Requesting grammar Nazis and critical readers

Economics Political Theory
1

This is the first draft of a short essay I’m going to submit to the student run newspaper at my university. I’m questioning the greatness of democracy and all that jazz. Any comments about the style, substance or whatever is welcomed. I’m writing for college students and I’ve about 900 words, so I’m not sure if I condensed it down or made things clear enough.

Democracy, Really That Great?

Today there is no word in political discourse that is held in higher esteem than democracy. In fact, in most contemporary political writings to describe an institution as democratic is to in effect call it a good institution and to call it undemocratic is to call it bad. Being democratic is so synonymous with being good that many Republican talking heads absolutely refuse to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party and instead insist on calling it the Democrat Party because to call it the Democratic Party would somehow imply that it is the “Good Party”. This infatuation with democracy has created in the minds of many the belief that the end goal or apogee of modern society as a whole is to create as pure a democracy as is possible, but has democracy earned this distinction as the righteous destiny of mankind? When posed with such a question most will reply with the old Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government despite all the others, but is that even true? Is democracy even marginally superior to other types of government, if at all?

Since democracy’s anointment after the First World War, the size and scope of government in the Western world has exploded to unprecedented levels. Modern states can tax, regulate, inspect, control, and police their populations at levels that would have made any tyrant of the past envious, and the citizenry is more submissive and acquiescent than at any point in Western history. The mechanism animating this evolution of the state’s role in society seems unduly neglected. It is just assumed that the ever increasing intervention of the state is a result of the often mentioned complexity of modern life which supposedly demands overbearing supervision or that our present situation is a sort of step in a culmination of inevitable historical events on the road to Progress. However, it’s a bit superficial, in my opinion, to chalk up the state’s growth as a function of technological advancement or social progress.

Along with democracy come other things than just legislatures and ballot boxes. Certain beliefs are fostered within the populous, and these beliefs will have a determining influence on the type and capacity of the state that will exist. Under democracy there is the belief that “the people” are sovereign, and that either through elected representatives or direct referendums the state will enact the “will of the people”. In a sense the people are the state and simply use its institutions to project their collective will; the actions of the state are the actions of “the people”. Or at least that’s what they tell us.

Initially the theory behind the will of the people as the source of the state’s sovereignty was that the people come together under a social contract and through some sort of legislature, which will represent the people, they can check and authorize the power of the state. There are enough holes in the theory alone to make one question the soundness of such a belief, namely the idea that the social contract actually forms a basis for consensual government, but this theory fails just as bad if not worse in practice. Rather than checking the power of the state, the will of the people is used to justify whatever the state wishes to do. By wrapping itself in the people’s will, the state utterly perverts and turns on its head the actual intentions of basing sovereignty within the people. The belief in the state as the actuator of the collective will allows the state to get away with things that it otherwise could not.

Under monarchy the station of those within society are clearly laid out with no false pretenses; I rule and you are ruled. When using the bare fact that you rule because you possess the ability to use overwhelming force against those that disobey as the source of your legitimacy, your subjects tend to be less tolerant of the shenanigans that state’s usually engage in as the coercive and violent nature of the state is laid down without any type of masquerade. If your subjects are under the belief that they are the ones in control, then enacting various regulations, taxes and other policies will be considerably easier than if they feel that a tyrant is handing down arbitrary edicts.

Tyranny becomes nearly impossible by definition under democracy. Since the people supposedly rule themselves any type of tyranny would be the tyranny of the people by people. This shift in the source of legitimacy is the animating force behind the growth of the state. Under former theories of legitimacy, such as divine right, current levels of taxation and intrusion into individuals’ lives were not possible. The populous would have taken the king’s head long before he ever got close to siphoning off 50% of individuals’ incomes. Conscription was not an available option to the state before the democratizing force of the French Revolution rattled Europe to the core. Democracy was a necessary evolution by the modern state apparatus in its conquest of society as older theories of legitimacy would not allow for the type of domination that it sought. The populous was thus elevated from subjects to citizens and sold the illusion that they were the state and ruled themselves.

This is not to say that monarchy or any other form of governance is preferable to democracy, but that the supposed virtues of democracy and the theory behind its presumptive superiority require far more examination and critical thinking than has been offered in popular political discourse.

2

Wow! You made a mistake right off the bat. You need a comma after “Today”.

3

No he doesn’t. (E.g., “No, he doesn’t.”) Both are fine.

WAY too much passive voice. Recast your sentences in active voice wherever possible. Break up run-ons into short, declarative sentences.

4

Succinctify. You can say the same in half the space. Use the extra space to anticipate objections.

5

First paragraph: “except all the others,” not “despite all others.”

6

Thank you boys.

Here’s take 2.

