The democratic folly
We all know that democracy is nothing more than utilitarian "might makes right" strong-arming. But what if the advocates of "direct democracy" had their way? These bullies believe that the strong majority should ALWAYS have its way against the weak minority, in all circumstances. What kind of circumstances? Well...
* People on a street should be able to vote against a neighbour and kick him out because he does not have the proper skin hue.
* A school board or greedy mall owner should be able to vote off his neighbour and steal his property, and kidnap him if he refuses to leave.
* A population should be able to vote on medications to ban, dooming tens of thousands of people to a painful agonizing death in the process.
* A population should be able to vote on enslaving the poorest and most defenseless amongst its numbers, for an indefinite number of years, with death a strong possibility.
* If most people agree, someone caught with a small quantity of a forbidden substance should be held for ransom, then kidnapped for months on end. This same procedure should be applied to anyone who breaks the arbitrary rules decided by vote. They should be held for ransom (sometimes for millions of dollars), and then, when it is decided that they make a good scapegoat, kidnapped and put in a small room with bars for years and years. People think that this magically makes people more subservient.
* People should be able to vote to steal resources from someone who has a lot, and give it to two people who have less. After all, making two people slightly more happy more than counterbalances stealing from one person, doesn't it? Good of the many, and all that.
* People who sell products that some other people don't like- because of their religion, political affiliation, whatever- should be voted out of their business or their profits whenever the "victimized" faction gets enough support. Their customers, of course, are completely unimportant. Who cares about your values? The majority has spoken.
* People should be able to vote to kill anyone who is determined to be a traitor to the community.
If your "direct democracy" bully cries "but there should be limits!", he is a little too late. Because all of these things are done by the "limited" state, right now!
So much for "limits". Constitutions are just little pieces of paper that grant extra legitimacy. So they just make the problem worse, because they throw even more smoke at people's minds, who believe that their government is justified by the constitution of their country. Who has ever signed a constitution? What happens if you don't agree with it? Blank, blank, blank... are the minds of the statists.
1 comment:
Heh, I've heard a lot of people argue for more democracy. Of course they could have more democracy within the hour by making an arrangement with their 10,000 dearest pals that, for example, they will all have the same favorite flavor of ice cream, to be decided by majority vote.
And while even the most enthusiastic democracy lover will realize that the freedom to make this relatively minor decision is worth more to them than whatever value democracy holds, they somehow think that tremendously important decisions like whether or not to fund a foreign war should be made democratically. Go figure.
I suspect that beneath this outward inconsistency, these folks are actually very rational. Their position comes down to "We favor democracy when we think it offers us good odds on getting to make decisions with your stuff."
Post a Comment