Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Democracy: Democracy And Objectivism

Rate this topic


rgargan

Recommended Posts

I don't think that a democracy (or a constitutional republic) is at all necessary; it would certainly be possible for other forms of government such as monarchy or aristocracy to govern a laissez faire society, and as long as they did not step outside their jurisdiction,  I would not have a problem with this.

Aristocracy and monarchy are forms of collectivism.

Aristocracy: a governing body or upper class usually made up of an hereditary nobility

Monarchy: a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

Aristocrats and monarchs attain their status, wealth and power through heredity--not by merit through individual achievement. They often have special privilages granted to them by law--"rights" ordinary citizens don't; and they live in opulence off the taxes paid by ordinary citizens.

How you think this can be compatible with laissez-faire capitalism is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aristocracy and monarchy are forms of collectivism

Aristocracy:  a governing body or upper class usually made up of an hereditary nobility

Monarchy:  a government having an hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers varying from nominal to absolute

There's no reason why aristocracy has to be hereditary; youre thinking of the term in a popular sense rather than using its actual definition within political science. Aristocracy simply refers to government by a 'ruling class', regardless of how they were selected (a "meritocracy" would be aristocratic by definition - indeed the word aristocracy translates literally into Greek as "rule of the best"). Likewise, a monarchy doesn't impliy hereditary either - its just a state which is governed by a lone figure with ultimate power.

In any case, even if the aristocrats/monarch _were_ to be selected by hereditary, I dont think that would automatically be a problem as such. Remember, we arent talking about making them 'absolute' rulers in the sense that the Kings/Queens of England have been absolute - they would have no more powers than a representitive government controlled by the same constitution; ie their jurisdiction would be restricted to functions which directly involve the protection of rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spearmint, rule by the "best" or monarchy might be viable options -- if you totally ignore the entire history of human governance of society.

aynfan: America didn't start calling herself a democracy until FDR. Even when I was growing up (born in 47), I almost always heard the country referred to as a Republic. It was during the 60's and 70's that the term was switched to the point that, these days, the word Republic is so rarely used as to be nonexistent. It became an unsuitable referent to the purposes of the statists who became politically active during that time. You know, the same ones who insisted that words had no meaning?

As a side note, another phrase began to disappear at the same time: "Have a prosperous New Year." The concept of prospering became almost tabu, related as it is to those greedy bastards, the businessmen.

It is also the time period when manners went out the window for a large segment of the population, along with the personal censorship of the use of foul language in public.

All of these things are of a piece. The degeneration of language and money are two prerequisites for the decline and fall of a civilization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And rule by Republic might seem a good idea if you ignore the last 200 years of Western civilization.

Rule by Republic seems a good idea if you DON'T ignore the last 200 years of Western civilization.

The USA may not be perfect, but it is definitely THE BEST that the human race has been able to achieve in its entire history anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spearmint: Because there were flaws in the original Republican constitutional body, you would throw out the baby with the bath water, so to speak? AND, replace it with a system that history has shown to be more flawed?

Wouldn't it be easier to correct the mistakes in the better system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, even if the aristocrats/monarch _were_ to be selected by hereditary, I dont think that would automatically be a problem as such. Remember, we arent talking about making them 'absolute' rulers in the sense that the Kings/Queens of England have been absolute - they would have no more powers than a representitive government controlled by the same constitution; ie their jurisdiction would be restricted to functions which directly involve the protection of rights.

Hereditary selection of a government official would be a problem as such, for it implies that that official is fit to govern by birthright, that it is his genes, not his self-made character, that got him qualified. A government that respects and protects the rights of the individual (every individual) cannot consistently do so with a hereditary ruling body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no its not a double edged sword. God is a reflection of our roots, just the same as we have roots in a republic. At the time of our founding christianity was the prominent religion and was therefore included in just about every aspect of life, including our pledge of allegiance. God is a belief and as people believe it less it will disappear, however our republic was a way of life and government that should stay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time of our founding christianity was the prominent religion and was therefore included in just about every aspect of life, including our pledge of allegiance.

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aynfan,

if your intention was to show me that God was not popular during the time of our founding, then you might want to quote more than just one person. If that wasnt your intention, then why did you give me those quotes? Please would you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another little fact about our history: The "under God" in the pledge was added in early 1950's (1954, I think) -- during my lifetime. When I first learned the pledge, it did not contain that phrase. It was added as a response to communism's fundamental atheism, to differentiate between the godless hordes and Americans. It was a political ploy made by inferior minds in answer to something which was nonessential, but easily exploited for propaganda, about communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no its not a double edged sword. God is a reflection of our roots, just the same as we have roots in a republic. At the time of our founding christianity was the prominent religion and was therefore included in just about every aspect of life, including our pledge of allegiance. God is a belief and as people believe it less it will disappear, however our republic was a way of life and government that should stay.

For that matter, we have historical roots in a monarchy. That does not validate the idea of having America be a monarchy. Citing the Plege of Allegiance (which btw is not a fundamental document of the US government, and was written in 1892 by a Christian Socialist minister -- without the god nonsense which was added in 1954) is not at all valid as an argument for what the country is or was.