Today there is no word in political discourse that is held in higher esteem than democracy. To describe an institution as democratic, in most contemporary political writing, is to in effect call it good. Being democratic is so synonymous with being good that many Republican talking heads absolutely refuse to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party and instead insist on calling it the Democrat Party. To call it the Democratic Party would somehow imply that it is the “Good Party”. Infatuated with democracy, many political observers have placed the pure democratic society as the end goal or apogee of modern civilization. The old Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government except all the others would have us support this ideal. But is democracy actually superior to every other form of government, even marginally, if at all?

After democracy’s anointment following the First World War, the size and scope of government in the Western world exploded to unprecedented levels. Any tyrant of the past would envy the modern state’s power to tax, regulate, inspect, control and police their populations, now more submissive and acquiescent than at any point in Western history. Individuals often assume the ever increasing intervention of the state to be a function of the complexity of modern life, which supposedly demands overbearing supervision, or believe that our present situation is a sort of step in a culmination of inevitable historical events on the road to Progress. The mechanism animating this evolution of the state’s role in society, however, seems unduly neglected

Certain beliefs accompany a democratic regime, and these beliefs will have a determining influence on the type and capacity of the state that will exist. The base assumption that sovereignty is derived consensually from “the people” has the implication of fusing the state and the nation into one entity. The “will of the people” is the will of the state. Initially the theory justifying the people as the source of the state’s sovereignty was that the people come together under a social contract and through some sort of legislature they will check and authorize the power of the state. Unfortunately, however, rather than checking the power of the state, the will of the people is used to justify whatever the state wishes to do. Wrapped in the people’s will the state perverts the original intention of rooting sovereignty within the people. As the actuator of the collective, the state can now get away with things that it otherwise could not.

Tyranny is laid bare and without a façade under monarchy; I rule and you are ruled. Subjects took note of the coercive and violent nature of the king’s rule and were far less tolerant of his shenanigans. This is at odds with the standard narrative supporting democracy, but the old king’s of Europe could not fathom the power of modern states. Taxation was very limited. Subjects did not accept permanent taxation until the Hundred Years’ War in the 14th and 15th centuries. The American colonies rebelled and fought a terrible eight year war against the British monarchy over relatively minuscule taxation. Yet, little more than a decade later, under the guise of self rule, took far greater taxes along with the Alien and Sedition Acts with little to no resistance. The rabble would have taken the king’s head long before he ever got close to siphoning off 50% of their incomes. And conscription was not an available option to the state before the democratizing force of the French Revolution rattled Europe to the core.

Tyranny becomes nearly impossible by definition under democracy. Since the people supposedly rule themselves any type of tyranny would be the tyranny of the people by people. If your subjects believe that they are the ones in control, then enacting various regulations, taxes and other policies will be considerably easier than if they feel that a tyrant is handing down arbitrary edicts. This shift in the source of legitimacy is the animating force behind the growth of the state. Democracy was a necessary evolution by the modern state apparatus in its conquest of society as older theories of legitimacy, such as divine right, would not allow for the type of domination that it sought. The populous was thus elevated from subjects to citizens and sold the illusion that they were the state and ruled themselves.

Some may raise objections against this characterization of democracy as simply an aspersion, citing the fact that people can vote for the candidate of their choosing. They may even go as far as to say that the corruption and tyrannical nature of the government is the fault of the people themselves as they ultimately allow the state to run amuck due to their apathy. However, this would be the ultimate example of blaming the victim. Individuals are not responsible for continuously defending themselves against an enormous state apparatus that is trying to crush them at every turn. That would be like blaming someone for being repeatedly mugged by a gang of armed men for not learning some method of self defense. Also, voting is not sufficient to establish consent. The state will still exist whether you vote or not, and simply giving someone the chance to choose who will rule over them (that is if the candidate you vote for wins) does not establish that they have the right to rule over you in the first place.

This is not to say that monarchy or any other form of governance is preferable to democracy, but that the supposed virtues of democracy and the theory behind its presumptive superiority require far more examination and critical thinking than has been offered in popular political discourse.

7

This is still too long. It’s better to use half the space allotted to you than to use it all and lose your audience halfway through. Also, you should give your audience a bit more credit:

The second sentence is unnecessary.

Redundant.

Don’t start a sentence with “and.”

Vague. The audience will figure it out, but only after derailing their train of thought to reread the previous sentence.

Reword this. You’ve switched your pronouns around.

I would further illustrate this by pointing out the lack of choices between candidates. If you’re opposed to war and abortion, who should you vote for? Once you do vote, there’s no guarantee that your vote will be reflected in future policy choices–51% of voters get 100% control over the outcome. Even the winning candidate may not uphold his or her campaign promises. Emphasize this last point. Most people do realize that politicians lie to get into office. Use this agreement to your advantage. Space permitting, it might be useful to point out the difference in efficiency between somebody spending their own money and somebody spending everyone else’s money. There’s no incentive to be frugal when you can squander what you have and simply tax more. There’s not even much incentive to do a good job. Politicians whose efforts prove inadequate are usually rewarded with more money and power.

