I think you will find that on this board, most think any form of coercive government is evil, and that if it is not coercive, that it is not really a government, so it is not “bad”.
So when you say “democracy”, any democracy that is not a unanimous democracy is evil, imo, since it is coercive.
Democracy is majority rule. If the majority of the people say we all have to be vegetarian, then we all have to be vegetarian. The rule of the majority trumps the rights of the minority. However in a Republic*, such as we supposedly have in the United States, rights of the minority are protected from the will of the majority. The rule of law trumps the will of the majority.
*Republic - I use this as a pedaogical device, I know some may posit that there is no such thing as a Republic. A Republic may fall under the category of Minarchy, and some may argue that there is no such thing as Minarchy either.
Unless it is a unanimous democracy, in which case there is no minority.
Has there ever been a unanimous democracy?
A Unanimous Democracy would be a Unacracy.
Not that I know of.
Why is that?
Is that democracy or demarchy?
Because it’s unanimous. Rule by Unanimous consent.
Thought you might find this interesting.
“Democracy is the process by which people choose the man who’ll get the blame.”
Bertrand Russell quotes (English Logician and Philosopher 1872-1970)
Gotcha
I think that constitutional republic (the way US was supposed to be) is the least evil form of government. The constitution defines people’s rights and puts a limit to the government power. But when democracy and egalitarianism is put above the Constitution (as we’re seeing now and for the many years before) the government’s power is starting to expand at the expense of people’s rights and eventually it becomes a dictatorship.
Natalie,
a constitutional republic may start out as the least evil form of government, but if the state has the features of the state, most importantly, being the final arbiter of justice, even in cases involving itself, it soon gains at the expense of the people. Unless the people are as a whole educated enough and motivated enough to oppose every increase in the state’s scope and size, the end result is inevitable. If the people are educated to this degree, I doubt that any of them would rationally submit themselves to rule by a monopolist. Thus until the level of education reaches this level, the state in one form or another will always be with us, ever expanding tyranny in its wake. Always using the submission and consent of its more feeble minded subjects to justify the marginalization and destruction of those who are aware of the true nature of the state.
I agree that even in constitutional republic the state, however limited it is, still has a monopoly on the use of force and therefore will always seek to extend its power. I’m just pointing out that today’s democracies claim to have to benefits of the constitutional republics but don’t hesitate to overstep the boundaries whenever they see fit. “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” and so on.
But it’s still evil. [6]
The best form of Government, I mean tyranny, is NO Government! [;)]
I agree. But at least it was a good attempt to curb the power of the government. Probably the first since the ancient city-states. Too bad it was doomed to failure 
Democracy is an illusion on so many levels. If we peel off just the first layer we see it is not even a “rule of the mayority”. First of all the mayority does not rule at all. It just gets to pick who will rule (from a small rigged list). Secondly the “mayority” is not even a mayority. Governments ussually get elected by around 25% of eligible voters, certainly nowhere near the mayority of voters.
If we had actual rule of mayority we would have “direct democracy” handled through plebiscites. The electorate would be the legislature. It would stil be innefficient and tyrannical, but in practice it would be a great improvement. Certainly no bailout for the bankers could ever pass a plebiscite. (Plebiscite is different from a referenda in that non-voters are essentialy counted as “nays”.)
I think the seeds of my distrust in the democratic system were sowed many, many years ago when I purchased The Works of Aristophanes. Aristophanes has wrongfully been much smeared over the centuries (mostly by Voltaire who hated him for poking fun at his beloved Socrates) and he may be called one of the earliest opposer to the democratic system, or at least the earliest one whose writings have survived until modern times. Back then I discovered the slightly negative meaning (non-Athenian) Greeks gave to the word “demokratia”, little short of mob rule, and the role of the “demagogoi”, those who push the mob around like a flock. Guess studying a dead language paid dividends.
Ever since my trust in democracy has constantly dwindled and the recent events all around the world have been the final nails in the coffins of my trust. I do not trust democracy, period.
Democracy qua majority rule = lynch mob.
That’d have to be henocracy; else you’re mixing languages [:O]