Democracy

Let's proceed to the opening arguments. Opening Argument: The subject of my criticism will focus on two premises: 1. Democracy is illogical (logically inconsistent. ) 2. Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral. First, It's important to know what we mean by "democracy. " A democracy according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is: a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections. Through this description of democracy we can immediately ascertain that the validity and exercise of authority is found in majoritarian consensus. And this is key. Democracy is Illogical Democracy determines public utility through majoritarian consensus--i. E. Whether politicians or policies are being voted on, It requires a majority; therefore, All policy arguments in a democracy suffer from the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum, A proposition which delineates the veracity or validity of its claim by the number of people who support it. It deems validity as a function of popularity. Now this alone is mere logic. One would wonder about the actual exercise of authority. Well, In Murry Rothbard's essay, "Man, Economy, And State, With Power and Market, " he points out a contradiction of democratic exercise: "In the first place, Suppose that the majority overwhelmingly wishes to establish a popular dictator or the rule of a single party. The people wish to surrender all decision-making into his or its hands. Does the system of democracy permit itself to be voted democratically out of existence? Whichever way the democrat answers, He is caught in an inescapable contradiction. If the majority can vote into power a dictator who will end further elections, Then democracy is really ending its own existence. . . Democracy, In that case, Becomes a transition to a nondemocratic form of government. On the other hand, If, As it is now fashionable to maintain, The majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing--ending the democratic elective process itself--then this is no longer democracy, Because the majority of voters can no longer rule. The election process may be preserved, But how can it express that majority rule essential to democracy if the majority cannot end this process should it so desire? " Let's also consider that the ends produced by majoritarian consensus aren't necessarily good. One such example would be the democratic Nazi Germany. The estimation of murdered German Jews, Blacks, Pols, And Gypsies, Would be justified if we are to accept that rule comes through the majority or elected representatives. In other words, Since democratic exercise of authority represents the "will of the people, " the murder of the aforementioned would have too been the "will of the people" including the very people who were murdered. Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral. What is the point of democracy? To pool resources in order to produce public goods which serve a collective utility? Is it to allow each citizen a voice in their political environment through proxy instead of allowing the authority of a despot? Or is it merely a means in which to settle disputes over resources? One would think that if democracy did represent the interest of each and every citizen that there'd be no need for a majority standard. All initiatives, Policies, Directives, Goals, Etc. Would be acted out unanimously. Of course, There would those who disagree (dissenters. ) If they disagree, Then clearly they do not believe that a particular policy, Directive, Goal, Or initiative suits their interests. So then, Why not allow them discretion to exit the arrangement? If the collective interests do not align with the interests of a particular individual, What stake does said individual bear in any of the aforestated goals, Initiatives, Policies, Or directives? I posit that the purpose of democracy is not to represent the consent of the governed, But to circumvent an individual's discretion and obligate all would-be dissenters and their resources to arbitrary policies using a majority standard. Inclusion and obligations are coerced through non-compliance law and taxation. Since the threat of violence/force/aggression/harm is codified into these laws--i. E. Armed officers having the capacity to exercise the use of deadly force in the event of non-compliance--I conclude that democracy by extension is therefore immoral. Now, I'll give my opponent a chance to respond.