The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: endicom on June 08, 2018, 08:51:42 pm
-
Liberty
Stephen Cox
June 7, 2018
Like most other libertarians, I am not a trusting friend of democracy. I think Thoreau was right when he said, “That government is best which governs least.†Democracy is a means of putting limits on government, and providing the legitimacy of consent for the few state functions that remain. One reason I am not a progressive democrat (small or large “dâ€) is that the progressives’ century-long demand for people to use democracy to “control the conditions of their own lives†would mean, if it meant anything, the power of every momentary majority to control the conditions of life — or death — for everyone else.
It is therefore not surprising to me that leading advocates of progressive democracy have been self-willed, dictatorial personalities who systematically confused their own whims with the will of the people. Consider Rousseau. Consider the early 20th-century progressives with their lethal mixture of socialism, racism, and prohibition. Consider Bernie Sanders.
More... http://libertyunbound.com/node/1858 (http://libertyunbound.com/node/1858)
-
My comment:
"Democracy is a means of putting limits on government, and providing the legitimacy of consent for the few state functions that remain."
Ummm, no, it isn't. Democracy is populism by another name. In order to put a limit on government you need something beyond "the will of the people". Something like a constitutional republic. Remember that old "tyranny by the majority" thingie? Like Dred-Scott or "separate but equal"? Legislative and judicial responses to the will of the majority.
I didn't get very far past this statement, because if you get the basics wrong it is highly unlikely that you get the finer points correct.
I highly doubt it will be published after review by site administrators.
-
My comment:
I highly doubt it will be published after review by site administrators.
The democracy he describes is what we're supposed to have in the United States.
-
The democracy he describes is what we're supposed to have in the United States.
Really? The FFs would be surprised to hear that.
-
Really? The FFs would be surprised to hear that.
They created it.
-
They created it.
No, they didn't create a democracy. In fact, they were adamantly opposed to the idea of a democracy.
-
No, they didn't create a democracy. In fact, they were adamantly opposed to the idea of a democracy.
They literally could not utter that word without clearing their throats and spitting.
-
They literally could not utter that word without clearing their throats and spitting.
Yeah, I must be misunderstanding what @endicom is saying.
-
No, they didn't create a democracy. In fact, they were adamantly opposed to the idea of a democracy.
When did we start voting for officeholders? With Woodrow Wilson? With George Washington?
-
When did we start voting for officeholders? With Woodrow Wilson? With George Washington?
From the beginning. But that doesn't make us a "democracy. Spit spit!
-
From the beginning. But that doesn't make us a "democracy. Spit spit!
You can't see it..but I'm smiling!
-
From the beginning. But that doesn't make us a "democracy. Spit spit!
No one said it did make us a democracy. Certainly not the author.
-
No one said it did make us a democracy. Certainly not the author.
I believe the author said something about progressive democrats, who have been trying to convert our republic into a democracy for ages. I agree with that.