The state's primary—and only—purpose should be to protect its citizens from aggression—whether that aggression comes from overseas or from other citizens. Under these terms, the state should only run Defence and Criminal Justice—and the only law should be "you shall not initiate force or fraud against someone's life, liberty or property."I agree, and I recommend the whole article.
This is the only way that will deliver freedom to all, rather than a select group—to allow people to oppress others is morally repugnant; to enshrine the majority's tyranny over the minority is just as wrong as our current system. But it is also mistaking the method for the desired result.
Democracy is the least worst way of protecting many citizens from the depredations of an over-mighty state, but it is not the object of the exercise: the endpoint, the desired result, is the maximisation of freedom for everyone.
And if you think that I am wrong, and that democracy is the desired goal, then you have amply proved my point; for in that case, you believe that the wishes of the greatest number should outweigh the rights of the few.
Thursday, 3 June 2010
DK: Democracy is not the object
A good post from DK on the subject of democracy: