This post is in response to an "assignment" from a reader. JB, I hope this meets your expectations.
The ideals of democracy and freedom have been linked by thinkers for thousands of years. It was Aristotle who said, "The basis of a democratic state is liberty." From then until now, politicians have been echoing that sentiment to the point that the two entities are treated like synonyms. Installing a democracy in Iraq, for example, means "liberating" its people. But this conceptual fusion results directly from a collective ignorance of the true meanings.
When the founders spoke and wrote of freedom, it wasn't the perverse way the word is used today, dealing in entitlements. It was in the Lockean sense: the natural rights to life, liberty and property. No one has the right to endanger your health, restrict your actions or steal or alter your possessions.
And a democracy is not, as it is commonly understood, a government of, by and for the people. It isn't a form of governance in which all voices are heard and heeded. Democracy means the majority rules, and it is the voices of the majority that are heard and heeded. Pay no attention to the "restrictions" on majority rule like a Constitution. Even if those in the federal government had faithfully obeyed the document, it takes only a (specific type of) majority to change what it dictates.
Plain and simple, the two concepts have nothing to do with one another. Freedom means no one can take my life. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to do. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to own. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means individualism, personal rights. Democracy means collectivism, might makes right. Freedom means day. Democracy means night.
Somewhere between Aristotle and now, a group of men knew these definitions. We may do well--as a nation, as a race, as a global community--to remember them.
The ideals of democracy and freedom have been linked by thinkers for thousands of years. It was Aristotle who said, "The basis of a democratic state is liberty." From then until now, politicians have been echoing that sentiment to the point that the two entities are treated like synonyms. Installing a democracy in Iraq, for example, means "liberating" its people. But this conceptual fusion results directly from a collective ignorance of the true meanings.
When the founders spoke and wrote of freedom, it wasn't the perverse way the word is used today, dealing in entitlements. It was in the Lockean sense: the natural rights to life, liberty and property. No one has the right to endanger your health, restrict your actions or steal or alter your possessions.
And a democracy is not, as it is commonly understood, a government of, by and for the people. It isn't a form of governance in which all voices are heard and heeded. Democracy means the majority rules, and it is the voices of the majority that are heard and heeded. Pay no attention to the "restrictions" on majority rule like a Constitution. Even if those in the federal government had faithfully obeyed the document, it takes only a (specific type of) majority to change what it dictates.
Plain and simple, the two concepts have nothing to do with one another. Freedom means no one can take my life. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to do. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means no one can tell me what to own. Democracy means it's okay if the majority consents. Freedom means individualism, personal rights. Democracy means collectivism, might makes right. Freedom means day. Democracy means night.
Somewhere between Aristotle and now, a group of men knew these definitions. We may do well--as a nation, as a race, as a global community--to remember them.
A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.-James Madison-Thomas Jefferson
Mr. Richman,
Well done, sir. I am pleased to see your writing skills displayed in all their glory. The extra effort is most appreciated and forms the basis for why your piece is interesting. I was beginning to be concerned in a few of your previous pieces because your focus seemed to be going in ten different directions. I'm glad that I was wrong. It's infinitely better to write in depth about a single topic than to present a soliloquy of random thoughts.
Having said that, I have a modest suggestion for your consideration. It was a slap in the face to read your fourth paragraph and I was taken back by it. I know well that it's very tempting at times to oversimplify complicated concepts to prove a point. However, when you do that, you draw an imaginary line that says, "Everything on this side of the line is good and everything on that side is bad." For instance, " Freedom means individualism, personal rights. Democracy means collectivism, might makes right." Really??? So, as an example of "might makes right" we can look to North Korea and China as examples of democracy?
The point I seem to be awkwardly making is that there are many shades of gray between freedom and democracy. They're like the dancers in "Dancing with the Stars" in that sometimes they dance separately and sometimes together, but never are they dancing alone. To denigrate these concepts to black or white issues is to miss how they complement each other.
Once again, Mr. Richman, your piece was thoughtful and provocative. Just the thing to spice up my bedtime snack of milk and cookies. Keep up the good work!
Respectfully,
JB