Democracy: The God That Failed

Specifications of the Democratic System: Democracy is any political system in which the acts of governance (ie. lawmaking, law enforcing, taxing, etc.) are controlled directly or indirectly by the citizenry. Criterion: Political and Personal FreedomThe role of government is not to facilitate the greatest economic growth, but rather enable the individual to be responsible for his own economic and socio-political circumstances without arbitrary infringement from illegitimate power.Methodology: I accept your methodology and therefore have no further contentions to add. [1]Arguments:C1. Subjects versus CitizensIn a monarchical political system, the individual (besides the sovereign) is a subject. In a democratic system, the individual (who meets voter criteria) is a citizen [2]. The implication is that by virtue of circumstance, the sovereign inherently possesses ownership over the subjects he rules. Furthermore, ownership is positively a human construction, since it cannot be observed or proved beyond legal (hence human) definition- which means ownership is not a natural entity. Therefore in a monarchy, the relationship between a sovereign and his subjects is unnatural unless the subject can opt out of the relationship, which contradicts the relationship itself. In a democracy, the relationship between the citizenry and the government is contractual [3]. While this relationship too is a human construction, it at least is contractual which allows the individual the freedom to object to his social role. This offers a protection to the sovereignty of the individual that the monarch-subject relationship cannot. This stems from the Lockean argument that since humans existed before governments, governments derive their authority from humans and are born free [4]. C2. Democracy is more JustDemocracy does not always produce the most culturally virtuous societies, most productive economies, nor most peaceful states. It would be hard to argue that monarchy cannot be virtuous in examining Medician Florence, Augustus' Rome, or Peter's Russia. But similarly, monarchical forms of governance were harmful throughout human history as well, with leaders such as Hitler [5], Cesare Borgia, or Ivan the Terrible. As the Papal succession has shown, the virtue of the state under a monarch is usually at the whimsical decision making of the leader. So while Lorenzo il Magnifico could reign over an economically successful Florence while commissioning lovely art and culture, his philistinic son can take over and quickly turn Florence into a petty French possession. This is the nature of succession. In a democracy, because the citizens are able to form their own laws and policies, they are ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the state. Freedom and responsibility are, in my opinion, preferable to counting on lucky royal sperm and non-familial intercourse to citizens/subjects being well-fed and safe. C3: Democracy and War InvolvementWar between democracies is a very rare occurrence [6]. " While a consensus has grown that democracies don't make war on each other,a second consensus has developed in parallel that democracies are neither more nor less likely to make war or commit violence than other types of regimes," wrote Rudolph Rummell, noted expert on conflicts and democracy [7]. This historical precedent of monarchs fighting monarchs needs no mention, and based upon Grape's own statements on the detriments of war, democracy is less likely to lead to these outcomes, especially with the growth of democracy. C4. The Public Sphere All debaters on debate.org cherish (besides the hypocrites) the public sphere, that is, "an area in social life where individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action"[8]. Democracy is not only the political system in which this right tends to be least infringed upon, but it is also the only type of political system in which the right to free speech is essential. As one can see in modern monarchies such as North Korea, Mubarak's Egypt, Iran, or Saudi Arabia (all ruled under single rule, that is, pro's definition of monarchy), speech is often suppressed due to coercion from the governing forces. The repercussions of dissent are often criminal. A good illustration of how democracy values a public sphere compared to a monarchy is the illustration of the fatwa Ayatollah Khomeini announced in response to Salmon Rushdie' s attack on Islam in The Satanic Verses. Political leaders and citizens alike in the western democracies denounced the book's content but defended Rushdie' s right to publish it. Khomeini also denounced the book's content and also called publicly for Rushdie's murder. Being the Supreme Leader of Iran, a monarchical position which oversees and can override the rest of the government's actions, the monarch simply did not agree with the work and thus banned it. The importance of a public sphere, and thus freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, is a driving force behind literary, philosophical, scientific, and technological advancements- most of which comes from democratic societies. Many monarchs have patronized these pursuits in the past, but the "enlightened despot" is not a consistent political model to guarantee these human rights. His successor may come and eliminate them- and often does- to consolidate and secure his own power. In a democracy, the position of ideas and rhetoric is integral, and therefore more likely to be protected. The irony is you are arguing in favor of a system that probably would not allow this debate or this site in the first place. It is cute to read ideological books like those of Dr. Hoppe, from whom you extensively took your argument, but the reality is that the greatest aspect of this debate is merely the fact that we are allowed to have it, and in a democratic system, this right is allowed. A dictator or monarch may not be so kind.Thanks [1] note: These are my working definitions, and thus I have no reason to cite them. If you wish to contest my definitions do so freely, but as they are part of my argument, and there is no "correct way" to define democracy or personal freedom, I do so for myself. [2] http://www.exfacie.com...[3] http://www.constitution.org...[4] "John Locke" by Robert A. Goldman in History of Political Philosophy ed. Leo Strauss pgs. 476-480 [5] The most fundamental definition of monarch, and the definition you provided in round 1, is that of single rule. And while common English usage often designates a monarch as a king whose authority is heredically passed down, hereditary monarchy is only one form of monarchy. In your, and Aristotle's, definition, a totalitarian leader, or despot, and a monarch are interchangeable. Hitler, for example, headed a fascist state, with absolute authority. So he, or Stalin, or Franco, or any other "dictator" fits your definition of monarchy. [6] Rummel, R.J. "Democracies ARE less warlike than other regimes," European Journal of International Relations Vol 1 [7] Ibid [8] http://en.wikipedia.org...