So, cut this essay in half, then cut it in half again. Clear up the wording, eliminate the redundancies, and use what space you’ve gained to elaborate some of your points. This shows promise, but it still needs work. Good luck! I’d love to hear how this is received.

8

Still way too many words. Read the first five paragraphs of Henry Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson. That’s a tremendous example of tight writing.

9

I think you left out the fallacy of “public property” in democratic States. I think any good critique of Democracy must have this fallacy exposed.

10

Alright, I’ve got it down to 893 words. The last version was 949 and I’ve covered more material in this last one. I think I cut out most of the frilly language and tried to condense and clarify some sentences. I tried to go through several different arguments at the end, but they might seem rushed. I also ripped off prelude to ruin’s abortion/war example.

Democracy, Really That Great? v1.4

Today there is no word in political discourse that is held in higher esteem than democracy. To describe an institution as democratic is to in effect call it good. Being democratic is so synonymous with being good that numerous Republican talking heads absolutely refuse to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party and instead insist on calling it the Democrat Party. Many political observers have placed the pure democratic society as the apogee of modern civilization. But is democracy actually superior to every other form of government, even marginally, if at all?
Any tyrant of the past would envy the modern state’s power to tax, regulate, inspect, control and police their populations, now more submissive than at any point in Western history. Individuals often assume the ever increasing intervention of the state to be a function of the complexity of modern life, or believe that our present situation is a sort of step in a culmination of inevitable historical events on the road to Progress. The mechanism animating this evolution of the state’s role in society, however, seems unduly neglected
Certain beliefs, which will have a determining influence on the type and capacity of the state that will exist, accompany a democratic regime. Forming a social contract and through some sort of legislature, the people check and authorize the power of the state. Assuming that sovereignty is derived consensually from “the people” has the implication of fusing the state and the nation into one entity, making the “will of the people” the will of the state. Unfortunately, however, rather than checking the power of the state, this theory is used to justify whatever the state wishes to do. Wrapped in the people’s will the state perverts the original intention of deriving sovereignty from the people, and as the actuator of the collective, it can now get away with things that it otherwise could not.
Tyranny is laid bare under monarchy; I rule and you are ruled. Subjects took note of the violent nature of the king’s rule and were far less tolerant of his shenanigans. This is at odds with the standard narrative supporting democracy, but the old king’s of Europe could not fathom the power of modern states. Taxation was very limited and not accepted on a permanent basis until the Hundred Years’ War in the 14th and 15th centuries. The American colonies rebelled and fought a terrible eight year war against the British monarchy over relatively minuscule taxation. Within two decades after that conflict, Americans were enduring far greater taxation, as well as, the Alien and Sedition Acts with little to no resistance. Conscription was not an available option to the state before the democratizing force of the French Revolution rattled Europe to the core. The rabble would have taken the king’s head long before he ever got close to siphoning off 50% of their incomes.
Since the people supposedly rule themselves in a democracy, any type of tyranny would be the tyranny of the people by people. It is considerably easier to enact government policies if your subjects believe that they are in control rather than a tyrant handing down arbitrary edicts. Democracy, for the modern state apparatus, was a necessary evolution in its conquest of society as older theories of legitimacy would not allow for the type of domination that it sought. The populous was thus elevated from subjects to citizens and sold the illusion that they were the state and ruled themselves.
Some may raise objections against this characterization of democracy as simply an aspersion, citing the fact that people can vote for the candidate of their choosing. However, when picking a candidate to vote for, many people will quickly become frustrated with lack of diverse options. For instance, if you oppose war and abortion, who should you vote for? On top of that, voting is not sufficient to establish consent. The state will still exist whether you vote or not. Simply granting someone the chance to choose who will rule over them (that is if the candidate they vote for wins) does not justify you ruling over them in the first place. Assuming that the candidate of your choosing is elected, there is no way once they are in office for you to ensure that they uphold their promises or do as you believed they would do, outside of highly labor intensive activities like recall elections. Surely a substantial portion of the electorate that put Barack Obama in power when faced with the dizzying deficits that have been proposed are having a bout of voter’s remorse with nothing but three and a half more years to cure it. Moreover, elected officials in democracies do not possess the incentives to create responsible or even sane policies. If someone handed you the keys to a house and said “Here, use this house for the next 2 years however you’d like, and you won’t be responsible for the state you leave it in after that time,” it would be safe to assume that you might not treat that house like you own it.
None of this is to say that monarchy or any other form of governance is preferable to democracy, but that the supposed virtues of democracy and the theory behind its presumptive superiority require far more examination and critical thinking than has been offered in popular political discourse.

