Voluntarism vs. Democracy

Issues of comparison: In round one we find democracy defined as “a form of government…” While Voluntarism is defined as “a libertarian philosophy….” This creates issues as this sets us up to compare a form of government to a philosophy. This is much like comparing a shape to number. In fact, the form a government takes is an application of a philosophy. Unless we can compare philosophy to philosophy, or form of government to form of government, this debate will be unintelligible. Never the less I will outline the principles that lead government to take the form of a democracy. Principles that lead to Democracy: The United States is a nation that transitioned to a type of democracy known as a republic.(1) Observing the principles that lead to this shift will give a clear view of the underlying principles that produce a democracy. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Declaration of Independence) 1: Equality: “that all men are created equal” At the core of Democracy is equality. Defined equality is “the quality or state of being equal : the quality or state of having the same rights, social status, etc.”(2) I do not imagine my opponent disputing the merit of equality. 2: Unalienable rights: “that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” My opponent has already acknowledge the existence of unalienable rights saying “Self-preservation and protection are basic survival instincts and universal rights that should be established and respected for all.” 3: Role of Government: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Pro says “As I mentioned, libertarians in addition to anarchists support the NAP. Many people support state protection of the NAP. In other words, they believe the sole legitimate role of the state is to defend individuals against the initiation of force against their person or rightfully owned property. This is the *only* system of government consistent with a natural rights ethic, and the right to life I have described above in defending the NAP.” This is also consistent with democratic principles. Governments being instituted to secure these rights…. “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Thus far all the principles that underpin democracy are synonymous with Voluntarism. In fact it is feasible that the application of voluntarism could take the form of a democracy. Pro has yet to propose a form of government that would represent Voluntarism. Problems with Democracy: Rebuttal Pro says “First and foremost, democracy could easily be compared to tyranny of the majority.” This is empirically true. However, this issue is easily addressed with checks and balances. Indeed the concept of a republic was to be a type of democracy that could check the power of the people while the people retain sovereignty. As mentioned previously, Pro has not provided a counter form of government with which to compare to democracy. Pro says “Second, not many people in a given society are informed enough to make intelligent and valid decisions.” Certainly the decisions of how one is to be governed is most valid when coming from those being governed. Pro says “Democracy is also inefficient” Though does not provide any reasoning or comparison to substantiate claim. I invite her to do so. Pro says “Eliminating representatives would require citizens to participate in government at levels we cannot realistically expect them to, given the mix of both apathetic perspectives and realistic time constraints. Thus democracy caters to the whims of the masses and encourages demagogues to focus on winning elections rather than governing justly.” I’m not sure but it sounds as if pro is against both direct and indirect democracy. In which case, she must provide a feasible alternative that fits the philosophy she is supporting. The “problems” my opponent has highlighted with democracy are easily addressed. Though real issues, pro has not provided an alternative form of government. Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Voluntarism as a form of government: From the link Pro provided on Voluntarism there is a list of individuals that contributed to it formulation. What form of government do the founders of voluntarism support? 1: Thomas Jefferson He is the author of the Declaration of Independence which endorses government in the form of a democracy. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” 2: John Stuart Mill John Stuart Mill presented the Harm principle. This principle is mostly synonymous with the NAP. He published “Considerations on Representative Government is a book by John Stuart Mill published in 1861.As the title suggests, it is an argument for representative government, the ideal form of government in Mill's opinion.”(3) 3: John Locke “Democracy implies that the people are governed by their voluntary consent. The power to govern vests in the people and it is they, by their consent, that constitute government. According to Locke, the individual was naturally free and only became a political subject out of free choice. Without the consent of the people there could not be formed a civil society/ community. From its very definition, democracy is government by consent. Therefore, it is evident that Locke belief in the government by consent forms bedrock for the democratic belief in the same.” (4) It seems clear that the institutors of voluntarism and the NAP are advocates that government applying the philosophy of NAP would take the form of a democracy. This is contrary to Pro’s statement that “Democracy is a form of government in which eligible citizens may participate in government either directly by voting for the passing of specific laws, running for office, or voting indirectly through elected representatives. This stands contrary to voluntarism which does not allow for citizens to legally violate the NAP through voting (even by majority consensus).” Conclusion: We can no more reasonable compare a form of government to a philosophy then a shape to a number. The principles of democracy and voluntarism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the institutors of voluntarism and the NAP are advocates that government applying the philosophy of NAP would take the form of a democracy. As such my opponent says she “will be arguing that voluntarism is the superior moral principle to democracy.” No such argument can reasonable be made to compare a moral principle to an organization. In any case, the principles that inspire the form of government known as a democracy often included the NAP. Comparing the philosophy that leads to democracy to the philosophy of voluntarism it is clear they are nearly identical. So unless pro can offer a form of government other than a democracy to compare she cannot “win” this debate. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.merriam-webster.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org...