Do you want Democracy or Liberty?

If we are to save our Republic we must understand the differences between a democracy and a republic.  I have come to believe that democracy is only possible as a functioning type of government on the local level.  Only on the local level can the concepts of personal freedom and private property be truly understood.  A majority vote locally may well be tyrannical, but on a national level it is almost certain to be.  How can a man from Massachusetts possibly vote on a law to be applied to someone in Idaho?  Our forefathers in a large measure feared democracy because of their keen knowledge of the history of the beast down through the ages.  They created our republic to bridle the raging steed.  We should all study the Constitutional Convention and, failing that, consider the insights of men like the one who wrote the essay below.       — Lee B

Democracy Or Liberty

Does democracy really deserve the praise it receives? According to Webster’s Dictionary, democracy is defined as “government by the people; especially: rule of the majority.” What’s so great about majority rule? Let’s look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask how many of our choices we would like settled by what a majority likes.

Would you want the kind of car that you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I’m sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, you’d deem it tyranny…

John Adams said, “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”…

Clearly, we need government, and that means there must be collective decision-making. Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution’s framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both Houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures, to propose an amendment, and requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president’s veto.

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wrote, “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.” That’s another way of saying that one of the primary dangers of majority rule is that it confers an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and could actually be opposites.

—Walter E. Williams, Nationally Syndicated Columnist
February 28, 2007

This entry was posted in Lee's Musings. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.