Want to Unify America? Stop Talking About Democracy. - Granite Grok

Want to Unify America? Stop Talking About Democracy.

democracy wolves sheep

I recently read an article about Democratic Party strategists discussing the importance of avoiding the words ‘socialism’ and ‘socialist’ in future campaigns, because they don’t sit well with large numbers of voters.

To be clear, they weren’t talking about giving up socialist policies.  Just about calling them something else.  Lying about them, if you will.

This is part of their plan for ‘unifying America’.

But the word I really wish people would stop using isn’t ‘socialism’, but ‘democracy’.  Especially people who should know better.

Because anytime anyone talks about ‘the importance of preserving our democracy’, what I hear is ‘the importance of allowing some people to continue treating other people as resources’.

To be clear, in a democracy, the source of power is majority rule.  (Contrast this with the source of power identified by the Declaration of Independence:  the consent of the governed.  The two could not be more different.)

In a democracy, if a majority wants something, nothing stands in its way.  (If something stands in its way — a right, for example — then what you have is something other than a democracy.)

In a democracy, absolutely everything is up for a vote.  Strictly speaking, this means that in a democracy, rights do not exist.

A democracy that says it will respect, for example, the ‘right’ to free speech, is like a carb addict who says he will give up foods made with sugar and flour.  Good luck with that.

Because it puts everything up for a vote, democracy is just one particular means of managing common ownership of all property, and common control over all behavior.  Which is to say, democracy is just a special case of socialism.  It’s a mechanism for implementing mutual exploitation, as opposed to mutual protection.

So it seems to me that trying to ‘unify Americans’ by singing the praises of democracy is like trying to ‘unify farm animals’ by singing the praises of farmer’s markets.

So what should we call our form of government?  A lot of people think that ‘constitutional republic’ captures the idea of limited government, but it doesn’t.  If you’re confused on this point, recall that the Soviet Union was a constitutional republic.  So is the People’s Republic of China.

In 1776, we declared independence from Great Britain so that we could set up a government whose purpose was to protect rights that we already had, and which would derive its just powers from the consent of the governed.  The term mutual defense pact is nearly perfect for describing that.  I’ll help you protect your rights, and you’ll help me protect mine.  But what I do with those rights is none of your business, and what you do with yours is none of my business.

Those familiar with Frederic Bastiat’s masterpiece, The Law, will recognize what I’m saying as essentially a summary of that work: ‘The law is the organization of the natural right of self-defense.’

A monarchy with strictly limited powers would come closer to this ideal than a constitutional republic with essentially unlimited powers… which is more or less what we have now, and what people mean when they say ‘democracy’.

When the left (and for that matter, the right) start talking about ‘the importance of preserving our mutual defense pact’, that’s when I’ll start considering that perhaps they want to be my confederates, rather than my captors.

>