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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


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: 19255
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 # 73.

#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  


#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  


#70. To: Vicomte13 (#69)

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.

Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 5, pp. 518, 529-30, 535-36.

Annual Message to Congress

[518]

December 1, 1862

Fellow-citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

* * *

[529]

In this view, I recommend the adoption of the following resolution and articles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States:

[530]

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following articles be proposed to the legislatures (or conventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles when ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures (or conventions) to be valid as part or parts of the said Constitution, viz:

“Article —.

“Every State, wherein slavery now exists, which shall abolish the same therein, at any time, or times, before the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:

“The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State, bonds of the United States, bearing interest at the rate of — per cent, per annum, to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of for each slave shown to have been therein, by the eig[h]th census of the United States, said bonds to be delivered to such State by instalments, or in one parcel, at the completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have been gradual, or at one time, within such State; and interest shall begin to run upon any such bond, only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid, and afterwards reintroducing or tolerating slavery therein, shall refund to the United States the bonds so received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon.

“Article —.

“All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances of the war, at any time before the end of the rebellion, shall be forever free; but all owners of such, who shall not have been disloyal, shall be compensated for them, at the same rates as is provided for States adopting abolishment of slavery, but in such way, that no slave shall be twice accounted for.

“Article —.

“Congress may appropriate money, and otherwise provide, for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States.”

* * *

[535]

But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth, and cover the whole land?

[536]

And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?

* * *

The plan is proposed as permanent constitutional law. It cannot become such without the concurrence of, first, two-thirds of Congress, and, afterwards, three-fourths of the States. The requisite three-fourths of the States will necessarily include seven of the Slave states. Their concurrence, if obtained, will give assurance of their severally adopting emancipation, at no very distant day, upon the new constitutional terms. This assurance would end the struggle now, and save the Union forever.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24   15:50:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: nolu chan (#70)

And, in any event, cannot the north decide for itself, whether to receive them?

No, the "North" cannot decide any such thing. All men are created equal, and all Americans have the right to live ANYWHERE without their neighbors permission or by-your-leave. And if some neighbors decide to put on sheets and ride horses and brandish torches by night to enforce a bogus claim of the right to decide who their neighbors shall be, then that is why we have an army and cavalry: to put such violent insurrectionists, murders and deprivers of the rights of other men to the sword and to the bullet, and to continue to do so until the remainder submit and cease to commit such crimes, or until they are all dead and no such minds continue to draw breath.

No quarter for oppression. No mercy for slavers. No refuge for those who would refuse to recognize equal rights.

Those who insist that they have the right to oppress others because of their skin color will never be happy. Somebody must be oppressed, either the blacks, to please them, or them, to stand for the principle of equality. The principle of equality is just and true, and therefore those who stand against it must be forced to submit to it. If they submit with quiet grumbling but do nothing, they shall be left in peace to answer to God. But if they raise a sword, they must be put down by the sword. Do that enough, and the rest will submit. Or they will all die. Either way, we will be rid of them.

Equality before the law is not optional. Those who refuse to accept it have no place in this society other than as sullen defeated minorities. If they rebel in force, they die. There is no other way.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-03-24   16:23:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 73.

#75. To: Vicomte13 (#73)

No, the "North" cannot decide any such thing.

The could and they did. It is not as if it was done is some secret codicil known only to Dean Wormer. For example, Lincoln’s Illinois did it in their Constitution.

Illinois Constitution of 1848

Superseded by Constitution of 1870, ratified July 2, 1870

ARTICLE XIII.

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

That the general, great, and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, we declare:

Section 1. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, and of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

Sec. 2. That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness.

Sec. 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any min­istry, against his consent; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

Sec. 4. That no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under this State.

Sec. 5. That all elections shall be free and equal.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

- - - - -

ARTICLE XIV.

PERSONS OF COLOR

The general assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State, for the purpose of setting them free.

[...]

nolu chan  posted on  2015-03-24 16:46:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 73.

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