Democracy or Absolutism

[Ragnarok]

I’m going to throw my two cents in here as well. Democracy is informally known as two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. The analogy is about as accurate as you can get. What amazes me is the level of general ignorance of the “average” American regarding our system of government and why our politicians insist on misleading the American public.

All you hear about is “installing” democracy abroad. The only result that can come of this is more instability, infighting and civil war. Especially considering America is not a democracy. America is a Constitutional Republic. In this regard, we are ruled by absolutism, the absolute being the rule of law, in this case, the constitution. The bill of rights was implemented to keep the majority from trampling the rights of unpopular minorities.

“John Adams defined a republic as ‘a government of laws, and not of men’."
Levinson, Sanford. Constitutional Faith. Princeton University Press, 1989, p. 60

Furthermore, the Age of Enlightenment and Free Thought movement of Europe and especially France heavily influenced the establishment of the American system of government. Some of the early free thinkers were heavily critical of democracy as a legitimate form of government, including Edmund Burke and Immanuel Kant.

"Burke was a leading skeptic with respect to democracy. While admitting that theoretically in some cases it might be desirable, he insisted a democratic government in Britain in his day would not only be inept but also oppressive. He opposed democracy for three basic reasons. First, government required a degree of intelligence and breadth of knowledge of the sort that was very uncommon among the common people. Second he thought that common people had dangerous and angry passions that could be easily aroused by demagogues if they had the vote; he feared the authoritarian impulses that could be empowered by these passions would undermine cherished traditions and established religion, leading to violence and confiscation of property. Thirdly, Burke warned that democracy would tyrannize unpopular minorities who needed the protection of the upper classes."
Joseph Hamburger, "Burke, Edmund" in Seymour Martin Lipset, ed., The Encyclopedia of Democracy (Congressional Quarterly, 1995) 1:147–149

"Kant's political teaching may be summarized in a phrase: republican government and international organization. In more characteristically Kantian terms, it is doctrine of the state based upon the law (Rechtsstaat) and of eternal peace. Indeed, in each of these formulations, both terms express the same idea: that of legal constitution or of "peace through law." ... Taken simply by itself, Kant's political philosophy, being essentially a legal doctrine, rejects by definition the opposition between moral education and the play of passions as alternate foundations for social life. The state is defined as the union of men under law. The state rightly so called is constituted by laws which are necessary a priory because they flow from very concept of law. A regime can be judged by no other criteria nor be assigned any other functions, than those proper to the lawful order as such."

"He opposed "democracy," which at his time meant direct democracy, believing that majority rule posed a threat to individual liberty. He stated, "...democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which 'all' decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, 'all,' who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom." As most writers at the time he distinguished three forms of government i.e. democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy with mixed government as the most ideal form of it."
History of Political Philosophy, edited by Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey, The University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp.581-582,603
Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace. Trans. Lewis White Beck (352).

[Frost Mage]

Call me crazy (Veck can kill me), but I'm no fan of Democracy, so Absolutism would be my choice of the two. The people don't know what they want, to paraphrase the late Steve Jobs. The only issue is how to appoint those with power, and how to ensure they are kept in check. Democracy has failed the world over, look at Australia and our ridiculous current political situation, look at the US and it's popularised political system, Democracy will never be a success because every person has different interests, and when they each have a voice, all you get is a mess of different people shouting over one another for the recognition of their own interests.

While a Democracy isn't an ideal, I think an Absolutism would be even worse.

[Ragnarok]

While a Democracy isn't an ideal, I think an Absolutism would be even worse.

I fail to see the appeal of "mob rule" when history is rife with examples of atrocities and injustices carried out by the same. civil wars, slavery, witch hunts, etc.

[Dark Lord Cam]

Mob rule is just as bad as the rule of a tyrant. History has shown that again and again. It is a major reason why I am an advocate of a middle ground between democracy and absolutism.

[Veck]

Not to mention how absolutism actually stalls both equality and excellence. Every step a government takes towards weakening all but the upper class is overall damaging to a nation's innovation and creativity, because the majority of the population will be flung into a situation where they become mundane instruments instead of capable people. I don't think I can really go anywhere with this as I've learned from the internet that people aren't willing to accept ideas, so I'll finish my posting here with this: if you are for absolutism, you are guilty of advocating the oppression of the majority of mankind. There is no way around that.

[Ragnarok]

so you consider the absolutism of the US Constitution and the rule of law as "oppression of the majority of mankind"?

the concept of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" has made appearances in pop culture such as Star Trek, attributed to "A Tale of Two Cities" but can be traced even further back to biblical times.

John 11
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

Voltaire said of this philosophy

"Virtue supposes liberty, as the carrying of a burden supposes active force. Under coercion there is no virtue, and without virtue there is no religion. Make a slave of me, and I shall be no better for it. Even the sovereign has no right to use coercion to lead men to religion, which by its nature supposes choice and liberty. My thought is no more subject to authority than is sickness or health."
"Canon Law: Ecclesiastical Ministry" (1771)

Thomas Jefferson echoed a similar sentiment

"Compulsion in religion is distinguished peculiarly from compulsion in every other thing. I may grow rich by art I am compelled to follow, I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment, but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve & abhor."
Notes on Religion (October 1776), published in The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition, Paul Leicester Ford, ed., New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904, Vol. 2, p. 266.

these principles as applied to the subject of coercion in religion applies equally to politics. the sacrifices of the one or few for the many is only a virtue if made willingly. otherwise, the coerced sacrifice of the minority for the majority is despotism, fascism, oppression and ultimately, draconian tyranny.

[Will Zurmacht]

the majority of the population will be flung into a situation where they become mundane instruments instead of capable people.

It is honorable to be a capable instrument, wouldn't you agree? The value of the common man is in his ability to be trained to perform essential functions which support both society as a whole, and most critically the activities of the upper classes.

Society is a pyramid, and like all pyramids it stands best upon a broad base. To use an example from my beloved imperial China: the peasant farmer class was valued higher than the merchant class, and elites considered the welfare of the peasant class to be one of their most important concerns.

[M.C.Marcellus]

I've tried to find a solution to the problem once. Here are my conclusions:

Absolutism: if the ruler were wise and capable, it might be the best possible government. Likely, though, the tyrant will not take te best possible decisions, either for poltical pressure or for personal interests.

Democracy: direct democracy is possible olny on a small scale, on a national/global scale you need someone to represent the people. To be a good option, you should assume that all people are wise, and choose what's best for the community, not for themselves. If representatives are to be chosen, their personal qualities must be considered as well.

Pesonally, I am for aristocracy in its ethymological meaning: "government of the best". In particular, I think the best option would be platonic communism.
Now the only problem is how to determine who the best are...

[Ragnarok]

the majority of the population will be flung into a situation where they become mundane instruments instead of capable people.

It is honorable to be a capable instrument, wouldn't you agree? The value of the common man is in his ability to be trained to perform essential functions which support both society as a whole, and most critically the activities of the upper classes.

Society is a pyramid, and like all pyramids it stands best upon a broad base. To use an example from my beloved imperial China: the peasant farmer class was valued higher than the merchant class, and elites considered the welfare of the peasant class to be one of their most important concerns.

no, will. dress it up in whatever colorful language you prefer, but what you describe is slavery. I am not here nor do I have any intention of calling any other man "master" nor serving any other man, at least not under the condition of coercion. the "pyramid" hierarchy you describe like all it's predecessors is a ponzi scheme and sooner or later the "masses" will wake up to the fact that no man is meant to serve as the beast of burden of any other.

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
Letter to Roger C. Weightman, declining to attend July 4th ceremonies in Washington D.C. celebrating the 50th anniversary of Independence, because of his health. This was Jefferson's last letter. (24 June 1826)

[POMC S117]

Call me crazy (Veck can kill me), but I'm no fan of Democracy, so Absolutism would be my choice of the two. The people don't know what they want, to paraphrase the late Steve Jobs. The only issue is how to appoint those with power, and how to ensure they are kept in check. Democracy has failed the world over, look at Australia and our ridiculous current political situation, look at the US and it's popularised political system, Democracy will never be a success because every person has different interests, and when they each have a voice, all you get is a mess of different people shouting over one another for the recognition of their own interests.

Duruza, but if there's one person in charge then isn't that worse. If every person has different interests then at least in a Democracy the majority wins.

[Taters]

It is a fact, regretful though it may be(to some) that people are, basically, out for themselves.

In a democracy, while this curtails any one individual's ability to completely fulfill his desires, it also assures that no ONE person will be given too much or too little influence. Yes, a majority can drive the vote, but in a truly democratic system(or representative), there are checks and balances to assure no one person, group or party completely dominates all walks of life.

In an absolutism, one person or a handful of people decide what's best for the whole population, usually based on what's best for them, and when that happens, only the few who are in power win, and everyone else loses.

[DorostheConqueror]

Define "democracy". Define "absolutism". And, for that matter, define "natural rights". After all, there are many forms of (what most would call) "democracy" that are, in practice and by design, "absolutist" in the sense that those in power claim complete authority over the masses, nor does every system agree on what exactly constitutes a "right", let alone a "natural" one.

For example, the most commonly held classical Marxist vision of a Communist "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" is a direct democracy, one in which the majority group (atheist workers, presumably) exercises absolute and explicitly tyrannical control over the rest of society, liquidating any dissenting minorities. The right to property is explicitly forbidden, and the right to liberty is heavily curtailed (eventually to be eradicated completely) as a relic of the "liberal bourgeois value system". So right there, you've got a system that could easily be classified as either democratic or absolutist, if not both.

