I think democracy is a terrible idea. Its inherent flaw is that it claims that the force of government is needed to achieve the will of the majority. If most people truly want something then it will happen without government. What democracy really is always is a minority group imposing itself through government on the majority. If you look at many major issues a majority of people stand on the opposite side of the law. How can this be if democracy is as it is claimed to be?
I think you’re running into a problem of loosely-defined terms here. I’ll assume, since it’s not clear otherwise, that you’re referring to a democratic principles in general, and not a democratic republic (such as the present-day United States), or any other specific flavor. I also have to ask what you mean by government here - are you referring to the specific institutions of government as exemplified by a particular country, the concept of government in itself, or something else entirely? Again, I’ll assume the most general principles for now.
That being said, what democracy is claiming to believe is that the will of the majority of the people is what provides the force of government and law - you are claiming the opposite, which may be true in specific cases, but is a perversion of the basic principles.
I agree that in practice vocal minorities tend to dominate the political discussion, the various reasons for which would need a thread or six all on their own.
Without any specific examples to consider, I cannot agree or disagree with your last point here, but it sounds like you’re referring to a specific government which is probably not a true democracy, but rather a watered down version with protections for minority views.
I think economic freedom is far more important than political freedom. The freedom to engage in any economic activity is a far greater freedom than the freedom to vote. Money is far more powerful than a vote. In fact money determines the outcome of any vote. Democracy is just a way to legitimize the will of the rich and powerful. Voting is the true opiate of the masses.
I won’t argue against you holding that opinion, as I think that many economic and political freedoms are intrinsically linked. However, your argument seems to oversimplify the relationship. After all, if a vote can take away economic freedoms (and we know it can), then isn’t that vote just as powerful in a different way?
Money spent in modern US elections does strongly correlate with election results. However, establishing causation here is tricky - one could argue that if the majority of people already side with one candidate over another, then of course that candidate will receive and spend more money since they have a larger pool of supporters. I’m not disagreeing that money has a strong influence on elections - stronger than I would like - but I do think you’re simplifying things too much.
Folks mentioned Aristotle and I think he was right about democracy being the lowest form of government. There is a contemporary writer,
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who has done a lot of work studying and thinking about democracy vs monarchy. His book ‘Democracy: God that Failed’ offers a very thorough analysis of the advantages of monarchy and disadvantages of democracy. He has also written many freely available articles on the subject. If nothing else reading Hoppe offers you a different perspective than the popular idea that democracy should be spread across the globe by the US at the end of a gun.
Firstly, somebody misquoted Aristotle, who actually was fairly supportive of democracy as being less evil than other forms of government. It seemed likely they were actually trying to quote Winston Churchill, whose quote, in its completeness and context also clearly supported democracy.
Also, the source you’re pointing to in favor of monarchy is a self-described “Austrian school economist and libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosopher.” That puts him firmly outside of any consensus view on any issue. I’m not saying that to make an argument against him necessarily, but any support for his views warrants due consideration.
As for US policy…that is also a story for another thread.
One thing that should be noted is that all government is always rule by a few people. Even in our democracy the same families have power and the same men rule us often for decades. In all governments the power of the sovereign is contingent upon the submission of the people to that authority. The king or president is only one man. If people under him did not obey he would have no power to do anything. In the case of the monarchy the king is always held in check by his descendant, other nobility, and ultimately the submission of the ruled who greatly outnumber the rulers.
No system is perfect but surely some are better than others. The idea that America is ruled by the average American who cant locate the countries he is at war with on a map seems shockingly stupid to me.
Human society is, by nature it would appear, oligarchic. That there will always be more Indians than Chiefs is impossible to argue. However, I don’t like the apples to oranges comparison of a president to a king, as it seems misleading. Why do you state that there are checks on a king’s power (admittedly often lost in the casual understanding of monarchy) but fail to state that a president has perhaps a third of a king’s power (being executive without legislative or judicial authority), and then for a very limited time only as opposed to life?
I don’t think any reasonable person claims that the average American has significant individual political power or awareness, but surely in 10,000 years of human history we have achieved something?
EDIT: Fixed spelling.
***Their CAN BE and IS only a SINGLE TRUTH for every issue. On Faith -beliefs and ALL Moral issues that SINGLE truth is entrusted by Gof to His One Catholic Church
And I lean slightly libertarian.