Democracy is the Most Desirable Form of Government

I thank KC for this debate! I shall now respond to Con's case.DEMOCRATIC RARITYFirstly, "democracy" has been defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." Therefore, if power is not vested in the people or if elections do not occur in a free and fair manner, a nation is not a democracy. Therefore, I am not called upon to defend the illiberal pseudo-democracies that Con discusses; rather, I only have to defend the type of government found in the "full democracy" category, since it is in these nations where free and fair electoral systems are present.Secondly, even if you don't buy the above analysis, the more democratic you are--as I have shown in the pervious round--the better of a country's people tend to be from a general point of view.Thirdly, Con makes an error in his estimation, namely that because 15.3% of countries are democracies, that only 15.3% of "revolutions" must succeed. That's a non-sequitur as one statistic does not imply the other. Additionally, it can be argued that revolution is not necessarily the best way to bring about democratic reforms--perhaps the ongoing transformation in Myanmar can be an guideline of how to effect such change, sans "revolution." [1]Fourthly, Con argues that the imposition of moral values is (1) somehow unique to democracies, and (2) overly majoritarian. This is false. As to the first point, I will endeavor to show how both the minimalist state and the monarchist state "exercises [sic] complete control over decisions in which the state has no moral obligation to intervene in." In other words, I will show how this harm is not unique to democracies and that both of Con's alternatives experience the exact same harm. I will do this later on in the round. As to the second claim, I would question whether majoritarianism is any better than tyranny by the elite, which, as I shall discuss, is always a risk in a monarchical state. Additionally, I would point out that democracies as such include protection for minority groups--while these protections aren't always effective, they at least exist and have proven to be oft-valuable tools in ensuring minority rights. For instance, in the U.S., dissident groups like the KKK are free to protest peacefully. However disgusting the group may be (and it truly is loathsome), it has a right to express its views--and, despite overwhelming public sentiment against the group, its right to protest has been upheld in the courts. [2] Cases like this can be found the world over, where minority groups use due process of law present in democracies to ensure that the threat posed by majoritarianism isn't realized.ALT 1: MINIMALIST STATECon is specifically arguing for the minimalist state advanced by Nozick, a renowned libertarian thinker. Let me briefly outline the basis for Nozick's beliefs. Nozick is neo-Lockean in the sense that he largely accepts Locke's arguments regarding the state of nature and the natural rights present therein, but disagrees with Locke's theories as to how society would emerge from said state. [3]Nozick felt that natural rights were so strong that they led to humans being self-owners, or, to put it simply, having absolute property rights over themselves. Humans could do whatever they wanted to their bodies or with their talents and abilities. Taxation, for instance, would be a form of slavery since it unjustly coerces individuals to part with their self-earned money. What was won through a person's ability or labor could not be justly taken away through force. As Con himself writes, "every individual man’s moral worth and individual decision are respected; every man makes his own decisions without the interference from the majority." This conception of the ultra-free individual led Nozick to write his the "Utopia" portion of his book, which suggested that humans were complex agents, unable to be satisfied by any one kind of state. Therefore, they were free to "consider many different societies and critique them, eliminating some and modifying others. In this process, we can imagine people trying out societies as a sort of experiment, leaving those they find hopeless or altering those they could find acceptable with some tinkering. As we might expect, some communities will simply be abandoned, others will flourish, and some will continue on but not without struggles. So, this meta-utopia would serve as a framework or platform for many diverse experimental communities." [3]Since the minimalist state grants people such large amounts of freedom, it cannot prevent them from creating mini-states within the larger whole. For instance, "those sympathetic with trade unionists could elect to develop a community where ownership groups consisted only of workers. In fact, Nozick was surprised that this sort of arrangement had not already evolved from vocal members of the political left who argue that the only just notion of property is one held by all in a classless society...Just so long as all agree to the rules of the group, they could agree to form a society that looks much like the social democracies of Scandinavia. Likewise, it seems possible that individuals could join to form quite illiberal communities." [3]This line of thinking has two key impacts: (1) It does not rule out democracy, thus it is a non-unique counterplan, and I can implement democracy just as easily through a minimalist state as in the world of realpolitik; and (2) the minimalist state could yield illiberal or violent societies as well, thus Con is incurring some of the very harms he attempted to pin on me.Additionally, consider that even in a minimal state, there are going to be encroachments on to rights. Note that Nozick believed in a natural conception of rights, including the right to life. The main argument of pro-life supporters is that a fetus is alive, in which case, it would be a violation of rights to abort. So, the minimalist state is still going to have to make a moral judgment call about the status of a fetus--some such states may side with the pro-life faction, in which case, to use Con's own language, the state would be going where "the state has no moral obligation to intervene."Finally, Con makes an additional fatal error. Democracy was defined as "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them OR by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." Thus, no elected branch of government is necessary for a nation to be a democracy. Con's whole argument is that the minimalist state is good because it invests power in the people and that they are the primary directors of their own destiny. Certainly, such a minimalist state is "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly." Why wouldn't it count as a democracy?ALT 2: MONARCHISMLet's dissect Con's claims here carefully.Firstly, it is dubious that Con's suggested state is indeed nondemocratic, since he proposed to constrict the monarch with constitutional rules and proposed a legislature which I assume is elected. Secondly, Con is outright arguing for elitism, which seems no better than majoritarianism, which is bad, to use Con's terms, because "each individual’s rights are not taken into account." An elitist government seems no more apt to favor equal rights. Surely if a small minority is running the country, such as the Alawites in Syria or the Shi'ites under Maliki or the whites in apartheid South Africa, that minority can use its control of government to benefit its own faction. Just as the majority seeks to benefit itself when it is in power, so too does the minority when it is in power.Thirdly, the rhetorician-statesmen dynamic falls apart. In modern monarchies, succession is based not on ability, but on bloodline and birth-order, most commonly in the form of primogeniture. In which case, an 18 year old might inherit the throne--not something I care to think about in the age of nuclear weapons. And who is too say that the person first in line to the throne by birth is necessarily a competent leader; certainly, someone ill-fit to rule could easily inherit. Next, Con proposes the following: "the kings who have gained power often do so as a result of some sort of armed struggle." I sincerely hope that Con isn't suggesting that we have a war every time a new head of government must be selected--that would only add to the body count my constructive case wracks up and it implies that your monarchist state isn't that stable.Con offers no credible evidence that Sparta's success was more so do to its government system than it's military culture. If this becomes an issue, I can debate it further. Finally, as to the evidence about coups, all Con has shown is that coups happen in democracies. Well, as the 1913 Ottoman Coup illustrates, coups also happen in Monarchies. [4] Con has utterly failed to illustrate that coups happen more often in democratic states than monarchies. Unless he can do that, this point is non-unique, and is not an argument against democracies.Oh, and here again Con falls into the pitfall of his own words. He suggests that "under a monarchy, if the state holds absolute authority, then the state could be prosper." This implies that Con wants the monarchy to have absolute power, where it could "exercises [sic] complete control over decisions in which the state has no moral obligation to intervene in."SOURCES1 - http://www.ask.com...2 - http://www.nytimes.com...3 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...4 - http://www.ask.com...'%C3%A9tat?o=2801&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com