Rick Koerber says this often on his radio show. He argues that democracy is evil because it is mob rule and the majority tyrannizes the minority. He also argues that a republican government protects the rights of the people. This is a confusion and misunderstanding of the form of a government, and the restrictions on that government. It is the Bill of Rights that enumerates rights that individuals have and the restrictions of government in relation to those rights. But the Bill of Rights says nothing about the form of government. We could have a pure democracy with the Bill of Rights and, as long as people and government adhered to the restrictions, we would not have our rights infringed. Rome was a republic, yet not everyone was treated the same under the law, and the acknowledged rights of individuals was not as free as our Bill of Rights. Also, the United States had slaves denied of almost all rights, yet still was a republic, or more correctly a democratic republic.
The framers of the Constitution devised a government that would most likely be controlled and restrained in protecting the rights of individuals. In fact, we often have pure democracy used in our government. We use pure democracy to decide on City Council elections and on ballot measures. Are those pure evil? Or does the evil only apply at the national level? There are even times in the Book of Mormon where matters of governance are determined “by the voice of the people.” I can’t say for certain but that sure sounds like they counted up the yeas and neas and acted according to whichever got the most votes. Imagine our republic with no Bill of Rights. Imagine a pure democracy with the Bill of Rights. Which would you rather have? It’s not the form of government that protects our rights. It’s the codified and widespread adoptions by the people and government officers that protect our rights. People choose the form of government that they feel will be the most likely to control in adhering to those protections of rights that the people declare.
One last point: Koerber says that a government cannot have a will because it is not a living thing but rather the summation of the wills of the people. If that’s the case, can a government, or a form of government, be evil? Or just people
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is a case of differing definitions. When Rick talks about a 'pure democracy' he is talking about strict majority rule without exception or protection of rights. In a 'pure democracy', if 50%+1 decides to kill the other 50%-1, they can. This happened in Nazi Germany. Ultimately, 'pure democracies' are essentially a form of socialism. It is tyranny of the majority. Your example of the city counsel is not 'pure democracy'. They are bound by the constitution. It is not 'anything goes'.
"This is a case of differing definitions. "
I know. I keep saying this is a problem with the Free Capitalist movement. You can't use one definition to prove one point, and another to prove a different point.
You can't talk about the evils of "democracy" or "pure democracy" and assume no restrictions, then talk about the virtues of a "republic" or "representative government" and assume all sorts of restrictions.
answer me this, Aaron: what restrictions does a republic have? What restrictions does a representative government have? I don't mean "our" government, I mean when we say "republic" what are the inherent restrictions with that form of government?
re: ""This is a case of differing definitions."
"I know. I keep saying this is a problem with the Free Capitalist movement."
I see, it is a problem to be clear on what we are talking about when we making an argument.
"You can't use one definition to prove one point, and another to prove a different point."
What are you talking about? give an example.
"What are you talking about? give an example."
I did in the "Going Against Church Counsel Post" and again in another response to a comment of yours.
when Koerber reads the counsel from the church on "avoiding debt" and then he says that if you have any equity in your house "you have to debt! You owe no debt on your house!" that's changing the meaning of "debt" from how the church and scriptures use it (a financial obligation or money owed) to what Koerber is claiming it means (not having liabilities exceed asset values, ie, positive net worth).
Or like when some other guy posted here about how "capitlism" and "freedom" meant the same thing so "can you have too much freedom" essentially meant the same thing as "can you have too much capitalism?"
I have a post coming up on this, but this is the gist: You guys are redefining words in order for people to accept ideas that they wouldn't accept otherwise. A person might not accept that borrowing money on their personal credit is following church counsel to "avoid debt." But if you tell that person that he is not actually "in debt" then that person may think, "oh yeah he's right" and then go in debt. Just wait to for the post on that.
I suggest you guys stop. It's gonna get much worse. People are starting to see what's wrong with the Free Capitalist movement. Maybe they can't put their finger on it, but they are starting to understand it. I'm not talking about lawsuit. I don't know anything about that. I'm not involved. I'm just dealing with how you guys are twisting words, changing meanings to suit your aims, getting people to do what they wouldn't otherwise do, claiming to have "principles" etc. By the time we're all done here, anyone reading this will have a clear understanding of how this is all messed up, if they don't already. But I am getting ahead of myself.
Utahn, have you read much Ayn Rand? If you really want to understand the definitions we use in The Free Capitalist Project, read her works. Much of the way we define these terms comes from Ayn Rand's definitions. She explains it much better than I could ever hope to do. It's not like Rick comes up with the definitions arbitrarily to fit some pre-conceived result he wants to achieve. There is a REASON he defines things the way he does. And using the term 'reason' pre-supposes rationality. Otherwise it's not a 'reason' but an 'excuse'.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Post a Comment