[Democracies
that attempt to redistribute wealth, or in any other way confiscate
private property without just compensation, from a human rights
perspective, have no more legitimacy than a military coup]
Is it right for a majority to oppress a minority? That word 'oppress' kind of makes the answer obvious. Thus a democracy can be wrong, but can we always agree on what that word means, or more to the point what is or isn't oppression? I think if we're honest with ourselves we can find at least a few examples of what some people would call oppression others wouldn't. So how do we know when a majority is oppressing a minority, and how can we set up a government so that it is least likely to oppress?
The founders of the United States government were well aware of this dilemma. It was never their intent for the nation to be ruled by the whims of a majority. The constitution was written to ensure that no potential source of power in this country would be able to rule over the rest. Governance would be a matter of doing the least possible to get the job done.
More to my point, the role of democratic processes in our country was meant not to empower government but to restrain it. Likewise the constitution was meant to prevent democratic processes from being used to impose the will of some majority over some innocent minority.
Anyone who wishes to argue the contrary, that our government was designed to get a lot done and not just the minimal amount necessary for us to be a stable nation, they have a huge burden of proof to satisfy. It is intuitively obvious both from the design of our government and from reading the founders notes on the subject, that our government was intended to be minimal so as to maximize individual liberty and best preserve individual dignity.
And, and that's a big 'and', it was the belief of our founders that there is no virtue in a government empowered by and fully obedient to the majority of its people.
James Madison wrote, "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents."
Translated into today's terms, democracy is illegitimate if it is used to redistribute wealth or in any other way deny individuals of their private rights such as life and property.
Does this justify the overthrow of democratically elected governments through military or other force? No it doesn't, but it can put such actions on a moral par with the democratic processes they may circumvent.
Democracies that attempt to redistribute wealth, or in any other way confiscate private property without just compensation, from a human rights perspective, have no more legitimacy than a military coup. And if that coup sets out to and succeeds at restoring a democratically and constitutionally limited government, that coup gains the legitimacy it and the democracy it overthrew both lacked.
Viva libertad
Is it right for a majority to oppress a minority? That word 'oppress' kind of makes the answer obvious. Thus a democracy can be wrong, but can we always agree on what that word means, or more to the point what is or isn't oppression? I think if we're honest with ourselves we can find at least a few examples of what some people would call oppression others wouldn't. So how do we know when a majority is oppressing a minority, and how can we set up a government so that it is least likely to oppress?
The founders of the United States government were well aware of this dilemma. It was never their intent for the nation to be ruled by the whims of a majority. The constitution was written to ensure that no potential source of power in this country would be able to rule over the rest. Governance would be a matter of doing the least possible to get the job done.
More to my point, the role of democratic processes in our country was meant not to empower government but to restrain it. Likewise the constitution was meant to prevent democratic processes from being used to impose the will of some majority over some innocent minority.
Anyone who wishes to argue the contrary, that our government was designed to get a lot done and not just the minimal amount necessary for us to be a stable nation, they have a huge burden of proof to satisfy. It is intuitively obvious both from the design of our government and from reading the founders notes on the subject, that our government was intended to be minimal so as to maximize individual liberty and best preserve individual dignity.
And, and that's a big 'and', it was the belief of our founders that there is no virtue in a government empowered by and fully obedient to the majority of its people.
James Madison wrote, "Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents."
Translated into today's terms, democracy is illegitimate if it is used to redistribute wealth or in any other way deny individuals of their private rights such as life and property.
Does this justify the overthrow of democratically elected governments through military or other force? No it doesn't, but it can put such actions on a moral par with the democratic processes they may circumvent.
Democracies that attempt to redistribute wealth, or in any other way confiscate private property without just compensation, from a human rights perspective, have no more legitimacy than a military coup. And if that coup sets out to and succeeds at restoring a democratically and constitutionally limited government, that coup gains the legitimacy it and the democracy it overthrew both lacked.
Viva libertad
No comments:
Post a Comment