All-in-all, I remain unconvinced that republicanism offers any real advantages over democracy when it comes to the concerns of libertarians and Objectivists, and would indeed argue that certain systems of democracy (through decentralization of power and abolition of instruments of federal force), can plausibly be said to offer distinct theoretical advantages.
Why would the abolition of instruments of federal force be a theoretical advantage? The concerns of libertarians and Objectivists are not the same.
It’s not clear to me what this means. I don’t think you mean that the only form of government which is consistent with Objectivism is one where it would be logically (or nomologically) impossible for that government to ever commit a rights violation.
No, this is a statement about “the system”, the government. Only a system of government which necessarily respects rights is a system of government that is consistent with Objectivism. Given such a system, violation of rights is possible because an individual can violate someone’s rights; it’s not the system of government that does.
If you just mean that it is required that the system itself not have rights violations built into the concept as a matter of logical necessity, then I think democracy can get a pass on that one.
It means that the possibility is structurally excluded. It is not the case that rights-violation is structurally impossible in a democratically-elected system, as in the case of Nazi Germany. Or the contemporary US.
Statements about “democracy” (etc.) involve quantification. So, democracy is all and only those systems of government where ___ (say it however you want). Objectivism is all and only those systems of government where individual rights are respected. Many things which are democracy logically contradict Objectivism. Democracy would be consistent with Objectivism if for all things that are a democratic government, they can also be Objectivist government. And that is clearly not the case. There is not complete inconsistency, since some democratic systems are also Objectivist; whereas the intersection of Objectivist government and fascist government is complete. But any contradiction is still a contradiction, and consistency requires the absence of contradiction.
There is not complete inconsistency, since some democratic systems are also Objectivist
O.K. “Democracy,” in the sense I am using the word, would not include Nazi Germany or the United States. I would refer to those two systems as “republics,” given that both feature law-making power exclusively (or overwhelmingly) in the hands of a political class.
Your statement above is all I wanted to know: there is indeed a possible democratic system (in my sense of the word: “direct democracy”) which would be consistent with Objectivism.
Or to put it another way: an Objectivist system could feature direct democracy without violating its necessary principles.
O.K. “Democracy,” in the sense I am using the word, would not include Nazi Germany or the United States. I would refer to those two systems as “republics,” given that both feature law-making power exclusively (or overwhelmingly) in the hands of a political class.
Your statement above is all I wanted to know: there is indeed a possible democratic system (in my sense of the word: “direct democracy”) which would be consistent with Objectivism.
Or to put it another way: an Objectivist system could feature direct democracy without violating its necessary principles.
Referendum could exist in the context of a rights-respecting system, but ‘direct democracy’ precludes the protection of individual rights. As many have already clearly articulated.
but ‘direct democracy’ precludes the protection of individual rights.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how. It’s not self-evident, and no argument or reasons for why I should accept this have been given; only so much bald assertion.
By “direct democracy,” I mean “a form of government where law and decision making power are held by all citizens who wish to participate”. I contrast this with a “republic,” or “representative democracy,” where such power is held by a political class. I take it that Rand herself advocated the latter, as someone earlier opined: “A voluntarily-financed constitutional republic, ideally based on Objectivist principles is definitely something Rand advocated.”
Now, the only difference in principle between a republic and a democracy (as I have defined them) is the number of people who vote on or who have direct power over the making of law. In the former, any citizen who wishes to vote on a matter may do so. In the latter, only a small elite political class may do so. If you believe that the former (but not the latter) “precludes the protection of individual rights,” then this certainly requires an argument, because there is no obvious reason why decentralizing voting power should suddenly cause such an effect.
All of the predicates which you add to the concept “republic” (e.g., “constitutional,” “voluntarily financed,” etc.) may just as easily apply to a democracy.
By “direct democracy,” I mean “a form of government where law and decision making power are held by all citizens who wish to participate”. I contrast this with a “republic,” or “representative democracy,” where such power is held by a political class. I take it that Rand herself advocated the latter,…
No, I don’t believe she did. Rand’s focus is on what the purpose of government ought to be and on what the powers of government ought to be.
Obviously, this has to be taken to the next level of by asking: what type of detailed institutions, voting procedures, terms of office, etc. are required to ensure that government has the power and effectiveness that it ought to have, and also to best restrict it from doing things outside its legitimate purposes. So, we might ask: “Would a monarchy ensure that the government is effective? Would a monarchy ensure that the government sticks to its legitimate role?” and so on. However, Rand did not delve into these issues.