If you want to argue that the US is a republic, you ought to argue from relevant facts -- what is a republic, what distinguishing characteristics does it have, what are you trying to distinguish it from, and what characteristics does the US government have? What is an example of a "democracy"? What are examples of "monarchy" -- Brunei, presumably, but what about England or Norway? How exactly does the government of the US differ from the government of Norway, or France (which has no king)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your intention was to show me that God was not popular during the time of our founding, then you might want to quote more than just one person.

Although Jefferson is one of the most important figures in the founding of America, his views of religion were by no means his alone. See The Godless Constitution for a brief but conclusive demonstration of America's secular roots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know of anyone who would argue that religion was not popular at the time of the revolution. That isn't the question.

The pertinent point to make was that most of the Founder's recognized the folly of tying religion to politics, even those who were overtly religious in their private lives. Even they understood the danger of giving the government power over ideas, even religious ones. Too many of the early colonizers of this country were fleeing religious persecution and knew first hand what resulted when the governing power attempted to dictate conscience. Of course, this didn't stop some of them from trying to do the same thing, and the recognition of that fact was what prompted the Founders to put a secular government in place. Read Jefferson's work on the Virginia Constitution, which was the first to explicitly separate church and state.

If anyone wants to understand what thinking went into the writing of the constitution, I suggest they read the Federalist Papers, as well as the various pertinent documents of Jefferson and Adams. (One thing you will notice right off if the much higher level of debate than if offered by anyone arguing for religion today. These men may have had faulty premises, but they were far more philosophical in their outlook than we see in political discussions today.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the time of our founding christianity was the prominent religion and was therefore included in just about every aspect of life, including our pledge of allegiance.

Actually, "under God" was not in our pledge of allegiance "at the time of our founding." It was added in the 1950's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule by Republic seems a good idea if you DON'T ignore the last 200 years of Western civilization.

The USA may not be perfect, but it is definitely THE BEST that the human race has been able to achieve in its entire history anywhere.

If true, I'd attribute this largely to the fact that it was founded upon the notion of human rights, rather than as a direct result of the structure of government (ie Constitutional Republic). The key question here is that, assuming we are given a country that has a clear concept of both rights and things as they should be, what form of government is best for maintaining this and preventing the country from degenerating into statism? In this regard, America has failed completely and utterly. Maybe this is partly due to the form of government it used - it might be that an aristocratic government would be more effective at maintaining the status quo than a republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If true, I'd attribute this largely to the fact that it was founded upon the notion of human rights, rather than as a direct result of the structure of government (ie Constitutional Republic). The key question here is that, assuming we are given a country that has a clear concept of both rights and things as they should be, what form of government is best for maintaining this and preventing the country from degenerating into statism? In this regard, America has failed completely and utterly. Maybe this is partly due to the form of government it used - it might be that an aristocratic government would be more effective at maintaining the status quo than a republic.

The structure of government was designed with the individual's rights in mind. How else would you explain the division, limitation, and decentralization of government powers? How would you explain the concept of a written constitution meant to define and delimit the structure and powers of government?

And considering how quickly other countries degenerate to statism and despotism (usually just a decade or so), I would say that since 1789 up to now, the US has succeeded spectacularly in protecting most individual rights.

215 years of relative freedom is an unprecedented achievement compared to any country and time period.

The "complete and utter failure" you claim is rather ignorant of modern history, for the essential structure of the US government has remained intact for the past 200 years. The US is still, at its base, a capitalist country. It is hampered by many controls and regulations, but it is not "statist" in the sense that North Korea, Cuba and China are statists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spearmint, in answer to your question about the best form of government remember that the founders agonized over this issue and concluded it was a republican form. I agree with Rexton that it has not been a failure. the forces of statism have gathered, as they have throughtout history, but like jackels, they feast at the suffrance of the lions existing on the abundance provided by the effort of those noble beasts.

Remember what Franklin said when asked what form of government the founders had given us, "a Republic", he replied, "if you can keep it". That, in a nutshell, is the secret of our success and the story of our failure. The founders picked the right system, but the citizenry did not keep its part of the bargain. Does government transform society or is it society that transforms government? When Progressives and others lovers of the collective chide government for its inability to transform society or campaign for abstractions such as universal peace, are they asking the impossible?

Plato is quoted as saying, "Good people need no laws to act responsibly, and bad people find a way around the laws." Benjamin Franklin addressed the issue by saying, “As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Theodore Roosevelt said, “No prosperity and no glory can save a nation that is rotten at heart,” and Judge Learned Hand offered: “Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.”

James Madison cautioned, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other", and Thomas Jefferson warned, "Peace, prosperity, liberty and morals have an intimate connection."

The consensus is that for a nation to be a free and virtuous, the citizenry must manifest those qualities first. The whole is equal to, but never greater than the sum of its parts. The notion that we can be better collectively than as individuals is a fallacy. Morality begins with the individual and morality is a reflection of how we are governed.

This theme was most clearly enunciated by Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian, who in the 19th century concluded that, "America is great because America is good. When America ceases to be good, it shall cease to be great." De Tocqueville wrote at length about Americans and liberty, and was impressed with our predilection for keeping government at bay while happily pursuing our personal interests. He concluded that this made for a harmonious and industrious society where citizens were afforded the opportunity to succeed to the extent ambition inspired them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...