Skip to main content

Democracy and Freedom: Friend or Foe?

Much of the "freedom" sold today is realistically a twisted form of political freedom — or, alternatively, political conspiracy — that has much more to do with political process than absolute freedom. 

Through this political conspiracy, a veritable form of mob rule, voters collaborate with legislators and government actors to pursue mutually-beneficial outcomes and special interests at the expense of freedom and the minority inhabitant. 



The tireless efforts of politically-motivated campaigns and participants alike combine to conflate political participation — or, more precisely, democratic process — with something inappropriately yet fashionably labeled political freedom

Genuine freedom refers to the individual's capacity to pursue his ends of his own might or negotiation, without imposed hinderance or restraint. 

In this sense, pure political freedom equates to the individual's freedom from government, where government has least occasion to interfere with, and minimal influence in the affairs of, the lives of the individuals who inhabit the land.

Democracy operates antithetical to freedom. It serves exclusively to undermine freedom, as it facilitates through coercion the collective wants of some through imposed hinderances or restraints upon others.   

This kind of so-called political freedom surely differs from the native form which once emphasized the perils of democratic and centralized government. 

When Founder Benjamin Franklin departed the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787, he was asked by a member of the crowd, "What kind of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?"

To this, Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." 

Franklin and the other Founders understood the risks attending democracy, and they were well-versed in the certain threats such a system would pose to liberty. 

It is for this very reason that the Founders introduced strong checks and balances, an extremely limited central government, an unequivocal Bill of Rights, and that both presidential and senatorial elections were decided by electoral college and legislative appointment, respectively.

And it is for this reason that the Founders drafted the Constitution to "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

The Founders understood human nature and the moral hazards presented by any political system that operates principally for the benefit of the majority.

Predictably, any democracy, which will always be fueled by envy, will invariably witness the abandonment of principle for the benefit of short-term demands oblivious to long-term consequences.

Despite its dazzling exterior, democracy is socially destructive, impervious to reason and shamelessly driven by greed, only the kind of greed desperately lacking the plentiful benefits enjoyed as a byproduct of its accountable counterpart in the market economy.

Notwithstanding the material benefits enjoyed by the many for the pursuits of greedy entrepreneurs, greedy politicians still grandstand their way into favor by promising to punish those productive entrepreneurs for accepting trades on consensual terms, whereas politicians make their living by forcibly taking from those who gain nothing from the ordeal in order to "give" some of their loot to others who merely voted them into office.   

Of course, the rest of the loot finds its way into their own pockets or those of still others who serve their further political interests. 

James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 10 (1787) of The Federalist Papers: "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

This is the nature of democracy: it is remarkably unrestrained by principle, much less by the Constitution or any compact, and it is focused exclusively on that which attracts popularity and prestige. 

All of this comes at the expense of absolute freedom, whereby so-called “rights” and “entitlements” are manufactured through the abuse of unseen or under-appreciated liberties formerly enjoyed, or otherwise temporarily dismissed or overlooked, by others who are then made slaves to the incumbent system, which extols its record of virtuousness in the face of boundless inequity. 

Whether a function of biology, geography or some other inherent factor, a shrewd politician will brazenly exploit it within any democracy, at whatever expense to reason, wealth or freedom. 

And while a select segment of society may, in fact, gain access to the process, a select form of so-called political freedom, whether by suffrage or some lucrative short-term advantages, the net effect invariably amounts to a total loss of absolute freedom, whereby government syphons power from its constituency through the illusion of majesty and the unassailable support of its military, law enforcement and the spoken majority to boot. 

While stylized political freedom, or political participation, is easier to visualize and, specifically due to this quality, more tantalizing for the average voter, it is incumbent upon every voter and every defender of freedom to remain vigilant of this important distinction. 

As twentieth-century essayist Edward Abbey cautioned, “A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.”

In this fight, the patriot must also be ready to identify his government's tools, of which democracy is possibly the most disingenuous and insidious of them all.

As President John Adams warned, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would