Democracy is the Best Form of Government

Again, I will argue that one of democracies biggest flaws is that the will of the people rarely produces the best results. When people vote, rarely do they analyze various positions and spend hours researching the issues. This is not to claim most people are stupid, it simply makes little sense to do so if your vote will not be decisive. Thus people come into an election with a set of beliefs based more around what position feels most moral to them, rather then their actual effectiveness. When people vote, it is more of a show of support then a informed vote. Compounding this problem is the fact that the most obvious solution to a problem is to fix it. Voters assume that if government policy will fix a problem it probably will fix the problem. Unintended consequences rarely come into thoughts of the voters. Thus, they will constantly vote for more government intervention. The fact that some cities have passed $10 minimum wages goes to show that voters vote with their hearts and not their minds. Given the power democracy hands over to these voters, one begins to see the problems that can occur when 51 percent of the population are given power over the 49 percent. Think about how close many presidential elections are. In the past, when the powers of the powers of the president were minimal, this was not such a big issue. Now, with the rise of the imperial presidency, can we really say that a man elected with 51 percent of the vote can really claim set of ever expanding executive powers including control of the greatest army on the planet? Can full power of the state be bestowed upon slightly more then half of the population? The concept of basic human liberties and democracies will always conflict because there are always those who will support freedom as long as it's freedom for people that think and act like they do. In fact many voters and both political parties think like those. History is full of scapegoated minorities who suffered under the supposed wisdom of the people. It is simply human genetics. People side with people inside their group and are natural suspicious of those different then themselves. Just because the people wish something means it is good. Shall we recall how how the French cast of the chains of monarchy to be subjected to the tyranny of the masses and revolutionary hysteria. While I reach for examples of atrocities committed by democracies as evidence, it does not always go that far. Consider the case of the War of 1812, one of the most pointless wars in US history. When congress voted for the war, the south and west who had nothing to lose voted for war. The North, who had everything to lose from the war voted against it. The vote came out 79-49. The north would see their ports blockaded, their land invaded , their maritime trade cut off, and their states forced to raise militias to defend themselves. All for a war voted for, but not fought by, southerners. When congress needed it would need to institute a draft, Daniel Webster retailed with a magnificent speech. "Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasures and their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children and compel them to fight the battles of any war which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage in? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an adominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free government and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children by the provisions of our government. It has been the labor of other men at other times, to mitigate and reform the powers of government by construction; to support the rights of personal security by every species of favorable and benign interpretation, and thus to infuse a free spirit into governments not friendly in their general structure and formation to public liberty." After much debate if a mob, a monarch, or a dictator should command the impressive array of powers the state now possesses, maybe we should consider whether this powers should be granted anyone? I have been asked to provide an alternative to democracy and now I will. I advocate for a Republic, not based on notions of the wisdom of the masses or any human being. A government that recognizes that is limited by it's humanity. A government not founded on the idea that a consensus is mandate for the many to rule the few but founded on the idea that no man can rule another. It would have a limited set of powers and an extensive bill of rights to protect any minorities. It's goal would be the protection of rights and little more.