Though there are instances where democracy seems the fairest and most sensible solution to an issue of potential conflict, there is some very inherent and very fundamental immoralities associated with even true forms of democracy.

It seems to be the one thing above all else that modern society is either most proud of about itself, or the one thing we complain that we do not have enough of, as more people are coming to the realisation that democracy is largely absent from society in any real and uncorrupted sense.
While it is sadly true that the democracy that some people claim currently governs modern society in the "western world" is in fact largely illusory, the less obvious observation that escapes the notice of most people is that democracy, even a genuine form of it, is not the morally consistent choice when looking for the defining, overriding, and ultimately governing, principle of a free society.

We don't have democracy in any real form and while some people are fooled by the illusion of it that is projected, many more see through such deceptions and, as a result, protest the lack of true democracy and demand more tangible and genuine forms of it.
Whether by accident or design, it seems consistent with the familiar tactics of denying us something so to trick us into wanting it.
So regardless of whether you believe our societies are truly democratic or whether you see them as illusory, and as such protest the lack of true democracy in existence, the fact is many of us equate democracy with freedom, with out properly scrutinising the validity of such an association.

People who are able to see this illusion of democracy for the façade it is are unwittingly encouraged to demand real democracy and see it as the ideal and optimum form of society, despite the inherent flaws and dangers of it.
They see it as something that should govern society but currently doesn't in any genuinely meaningful sense.
However further scrutiny of this perception may illuminate the moral inconsistencies and inherent flaws of democracy and that, whether it is the intended purpose or not, the lack of true democratic governance encourages us to crave something that is not as objectively moral as we may at first think.
Have we really scutinised the moral credentials of democracy?
Is it really the real solution?
And do we really want democracy to be our ruler?

Compared to this illusion that we have now, where anything resembling true democracy is rarely, if ever, actually practiced, a genuine form of democratic government seems not just preferable but ideal, and what our end goal should be.
It is not hard to see why the majority rule of true democracy is viewed as a far more preferable option compared to the minority rule of super wealthy elites who, through deception, corruption, oppression and various other immoralities, rule over the numerical majority.

Majority rule certainly sounds much fairer, at least on the surface, than minority rule, and a lot more logical.
But the problem with democracy is that it defies morality for the sake of majority consensus. So, even in an actual honest and true democratically governed society, there is the potential for immorality, violations and oppression.
In theory, under true democratic rule, as many as 49% of the population can be oppressed, exploited, violated and ultimately denied basic rights and freedoms simply because the other 51% can outvote them.

Things do not become moral just because a majority chooses it.
There are very clear examples where all kinds of horror can take place when a numerical majority overrides the will of a minority. Not just theoretical problems but real life examples of the inherent flaws of democratic rule facilitating absolute horrors.
We may hold onto hope that an overall majority of an entire nation, or the world itself, would make the moral choices and could be trusted not to oppress minorities but, apart from the fact that such an assumption seems dangerously naïve, there is no moral consistency to trusting majority rule with the governing of society, especially when it comes to dictating and implementing laws.
There is also no security as todays majority can be tomorrows minority.

There are still many appropriate places for democracy and instances where it truly is the fairest way to make a decision.
When all else is equal and decisions need to be made in areas where an objective solution does not present itself, then putting it to a vote seems to be the fairest and most logical way to decide an issue.
But it should not be the overriding and defining basis for society.
Certain decisions should not be made by democratic consensus but rather by the basic principles of the Non Aggression Principle.
An objective morality needs to take precedence over democratic will, no matter how overwhelmingly large the majority may be, if we wish to be able to truthfully call ourselves a free or moral society.
We cannot define basic right and wrong by majority rule and while democracy is not inherently evil or immoral when applied to subjective issues and is agreed by all as an acceptable way to make certain decisions, we need protection from its oppressive potential.
We need a greater moral foundation.

Democracy is not actually bad or good, at least not in any definite or indisputable way, because it could theoretically be used to serve both immoral and moral behaviour.
It is a good fall back option for making decisions when all else is equal and higher principles, that would override the authority of democracy in a free society, do not provide the clear path or answer.
However democracy, just like with freedom, should be restricted by the Non Aggression Principle/Non Agression Agreement because any occasion where democracy chooses to violate such basic principles it ceases to serve freedom, justice and morality.
At least these are the terms that must govern the only plausible and morally consistent way we can possibly ever have a free society.

Now, if we have not already pushed your limits of acceptance too far, we have one more claim to make regarding democracy that is as important as everything that has been said here already.
Democracy may be what saves us.

The journey we wish to take you on is the path of realising that democracy is largely illusory and does not exist as the governing philosophical ruler of society, but also that it should not be the ruling principle of society either.
After showing you that we don't even have democratic rule, we tell you that democracy should not be the ruler of society anyway.
We insist that we should have rules but not rulers and that the only logically and morally consistent rules we can have would be based on the Non Aggression Principle.
Even democratic rule is not the ideal goal nor will it grant us the morally consistent free society we know we want and need.
But while we do not want democracy as our ruler it may be our only saviour.
We may need democracy to finally free us from all potential forms of oppression, including democracy itself.

Aside from its usefulness as a fall back method for making decisions where the NAP does not clearly show the answer, democracy has one very important virtue that is vital for creating a truly free society.
Democracy may be our only hope for freedom because it is, in theory at least, a path to a peaceful revolution. A non violent road to freedom.
Ironically we need democracy to grant us freedom, even freedom from democratic rule. To set us free from all potential oppressors, including democracy itself.
For the only peaceful way to obtain true freedom for all of us is through the Non Aggression Principle and we need democracy to peacefully grant us that freedom.

To make this basic but morally consistent foundation the overriding, defining, governing rule of society is a goal that can only be peacefully realised through the democratic will of the people.
So while democracy may have its flaws, and it is important to take note of such flaws and dangers, it may also be our only hope and our true saviour.
Democracy may be our clearest path to freedom.
But while it could be the means it should not be the ends.
If we can gain the support of the democratic majority for just step one in the Nations Of Sanity's proposed plan of action, which is to implement the Non Aggression Agreement in its most basic and universally objective incarnation, then we can have a peaceful but very real revolution where oppression is replaced with true freedom, where government lose all power to initiate force and where sanity and logically conistent morality are the new rule of society.

So is democracy our ruler or our saviour?
Well the truth is that it can be either. It depends what we choose to make it or how we choose to use it. We can use it to oppress or we can use it to set free.
The choice is ours. Freedom or oppression? Which will we democratically decide? Shall we try to find out?

Add comment

Security code

Become A Volunteer

Join the Nations Of Sanity and help us create a real revolution of simple sanity

Join Now


Connect with Us