This wonderful article by Walter E. Williams illustrates the point perfectly. Mr. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. I first heard him on the radio as a fill in host a number of years ago on a very popular talk show in the United States.
I’ve included the article below for your convenience. He has many other paradigm changing articles here:
Here’s a list of his articles from 2007:
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2007, AND THEREAFTER
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.
I’m not alone in seeing democracy as a variant of tyranny. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said that in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " . . . that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." 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."
Our founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.
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.
I hope you found this article informative and entertaining.
Did you know that the word "democracy" isn’t in our constitution? You can search for it yourself here:
Just enter "control f" on your keyboard when you get to that page, then enter the word "democracy." Why is everyone so big on the term democracy if our founding fathers never put it in our Constitution?
Imagine Life In A True Democracy:
Let’s say that Atheists have somehow become the largest group in this democracy. They then decide to try and pass a law that makes belief in God and all religions illegal. They win by a slim margin of 50.1 percent of the vote.
In a true democracy, your religion would have just been outlawed. All of the churches would have to close immediately or try to go underground.
What if a majority of people voted and said that eating fruit is now illegal. They have our best interests at heart. They read all of the books that claim eating fruit will raise your blood sugar levels too much. Therefore they tried to pass a law that makes all fruit eating and growing illegal.
This is for our own good mind you. They win the vote at 55% to 45%. Now fruit is illegal. How would you feel about that?
In a true democracy you could have this scenario: Imagine we had so many illegal Mexicans come into the country that they are now the majority of people in the country. Let’s also say that our government has granted them amnesty and citizenship because it’s too much trouble to send them back and we need them to work the low paying jobs.
They put together a law saying that the United States is now Mexico. They win the election with 52.3% of the votes cast. In one vote we go from being the United States to Mexico.
And what if the majority of the people believe that any Mormon’s are devil worshipers and must be exterminated. With a majority vote, this can be passed into law. All of the Mormon’s would then be exterminated by passage of this new law.
Democracy is not in any way associated with freedom or liberty. Democracy is tryanny of the majority. Our Constitution was created to protect us from dictators and democracies. The Bill of Rights recognized our God given rights and protects us from the tyranny of mass rule.
The easiest way to wield power in a democracy is focus on the largest groups of people. There are always going to be more poor people than wealthy. So from a political power perspective it’s much easier to provide social programs for the poor to garner yourself the most votes.
A social program is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. It’s taking from one and giving to another. In short, it’s theft.
This is how the Democratic party tries to grow itself. By finding large masses of people and promising them all sorts of gifts from the government. It’s almost like Robin Hood, "rob from the rich and give to the poor." Yet it’s still robbing. It’s the tryanny of the majority.
Unfortunately, the Republican Party talks a good game, but they are also promoting ever increasing government programs. This again means taking from you to give to another. Is that fair? Is that just?
There is however one presidential candidate that understands the dangers of democracy and who has a long track record of fighting corruption in government. His name is Ron Paul. You can learn more about him here:
I believe the Government Media Complex is purposely promoting the term Democracy rather than a Constitutional Republic which this country really is. It’s another step in the erosion of the concepts of Freedom this blessed country is based upon.
The enemy within is far greater than any other enemy.
To Your Radiant Health, Happiness, Fitness and Freedom, Roger Haeske