This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
Democracy sucks.
I know we’ve been told by our woke overlords that we have to worship democracy, but our woke overlords are wrong.
Democracy is majority rule. And you know what happens when you have majority rule? You get things like Jim Crow. You know, when a majority of Southerners once believed that racial segregation was cool, and they elected segregationist politicians who instituted racial segregation. Yay, democracy!
Our Founding Fathers knew that majorities didn’t have a monopoly on virtue and wisdom. So they crafted a form of government that was well-suited to checking the majority’s ugly or foolish impulses.
But they didn’t have a name for this new form of government. Many Founding Fathers called their new form of government a republic. Many political pundits today call it a constitutional republic. But what do those names mean? How do they help voters think about the proper role of government? Democracy, on the other hand, is straightforward. The majority rules. The government’s job is to serve the majority.
So what should we call a form of government that has the fundamental voting feature of a democracy, but frowns upon unlimited majority power? In other words, what should we call a form of government that says the majority should always get the elected officials it wants, but it shouldn’t always get the kind of governing it wants?
I thought long and hard about this question, and I got my answer by doing some first-principle thinking. What’s the purpose of America? Liberty. Every American should be able to pursue happiness as he sees fit, as long as he respects the rights of others, and as long as he does his part to support legitimate government functions (i.e., functions that protect the peace and promote the general welfare). Since the purpose of America is liberty, our government’s job is to serve liberty, not the majority. And since our government’s job is to serve liberty, our form of government should be understood as a libocracy.
In future posts, I’ll explore the fundamental features of a libocracy. For now, though, I want to end this post by issuing a stern rebuke to our idiot woke overlords:
Only a fool worships democracy. A true freedom-loving American fears democracy, and worships libocracy.
Looking forward to this.
Thank you, Bill. I’m looking forward to it too. It should interesting, to say the least. Peace, my friend.
It’s rare that a post makes me do my own research, but yours just did. Kudos. Here’s what I found when asking the difference between a Democracy vs. a Republic (source: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic). Consistent with what you wrote, only yours was clearer and easier to understand.
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a “pure democracy,” the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
Most modern nations—including the United States—are democratic republics with a constitution, which can be amended by a popularly elected government. This comparison therefore contrasts the form of government in most countries today with a theoretical construct of a “pure democracy”, mainly to highlight the features of a republic.
Hey, Fritz. Thanks for your reply, and your research. I did this post by relying on my gut recollections of what democracy and republic mean. And it’s good to know that my gut recollections were in the ballpark. Now comes the difficult task of properly defining democracy and libocracy. Here are my current thoughts:
Democracy: A form of government where the majority of voters decide who should govern, and those entrusted to govern are obligated to follow the will of the majority.
Libocracy: A form of government where the majority of voters decide who should govern, but those entrusted to govern are only obligated to follow the will of the majority if the will of the majority doesn’t tread on individual liberty.
Not perfect. But it’s a start. Thanks for stopping by, my friend. It’s always great hearing from a freedom-loving American like yourself. Peace.
When the experts say we have to fix elections to “save our democracy” we have to figure that this word’s meaning depends upon who’s talking. When the ruling class says “our democracy” they seem to be referring to their personal property.
When the founding fathers talked about “democracy” they were talking about the mob rule of ancient Greece. That’s different, too.
A representational republic seems to be the form of governance we’ve lost.
Agreed. And that’s because we don’t have a precise name for the way we hope to govern ourselves. I know what you mean by a representational republic. But does a blue-haired coed from Yale know? The word democracy doesn’t inherently convey the notion that there needs to be limits on government power, irrespective of the majority’s wants. “Hey, the people want free healthcare, housing, and college. Individual liberty be damned. The federal government now has the right to enslave workers with an effective income tax rate of 50 percent.” The word libocracy, however, does inherently convey the notion that there needs to be limits on government power. “No, the government can’t do what the majority wants if what the majority wants treads on individual liberty.”
Mr. Groovy recently posted…Democracy Sucks