[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"‘We Are Not the Crazy Ones’: AOC Protests Too Much"

"Rep. Comer to Newsmax: No Evidence Biden Approved Autopen Use"

"Donald Trump Has Broken the Progressive Ratchet"

"America Must Slash Red Tape to Make Nuclear Power Great Again!!"

"Why the DemocRATZ Activist Class Couldn’t Celebrate the Cease-Fire They Demanded"

Antifa Calls for CIVIL WAR!

British Police Make an Arrest...of a White Child Fishing in the Thames

"Sanctuary" Horde ASSAULTS Chicago... ELITE Marines SMASH Illegals Without Mercy

Trump hosts roundtable on ANTIFA

What's happening in Britain. Is happening in Ireland. The whole of Western Europe.

"The One About the Illegal Immigrant School Superintendent"

CouldnÂ’t believe he let me pet him at the end (Rhino)

Cops Go HANDS ON For Speaking At Meeting!

POWERFUL: Charlie Kirk's final speech delivered in South Korea 9/6/25

2026 in Bible Prophecy

2.4 Billion exposed to excessive heat

🔴 LIVE CHICAGO PORTLAND ICE IMMIGRATION DETENTION CENTER 24/7 PROTEST 9/28/2025

Young Conservative Proves Leftist Protesters Wrong

England is on the Brink of Civil War!

Charlie Kirk Shocks Florida State University With The TRUTH

IRL Confronting Protesters Outside UN Trump Meeting

The UK Revolution Has Started... Brit's Want Their Country Back

Inside Paris Dangerous ANTIFA Riots

Rioters STORM Chicago ICE HQ... "Deportation Unit" SCRAPES Invaders Off The Sidewalk

She Decoded A Specific Part In The Bible

Muslim College Student DUMBFOUNDED as Charlie Kirk Lists The Facts About Hamas

Charlie Kirk EVISCERATES Black Students After They OPENLY Support “Anti-White Racism” HEATED DEBATE

"Trump Rips U.N. as Useless During General Assembly Address: ‘Empty Words’"

Charlie Kirk VS the Wokies at University of Tennessee

Charlie Kirk Takes on 3 Professors & a Teacher

British leftist student tells Charlie Kirk facts are unfair

The 2 Billion View Video: Charlie Kirk's Most Viewed Clips of 2024

Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization.

The Greatness of Charlie Kirk: An Eyewitness Account of His Life and Martyrdom

Charlie Kirk Takes on Army of Libs at California's UCR

DR. ALVEDA KING: REST IN PEACE CHARLIE KIRK

Steven Bonnell wants to murder Americans he disagrees with

What the fagots LGBTQ really means

I watched Charlie Kirk get assassinated. This is my experience.

Elon Musk Delivers Stunning Remarks At Historic UK March (Tommy Robinson)

"Transcript: Mrs. Erika Kirk Delivers Public Address: ‘His Movement Will Go On’"

"Victor Davis Hanson to Newsmax: Kirk Slaying Crosses Rubicon"

Rest In Peace Charlie Kirk

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee

Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time!

Ok this is Funny

Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool

THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA

THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN

John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Walter E. Williams --- What's Gone Wrong With Democracy
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 23, 2015
Author: Walter E. Williams
Post Date: 2015-03-23 14:35:49 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 22424
Comments: 96

Walter E. Williams

What's Gone Wrong With Democracy?

The Economist magazine recently published "What's gone wrong with Democracy ... and what can be done to revive it?" The suggestion is that democracy is some kind of ideal for organizing human conduct. That's a popular misconception.

The ideal way to organize human conduct is to create a system that maximizes personal liberty for all. Liberty and democracy are not synonymous and most often are opposites. In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison explained, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." Democracy and majority rule confer an aura of legitimacy and respectability on acts that would otherwise be deemed tyrannical.

Let's look at majority rule, as a decision-making tool, and ask ourselves how many of our life choices we would like settled by majority rule. Would you want the kind of car you own to be decided through a democratic process, or would you prefer purchasing any car you please? Ask that same question about decisions such as where you shall live, what clothes you purchase, what food you eat, what entertainment you enjoy and what wines you drink. I'm sure that if anyone suggested that these choices be subject to a democratic process, we would deem it tyranny.

Our Founders saw democracy as a variant of tyranny. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, "...that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Alexander Hamilton said, "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."

By the way, the word democracy appears in none of our founding documents.

The Founders of our nation recognized that we need government, but because the essence of government is force, and force is evil, government should be as small as possible. The Founders intended for us to have a limited republican form of government where human rights precede government and there is rule of law. Citizens, as well as government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society only to protect its citizens against force and fraud, but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. By contrast, in a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government deems it to be. Rights may be granted or taken away.

Alert to the dangers of majority rule, the Constitution's framers inserted several anti-majority rules. In order to amend the Constitution, it requires a two-thirds vote of both houses, or two-thirds of state legislatures to propose an amendment, and it requires three-fourths of state legislatures for ratification. Election of the president is not done by a majority popular vote, but by the Electoral College.

Part of the reason for having two houses of Congress is that it places an obstacle to majority rule. Fifty-one senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators. The Constitution gives the president a veto to thwart the power of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override the president's veto.

