understanding of objectivity, especially in epistemology. So it is going to be a long, hard intellectual battle, largely fought in the universities.

Ayn Rand was right that promoting rational philosophy is the key to saving freedom and civilization.

[alann 0]

Just as an FYI, I posted to Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, back in 2006, on this issue, when he'd made the similar obfuscation of "Democracy" vs. a Constitutional Republic based on Individual Rights and Freedom.

Again and again, the nonsense is perpetuated that the U.S. system of government is a "Democracy." When John Adams considered every kind of government that had been tried up to that point, Democracy, the system employed in late Greece, to the ruin of that nation, was quickly discarded. We have a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional guarantee of individual rights against the government, the concept of a _limited_ government, were the cornerstones of our system, as important as the tripartite construction of the federal system, with its Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.

The purpose of all these constructs, at every step of the way, was to limit the government to the role of protector and arbiter of the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. I write this because the debate over whether or not we should "export democracy" does violence to our own interests and continues to confuse those at home and abroad. It is indicative of the terrible state of our own political system that our politicians don't understand the system of government in which they participate, so intent, it seems, that they are on violating it. As has often been pointed out, Germany democratically elected Hitler.

The Greeks democratically voted to execute their greatest general because of personal unpopularity. Regular classroom exercises in racism have had students voting blue-eyed students into inferior status. The method of selecting leaders falls far below the establishment of the rule of law and the enshrinement of individual rights as the overarching purpose of enlightened government. Totalitarianism, the enshrinement of thuggery, requires none of this, nothing but the willingness to use lethal force and abject fear to trample on the lives of others. You touch on this issue, but do not toss out on the garbage heap the fraudulently-employed term "democracy" and, therefore, the whole specious debate. If we export anything, it would be the rule of law.

Implicit in that process is the concept of individual rights, which it implicitly recognizes and without which it would be meaningless. This is what we did in Germany and Japan and the results were a reeducated public, a healthier economy and civic life, and a vastly safer world. The idea that this would be "Imperialism" has led us to abandon our own principles and leave Iraq to the incompetence and irrationality of mullahs and U.N. bureaucrats. By a failure to recognize what we have here in the U.S., we are losing it and exporting that failure to other fledgling nations.

As the purpose of this post was to address a specific essay, which tacitly accepted that the U.S. is a "Democracy," I didn't address, in detail, the identification that Democracy is, in its pure form, mob rule, amongst other useful things. I simply wanted to challenge the mistaken premise at the base of the article.

[Vespasiano 0]

Just as an FYI, I posted to Daniel Pipes' Middle East Forum, back in 2006, on this issue, when he'd made the similar obfuscation of "Democracy" vs. a Constitutional Republic based on Individual Rights and Freedom.

Again and again, the nonsense is perpetuated that the U.S. system of government is a "Democracy." When John Adams considered every kind of government that had been tried up to that point, Democracy, the system employed in late Greece, to the ruin of that nation, was quickly discarded. We have a Constitutional Republic. The Constitutional guarantee of individual rights against the government, the concept of a _limited_ government, were the cornerstones of our system, as important as the tripartite construction of the federal system, with its Judicial, Legislative, and Executive branches.

The purpose of all these constructs, at every step of the way, was to limit the government to the role of protector and arbiter of the rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property. I write this because the debate over whether or not we should "export democracy" does violence to our own interests and continues to confuse those at home and abroad. It is indicative of the terrible state of our own political system that our politicians don't understand the system of government in which they participate, so intent, it seems, that they are on violating it. As has often been pointed out, Germany democratically elected Hitler.

The Greeks democratically voted to execute their greatest general because of personal unpopularity. Regular classroom exercises in racism have had students voting blue-eyed students into inferior status. The method of selecting leaders falls far below the establishment of the rule of law and the enshrinement of individual rights as the overarching purpose of enlightened government. Totalitarianism, the enshrinement of thuggery, requires none of this, nothing but the willingness to use lethal force and abject fear to trample on the lives of others. You touch on this issue, but do not toss out on the garbage heap the fraudulently-employed term "democracy" and, therefore, the whole specious debate. If we export anything, it would be the rule of law.

Implicit in that process is the concept of individual rights, which it implicitly recognizes and without which it would be meaningless. This is what we did in Germany and Japan and the results were a reeducated public, a healthier economy and civic life, and a vastly safer world. The idea that this would be "Imperialism" has led us to abandon our own principles and leave Iraq to the incompetence and irrationality of mullahs and U.N. bureaucrats. By a failure to recognize what we have here in the U.S., we are losing it and exporting that failure to other fledgling nations.

As the purpose of this post was to address a specific essay, which tacitly accepted that the U.S. is a "Democracy," I didn't address, in detail, the identification that Democracy is, in its pure form, mob rule, amongst other useful things. I simply wanted to challenge the mistaken premise at the base of the article.

An excellent piece, Alan, with or without the "mob rule" element.

[alann 0]

An excellent piece, Alan, with or without the "mob rule" element.

Thanks for the kind comment, V. An old post, but the Democracy discussion pricked my memory and I thought I ought to throw it into the mix.

In 2006, there was much talk about "exporting Democracy" to Iraq and the rest of the Mideast, through that conduit. Well, through the U.N., that elite body of enlightened thinkers (read: despots) who would write the Iraqi Constitution.

I wrote another such post, framed as a plea, to the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies", which is still, unfortunately, in existence. It was "founded by a group of philanthropists and policymakers." The likes of Clifford May, Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, and Joe Lieberman. No wonder. A bunch of poliicians who see the world as a repository of voters who exist to elect -- or, through elected officials to appoint -- them.

[Henrik Unné 0]

An excellent piece, Alan, with or without the "mob rule" element.

Thanks for the kind comment, V. An old post, but the Democracy discussion pricked my memory and I thought I ought to throw it into the mix.

In 2006, there was much talk about "exporting Democracy" to Iraq and the rest of the Mideast, through that conduit. Well, through the U.N., that elite body of enlightened thinkers (read: despots) who would write the Iraqi Constitution.

I wrote another such post, framed as a plea, to the "Foundation for the Defense of Democracies", which is still, unfortunately, in existence. It was "founded by a group of philanthropists and policymakers." The likes of Clifford May, Newt Gingrich, James Woolsey, and Joe Lieberman. No wonder. A bunch of poliicians who see the world as a repository of voters who exist to elect -- or, through elected officials to appoint -- them.

About a year before I discovered Objectivism, back in 1979, I tried to write a piece of fiction. It was supposed to be a dystopia, sort of like 1984 (which was the book which inspired my attempt). The theme of my dystopia was that a *truly* democratic society would be sheer hell. In my story, which has never been published, I depicted a future Sweden, where *every* decision was made by voting. Everybody voted on what work each individual should do, whom each individual should marry and even what everybody should eat for dinner in the communal dining hall that evening.

But although my idea was sound, I was not a good fiction writer like Ayn Rand, and my novel was botched. Among other things, I made the error of "telling" most of the time, instead of "showing". My novel would have been a commercial failure, if it had ever been published.