11

Foruth paragraph: you pluralized with a possesive(should be kings of Europe). I’d also remove the commas around “as well as” in your remark about the Alien and Sedition Acts as well as changing the semicolon to a colon in the first sentence of that paragraph.

12

“Being democratic is so synonymous with being good that numerous Republican talking heads absolutely refuse to call the Democratic Party the Democratic Party and instead insist on calling it the Democrat Party.”

Sentences like this are still way too flabby. Prune words ruthlessly.

13

Well, here’s the final product. Thanks to everyone that edited. I’ll let you guys know if there’s any type of reaction to it.

Democracy, Really That Great v1.7
Today, there is no word in political discourse that is held in higher esteem than democracy. To describe an institution as democratic is to, in effect, call it good. In fact, the terms are so synonymous that numerous Republican talking heads insist on calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party”. Many political observers have placed the pure democratic society as the apogee of modern civilization. But is democracy superior to every other form of government, even marginally, if at all?
Any tyrant of the past would envy the power of modern states’ to tax, regulate, inspect and control their populations, now more submissive than at any point in Western history. Individuals often assume the ever increasing intervention of the state to be a function of the complexity of modern life, or believe that our present situation is a step in a culmination of inevitable historical events on the road to Progress. The mechanism animating this evolution of the state’s role in society, however, seems unduly neglected.
Certain beliefs have a determining influence on the type and capacity of the state that exists in a democratic regime. Foundational among these, are that by forming a social contract managed through a legislature, the people check and authorize the power of the state. Assuming that sovereignty is derived consensually from “the people” has the implication of fusing the state and the nation into one entity, making the “will of the people” the will of the state. Unfortunately, rather than checking the power of the State, this theory is used to justify whatever the state wishes to do. Institutions such as constitutions, supreme courts and parliamentary bodies initially were designed to curb state power, but over time have come to act as stamps of legitimacy for the state’s decrees. Wrapped in the people’s will, the state perverts the original intention of deriving sovereignty from the people, and as the actuator of the collective, it now exercises powers it otherwise could not.
Tyranny is laid bare under monarchy; “I rule and you are ruled”. Subjects took note the violent nature of king’s rule and were far less tolerant of his shenanigans. This is at odds with the standard narrative supporting democracy, but the old kings of Europe could not fathom the power of modern states. Taxation was very limited and not accepted on a permanent basis until the Hundred Years’ War in the 14th and 15th centuries. The American colonies rebelled and fought the British monarchy over relatively minuscule taxation. However, within two decades, Americans were enduring far greater taxation, as well as the Alien and Sedition Acts, with little to no resistance. Conscription was not a viable option to the state before the democratizing force of the French Revolution rattled Europe to the core. The rabble would have taken the king’s head long before he got close to siphoning off 50% of their incomes.
Since the people supposedly rule themselves in a democracy, any type of tyranny would be a tyranny of the people, by the people. It is considerably easier to enact government policies if your subjects believe they are in control rather than a tyrant handing down arbitrary edicts. Democracy, for the modern state apparatus, was a necessary evolution in its conquest of society, as older theories of legitimacy would not allow for the degree of domination that it sought. The populous was thus elevated from subjects to citizens and sold the illusion that they were the state and ruled themselves.
Some may raise objections against this characterization of democracy as simply an aspersion, citing the fact that people can vote for the candidate of their choice. However, when choosing a candidate, many people become frustrated with the lack of diverse options. For instance, if you oppose war and abortion, for whom should you vote? Additionally, voting is not sufficient to establish consent; the state will still exist whether you vote or not. Simply granting someone the chance to choose their ruler (that is, if their candidate wins) does not justify another ruling over them in the first place. Moreover, elected officials in democracies do not possess the incentives to create responsible or even sane policies. If someone handed you the keys to a house and said “Here, use this house for the next 2 years, with no responsibility for its condition when you leave,” it would be safe to assume that you may not treat that house as you own it.
Democracy dominates modern politics. It informs policy decisions, legitimates the state and is the back drop to all political discussion. Nations fight wars on its behalf and schools instruct children to revere it. Yet, for such a sacred province, society sanctions democracy with disturbingly little examination. An assumption of democratic superiority creates intellectual complacency and results in a nearly religious belief in democracy. It is troubling that our entire political superstructure rests exclusively on childhood socialization, and that the rigor of justifications for democracy’s preeminence can be fairly described as lacking. If democracy is to be the focus and end goal of politics, it seems prudent enough to have a discourse or well fleshed out argument in support of such a determination. If armies fight, revolutions upturn society and reforms are to be pursued in democracy’s name, emotional appeals and unsupported conflations of freedom and ballot casting should not be considered sufficient argumentation. The deification of majority rule requires less faith in democratic mysticism and more reason.