Democracy – Part Two

Democracy – Part Two

Concerning my last post on Democracy a reader says: “The problem I have with this argument is that it seems to be saying that one cannot derive principles from less than pure or perfect examples. This is exactly the same argument that many Communists and Socialists use.”

JJ: This makes no sense as we have had every brand of communism by authoritarian rule be given ample power to prove themselves. 100% of the Soviet Union was under communist rule as well as China, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia under Pol Pot, etc. The results of all have been similar, varying only by degrees.

The closest thing we have seen to a democracy was not a nation but the city-state of Athens with a population of about 250,000. Of this number only 30,000 were the elite citizens who had the right to vote. Of these only about 4000-5000 participated in the democratic process. This is why I call Athens a representative Democracy rather than a pure Democracy because the voting of the 5000 supposedly represented well-being of the whole. It matters not that the voters were not elected, the result of their vote created law and justice just as our elected representatives do today.

Thus Athens, which was far from a pure Democracy, was not anything close to matching the examples of communism in purity which forced every citizen to vote party line and totally controlled several nations.

Now, even though Athens was far from a pure democracy, it is probably the best example in history and instead of yielding tyranny and poverty there was more freedom there than in other parts of the world and more prosperity. The average wage was about three times that of those of foreign countries.

Nearby Sparta was ruled with a non democratic iron hand and consequently the lights and philosophers of the age lived in Athens. Ironically some of the intelligentsia, including Socrates, criticized the government of Athens and praised Sparta, but where did they choose to live? Athens. It reminds me of some in the USA who praise Cuba and Venezuela but prefer to live here even though they constantly criticize America.

The partial democracy of Athens did not lead to any tyranny of the majority, especially when considering the lower overall consciousness of that age. Instead, it led to a gathering of lights, prosperity and greater freedom. Yes, they had slaves, but so did the rest of the world at that time. But in Athens the slaves were much freer than some other places and even owned property.

There have been attempts at democracy by small groups of people but nothing close to a real working democracy, open to the whole of the populace, has ever surfaced in recorded history.

The United States, as a democratic elected representative republic, is probably the closest thing to it presently on the planet. The problem now is, as I pointed out earlier with my seven points, is that the will of the people is not represented.

Thomas Jefferson is often pointed out as being against democracy. To make their point this quote is often given out in argument:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

The only problem is that Jefferson never said this. It is just one of those quotes in wide circulation that are falsely attributed.

The quote is not only untrue but it makes no sense. You only have two types of rule possible. The first is majority rule, or some type of democratic rule, and the second is minority rule which is accomplished through all kinds of authoritarian methods.

Currently we have a minority rule where the will of around 30% take away the rights of the other 70%. In other words when either Democrats or Republicans win, we have a situation where we are governed by about 30% of the far right or left. The 40% in between, as well as the 30% from the other side do not feel represented.

Where would you rather live? In a country where 30% of the people are represented or 51% or more?

I’d go for the 51% or more.

Here are a few quotes revealing what Jefferson really thought of democracy.

“The will of the people […] is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object.” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. [Memorial Edition] ME 10:236)

“The measures of the fair majority […] ought always to be respected.” (Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397)

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.” (Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332)

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” (Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337)

“This […] [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law.”

  (Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:85)

All the ingredients safeguarding freedom could be placed in a constitution based on a democratic government, but an extremely important point to consider is that words alone, no matter how noble, will not protect us from tyranny.

The basic ingredients of the U.S. Constitution have been copied by many developing countries. It has been a help but in many cases a dictatorship still developed.

The bottom line is that to remain free a nation must have more than the words of freedom, but the thoughts of freedom. Without a consciousness that can accept freedom and responsibility we are doomed to slavery no matter what our founding document says.

We are presently in a condition where the principles of the Republic are not working well, but there is one bright spot. The majority of the people desire freedom and commonsense government much more than the representatives who govern us. Therefore, any shift of power to the majority of the people away from those merely interested in power will be a positive thing.

Now here is another important point. Even though a purer democracy would be an improvement on what we have now, it is not the highest form of government. The highest form, I believe, is The Molecular Relationship.

Government in The Molecular Relationship is a lot like the government of our Republic, but with one main difference. It has the principle of correction more inherently built into it. Without the principle of correction any government, no matter how virtuous, will eventually become corrupt and be overthrown.

Look at history. All governments, good and bad, come and go. After a couple hundred years corruption usually sets in and this is eventually followed by a revolution. A revolution produces change but half the time the change is positive and the other half things are much worse. For instance, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was expected by the people to bring them more freedom, but they were sadly disappointed by the tight controlling grip of Communism.

Government by the Molecular Relationship is too large of a leap to introduce to the country at this time. It will most likely evolve through small groups and eventually be accepted by larger groups and eventually nations. Even with this system, containing a built-in correction mechanism, there exists the possibility of tyranny. A strong leader could intimidate the members to the extent that people could be afraid to challenge him when he goes astray.

The bottom line is that only the consciousness of freedom can ensure that freedom is perpetuated.

The “C” students run the world. – Harry S. Truman

Sept 6, 2009

To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.

“Search” site:freeread.com

Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE