« A Few Questions | Main | Moving Beyond the 'Ick' Factor »

December 08, 2004

The Tyranny of the Majority

David at Cronaca has debunked an alleged Thomas Jefferson quotation that reads "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." Those familiar with America's first populist would likely realize that the words don't sound like Jefferson from jump street, but it's difficult to be certain when you see something attributed to the same place over and over. David is to be commended for taking the time to do some research and demonstrate that the words are at odds with everything we know of Jefferson.

Having done that, however, David feels compelled to close with the snarky rejoinder "Why the great popularity of such an openly antidemocratic "quote" in online signatures? Do so many people really feel that some should be more equal than others?" David, of course, is a worshipper at the feet of democracy who is either unable or unwilling to accept the harsh fact: democracy is just one more system people use to govern themselves, and that quote is wholly accurate regardless of who said it.

Democracy is majority rule, which comes down to mob rule. That's why the founders specifically did not bequeath us a democracy, but a republic. In a true democracy, the will of the majority is law. So if I can convince 51% of the people that you have no right to your property, then it is perfectly legal for me to take it from you. It seems odd that anyone would defend such a system, since we can never be assured of always being in the majority. (Not to mention the horrors a true democracy can inflict on the minority.)

David's confusion is caused by the corruption of the word democracy. America is not a democracy, as I noted. We are a constitutional republic. We elect others to speak for us. And we have a written constitution that (sometimes) protects our rights, to prevent those representatives from using their power to oppress us. The reason our constitution is viewed with such awe is because of the responsibility we place in it: it is the brake on abusive government power. Pure democracy offers no such brake.

That is not to say that pure democracy couldn't necessarily work effectively under similar restrictions. Indeed, it's arguable that it is doing just that to a limited extent in many states today, through the referendum process. I question whether or not it could be effective in dealing with day-to-day government business, but that might be a plus.

Democracy in and of itself, however, is no mystical thing. It's just a method of governance, with advantages and disadvantages like any other. As Churchill once said, it is probably the best basis on which to build a government, but that hardly makes it a great system. (OK, so Churchill said it a little differently; our meaning was much the same.)

Hat tip: Asymmetrical Information.