If you don't have time to examine our founding documents, just ask yourself: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag read to the democracy, or to the republic, for which it stands? Or, did Julia Ward Howe make a mistake in titling her Civil War song "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"? Should it have been "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. To find out more about Walter E. Williams and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2015 CREATORS.COM

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

#10. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)

Ok. So, Walter Williams has written an article against democracy. He spends a lot of time telling us how much the Founders detested democracy. That's swell.

They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population). Their system lasted for 72 years, then exploded in an orgy of blood.

The Founders' model was not a success, because they did not create a free country.

The model that came out of the "reset" of the 1860s was a more centralized oligarchy. And it doesn't work either.

So, the Founder's hated democracy and monarchy. They liked republics, so they founded one. It failed within a decade and was replaced by another one, which failed in three generations. We're in the fourth or fifth generation since the Civil War, and our current republic is falling apart as well.

What can we take from this all? Democracy doesn't work. Monarchy doesn't work. Republics don't work. Nothing works for very long.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-23   15:20:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#10)

"They created a restricted-franchise republic that preserved special rights for a certain class (which completely erased the rights of a quarter of the population)."

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people. They were property. Just sayin' how it was.

Full rights were extended to those with the most to lose -- wealthy, adult, white males with property. Who in their right mind would allow women, the poor, and the uneducated to vote?

The Founders were wrong? Look around your "enlightened" society where everyone votes and tell me it's working.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-23   18:30:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#17)

"Population" refers to people. Slaves weren't people.

Art. 1, Sec. 2, Cl. 3:

Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The slaves were considered persons. The interest held in a slave was legaly considered a property interest, but that did not transform slaves into non-persons. They were each counted as one complete person in the census. By unanimous agreement of the States, for representation purposes in the Congress, only 60% of the aggregate of such persons was counted.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-23   20:55:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: nolu chan (#33)

"The slaves were considered persons."

Only for the apportionment of representatives and direct taxes.

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   10:54:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: misterwhite (#49)

And, technically, they were "other persons". They had no more rights than a table or chair.

Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed. If it would not peaceful cede it power and stop committing evil, it had to be uprooted by force. And it was.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   11:31:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Vicomte13 (#52)

"Which is why that system and its culture had to be destroyed."

The plan was to free the slaves and deport them to Liberia, an idea Lincoln supported. He died before he had a chance to implement it.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   11:56:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#53)

The plan was to free the slaves and deport them to Liberia, an idea Lincoln supported. He died before he had a chance to implement it.

Deportation to Liberia was physically impossible as was explained to Lincoln. The plan was Central and South America and the islands.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24   13:30:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: nolu chan (#57)

Deportation to Liberia was physically impossible as was explained to Lincoln. The plan was Central and South America and the islands.

The plan was wicked. Civil war was a better option.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   13:37:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Vicomte13 (#59)

The plan was wicked. Civil war was a better option.

The deportation plan did not work well but Lincoln worked on it throughout the Civil War. Lincoln's goal, repeated over and over in his own words, was to produce an all White America.

The time Lincoln met with the first delegation of Blacks invited to the White House is oft mentioned. Less often mentioned is what Lincoln said to the delegation. They were not wildly enthusiastic.

Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5, pp. 370-71

Address on Colonization to a Deputation of Negroes [1]

August 14, 1862

This afternoon the President of the United States gave audience to a Committee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced [371] by the Rev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration.

* * *

The President—Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong [372] inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Go where you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you.

I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact, about which we all think and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition, owing to the existence of the two races on this continent. I need not recount to you the effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of Slavery. I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our present condition—the country engaged in war!—our white men cutting one another's throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of Slavery and the colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.

It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are free men among you, who even if they could better their condition are not as much inclined to go out of the country as those, who being slaves could obtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believe you can live in Washington or elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life [as easily], perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and hence you may come to the conclusion that you have nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of the case.

* * *

The first group of Blacks to visit the White House were shown in by the Rev. James Mitchell who provided his own sales pitch in addition to having Lincoln telling them that their belief that they could live anywhere in the U.S. was an extremely selfish view.

Mitchell was a longtime friend of Lincoln from the American Colonization Society, of which Lincoln had been an official in Illinois. Mitchell wrote a long letter to Lincoln and was hired as Lincoln's Commissioner of Emigration. Black Emigration. The letter written by Mitchell was provided to the Government Printing Office and published as a pamphlet (at taxpayer expense). Mitchell makes David Duke look like a moderate.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24   14:21:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 67.

#69. To: nolu chan (#67)

Lincoln had some bad ideas. And he didn't get to implement them so they're moot.

The Blacks were right: they had the right to live as free men, with full voting and property rights, anywhere in the USA. The freed blacks also had the right to full compensation for a lifetime of slavery, to be paid primarily by expropriation of the slaveholder and overseer class, but also out of the treasury, for the US government itself aided and abetted slavery and maintained its legitimacy - and enforced the Fugitive Slave Act.

White crapweasels kept trying to find ways to weasel out of having to live with blacks, having to share power, and have to pay compensation. They have failed in this regard again and again, and will continue to. The overhang of segregation remains: there are still tens of millions of people alive who directly experienced it, and millions more who have been very deeply affected by its noxious effects. The restructuring of the country to end the differential has continued apace and will continue to for a generation or two more. Then it will be done.

It's like the reparations to Jews for World War II atrocities. That still continues, to an extent. Two generations hence, maximum, it will be done, for there will be no living memory.

The oppression of the Blacks did not end in 1865. It did not formally, legally end until the late 1960s.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24 14:58:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 67.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com