[Ragnarok]

And here in this very forum lies a prime example of the ultimate truth about why democracy fails. In its purest absolute unadulterated sense implies inequality. The" majority" opinion is given more weight over tbe minority dissent and ultimately holds that even one voice in opposition is irrelevant while history shows that the majority is inherently selfish ad tbat true conscience is usually a minority. The "will of the people" is fickle and easily influenced and manipulated. What happens when the "majority" decides that a certain minority is somehow inferior and not subject to voting rights as was the case with Women's Suffrage or that slavery best serves the" majority" interests? Democracy inherently curtails individual conscience, freedom and ultimately rights. What about when the majority are misinformed and misled like being convinced that democracy is somehow superior while demonizing absolutism with examples of despotism, dictatorships and fascism? Democracy is despotism, dictatorship and fascism of the majority over the minority by drawing selective conclusions without giving an accurate accounting of the fact that absolutism can be any absolute, including a constitution and the rule of law and the fact that it can then be applied equally to all men. No man can be held above the absolute fixed value. This is equality, parity and justice. The very essence of it.

[Dark Lord Cam]

That's why it's nice when people have rights clearly outlined in a constitution.

[Ragnarok]

That's why it's nice when people have rights clearly outlined in a constitution.

That is an example of absolutism. Not democracy.

[Dark Lord Cam]

I feel that a constitution is a very nice middle ground between absolutism and democracy if done right. I've never felt that full on democracy was at all ideal. I happen to like federal Republics for this reason.

[Will Zurmacht]

Absolutism: if the ruler were wise and capable, it might be the best possible government. Likely, though, the tyrant will not take the best possible decisions, either for political pressure or for personal interests.

Right. That's why the ruler needs a competent and dedicated cadre of elites to train, guide, and in some ways to form a check on him. Confucian scholar-bureaucrats were reared and trained for just this purpose. The ruler was educated and guided by this group of aristocrats, who helped ensure that the emperor kept the best interests of the country in view.

Personally, I am for aristocracy in its etymological meaning: "government of the best". In particular, I think the best option would be platonic communism.
Now the only problem is how to determine who the best are...

Yes, yes! Though, I don't agree the Republic's model is the best way... It's arguments for caste structures are intriguing, however.

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."

I love Jefferson, but unfortunately he was a card-carrying French Revolution man. Luckily, he didn't get to write the Constitution and he and others who thought to weaken the government were defeated by the Federalists. Burke, whom you referenced in a previous post (negatively?) gave a decent response to the dangerous idealism which the Revolution brought along with it.

You're right when in a previous post you mention that e.g. the US doesn't have a direct democracy. And a good thing, too, since the system as set up by the Constitution, and now enforced by the two-party system and campaign finance laws, aims to keep dunderheaded plebes as far away from the levers of power as possible. Every now and then populist, anti-intellectual, anti-elite movements crop up which stir up a little dissension (Tea Party, Occupy Wall St.), but these usually evaporate as appropriate when the plebes get distracted by something shiny on television or at their local shopping mall. Serious, competent, professional people (a.k.a. elites and the capable instruments of the elites) continue to ensure that government runs efficiently and that the working base is pacified and cared for.

[Frost Mage]

I like to keep my political views open. I've often questioned if a Socialism would ever work in the US, to no avail...

[Dark Lord Cam]

Socialism in small amounts works. Socialism on a large scale has a tendency to fail spectacularly.

[Frost Mage]

Quite so. I believe any absolute political style in large amounts simply does not work in most governments.

[Dark Lord Cam]

And so the Middle Way continues to look best.

[DorostheConqueror]

Socialism in small amounts works in much the same way as arsenic in small amounts cures the pox, but yes, "Middle Ways"- if by that I'm correct in assuming you mean representational constitutional republics with an unashamedly liberal code of rights that the masses understand and the elites respect- are usually the best, assuming that any state edifice is needed at all. Now if only there were any left... :\

[Dark Lord Cam]

Indeed.

[OblivionDuruza]

My position isn't going to change guys but I don't expect many people to agree with me, because the West is built on the principle of Democracy, and most, if not all of us, are from the West whether we like to admit it or not.

If power is centralised, it does not then mean that power will necessarily be abused. Many instances have shown this to be the case, and for one, I am a proponent of the Feudal structure in this regard. The issue of course is regulating those with power, but the idea that the majority is a better and more effective 'ruler' than those with the ability to rule is ludicrous, in my opinion, of course. When democracy rules, it does not at all equate to equality, the majority betters themselves and those above and below them suffer as a result. The majority will always be the working classes, when they rule, the poorest of the poor and the highly educated loose out.

But really, I'm not sure Democracy and Absolutism are true polar opposites. We're starting to delve further into differing political ideologies on a number of spectrums.

[POMC S117]

highly educated

Is it impossible for us poor folk to be as smart as you rich people?

And for Feudalism? Duruza, I would like to see you man a croft or something and be kept alive on little food while your lords eat duck, pig and cow. Also, how would you like to be called to fight just because your king had a fall-out with his brother?