This House would reject consensus.

Please do Parliamentary Debate (no researching-evidence is permitted, but only if you knew the examples before the round started). This is an open motion, so as the proposition debater, I choose to interpret the topic as The United States should not adopt a participatory democracy. Observation: The proposition team shall propose the use of a value and a value criterion for this round. This is justified for three reasons. 1) As the proposition, I have the right to interpret the topic and determine the grounds for the debate. I hereby determine that the debate shall be centered around the use of a value. 2)Values and criteria filter arguments in the round and force each side to impact and filter their arguments into a cohesive whole. This means that the use of value and criteria fosters a better debate and promotes education. Since the actor in the resolution is the United States government, and according to Harvard philosopher John Rawls, justice is the first virtue of social institutions and governments, my value for this round is Justice defined as giving each his due. A just society must respect the fact that the rights of its citizens are inherently valuable because citizens create the state to respect their rights. This means that each individual has inalienable rights that cannot be violated by others. Thus, my value criterion for this round is the preservation of natural rights. Contention 1: Participatory democracies are more prone to lead to rights violations. Because the vast majority of the people only look to their own self-interests rather than the interests of all, and because the masses are more likely to be influenced by emotional considerations, participatory democracies are more likely to act in a manner that disadvantages some for the sake of others. If a majority believes that a minority poses a threat to its belief system, for example, it could easily slaughter members of the minority or deprive them of their rights. For example, during the French Revolution, the majoritarian Jacobians, which consisted of the working class proletariat and the bourgeois middle-class, decided to condemn any aristocrats found within the French borders to death by guillotine, even though some had advocated for the rights of the people and in their present situation, none posed a threat to the new government. This decision, which was clearly based on emotional considerations rather than on rational choices, thus allowed the democracy to violate the natural rights of the minority. Thus, because democracies are more prone to violations of natural rights, participatory democracies are not just and the United States should not adopt one. Contention 2: The United States constitution possesses checks to prevent self-interested individuals from taking advantage of the people. The Framers specifically created a government that slowed the process of decision making and allowed multiple rational parties to weigh in on decisions, thus creating a state more prone to protecting rights than violating it. Because the mass of rational individuals involved in the decision-making process check the actions of other branches, and thus minimize the likelihood of consensus and rights violations, the rights of the people are protected from tyranny. For example, when Congress refused to pass a law that would desegregate schools, the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was unconstitutional because it was inherently unequal, and thus corrected a problem that, if left to the masses, would have prevented the rights of African Americans from being realized. Thus, because the United States government already possesses mechanisms to prevent harms by minimizing consensus, it protects natural rights and is therefore more just. Thus, I strongly urge an affirmation of today's resolution.