Against Democracy
by Pieter J. Friedrich
8/26/03

No one has a right to use the state's power of the sword to force me to pay for the education of their children.

That's a simple and rather obviously true statement. But many people disagree with me.

For instance, a person with whom I debated the legitimacy of state-run schools disagreed with me. I pointed out that, as a homeschooler, I had no use for public schools. He replied that until the present date, he had not driven a car, yet he was still required to pay road taxes. Also, said my verbal opponent, he did not own a boat and he had not been on the Ohio River (which was, apparently, near his place of residence) for more than a decade, yet he was still required to pay taxes to fund the Coast Guard.

This person went on to list two or three more things which he did not enjoy funding, but was still required to pay taxes for, and then he let his argument rest with the words, "The state has the right to tax you for just about anything, so long as it doesn't blatantly...[violate] the major amendments to the Constitution."

The entirety of this person's argument rested on the notion that the state taxes us to fund countless items we don't need or want and so it must therefore be morally correct for the state to tax us to pay for schools that we don't use or want.

It's time to pause and ponder the proper role of government. Just because the state taxes me to pay for a road I don't use doesn't mean they should. If I want a road near me I will gladly pay for it. But the state has no right to decide that I need, or want, a road, and to then tax me and all my neighbors to pay for it. Ideally, I believe people should get together, hash things out, come up with a solution to their problems, and then agree to both chip in a bit of cash to pay for that solution.

Of course, the same argument holds true for all the other "services" the state provides, including public schools.

What does all this have to do with democracy?

Well, my debate opponent said it wouldn't work for people to work things out together and come up with their own solutions to problems like roads. It would work better, he believed, if you, me, and him got together, hashed things out to the point where you and him agreed on a solution, and then taxed me to pay for your solution.

He called his idea "democracy." The problem is, democracy doesn't work.

In fact, democracy is conducive to laziness. Imagine we gather ten people, six of whom are allergic to work. These ten elect representatives, who are then given the power to tax. The majority of voters have an aversion to work and really don't feel like providing for themselves, so they demand the legislators tax me and the other three members of the minority. The taxes will be used to pay for services the lazy guys want. Of course, those representatives, like all politicians, want to stay in power, so they legislate according to the desires of the majority. The six lazy guys indirectly rule the four regular guys.

As the old saying goes, democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Or, in the above illustration, 6 wolves and 4 sheep. In a democracy, the sheep always lose.

I oppose democracy.

My debate opponent's brilliant final counter to my argument was that I obviously hated America. Everybody knows the Founding Fathers created the government of this nation as an experiment in democracy - or did they? Remember, it was the undeniably democratic French who chopped each other's heads off two hundred years ago.

I conceded that I hated America, but tempered that concession by saying that if I hated America, then so also did the Founders. Indeed, according to my opponent's logic, the Founding Fathers were some of the foremost anti-Americans, for they feared democracy and spoke against it passionately.

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, said, "The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

James Madison, fourth President of the United States, a signer of the Constitution, and the chief author of the Constitution, said, "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."

Gouverneur Morris, who led the committee that produced the final draft of the Constitution, said, "We have seen the tumult of democracy terminate - as [it has] everywhere terminated, in despotism - Democracy! savage and wild. Thou who wouldst bring down the virtuous and wise to the level of folly and guilt."

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, called a "simple democracy...one of the greatest of evils."

The Electoral College was established by the Founders precisely because they opposed democracy and supported a constitutional republican government. In his RestoringAmerica.org article "Republic vs. Democracy," Joseph Larson says, "Our Founding Fathers gave us an Electoral College because we are a Republic...not a democracy. The Electoral College follows the principle of elected representation. It was designed to further promote the ideals of balance, and of separation of powers. It gives the smaller States true representation in a fair and just manner by allowing their voices (as well as rural America) to be heard. It prevents the control of the Nation by highly populated urban centers, thus reducing the risk of elections being bought or won by fraud where power could be consolidated."

I side with the Founders in opposing democracy.

Today, however, presidents send troops abroad to spread "democracy." President George W. Bush himself has said that he desires to see the nation of Iraq "moving toward democracy and living in freedom."

Perhaps I am quibbling over semantics when I challenge people's advocacy of democracy or President Bush's desire to spread democracy. I doubt it, though. Words mean something, and even today, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines democracy as "majority rule."

In his "Republic vs. Democracy" article found on WallBuilders.com, historian David Barton says that traditionally the definition of democracy has been a government which "operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A democracy is rule by majority feeling (what the Founding Fathers described as 'mobocracy'). Example: in a democracy, if a majority of the people decides that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime."

Barton also defines a republic, saying it is "where the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nationƒa republic is rule by law. Our republic is a form of government where power is separated, [our Founding Fathers knew that people are basically weak, sinful and corruptible, (Jeremiah 17:9)], pitting men against each other, making it difficult to pass laws and make changes."

Today our nation is losing the form of a republic, and becoming increasingly more democratic. Needless to say, this is dangerous. Indeed, one might posit that of democracy and communism, democracy is the more dangerous of the two, for democracy at least purports to allow such inherent rights as private property ownership and the right to life, yet it neglects to make it clear that only a majority vote stands between one's inalienable rights and the loss of one's rights.

Democracy is dangerous. That's why I oppose it.