Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

I hope that this will be a truly thought provoking discussion. Rights and the Non-Aggression Principle I'd like to begin this dialog by providing some insight and background on the NAP. Hopefully this will be useful in explaining voluntarism in layman's terms before I get into more formal philosophical propositions. To start, let's define rights which are the legal, social or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement. In other words, they describe what people should be (legally) allowed to do [1]. Over the course of history, different rights existed for certain people based on a variety of factors. For example, in the 1800s a white man had the right to buy another (black) human being and hold them captive for life, and force work upon them (without pay) while beating them in good conscience of the law. Consider this: - the justification for human rights is ambiguous: divine vs. man-made [2]- humans have a demonstrable inclination toward power and prestige [3]- human knowledge is limited and our judgment is biased and flawed [4]Therefore, we will not always make smart or fair choices in determining rights. In many cases our judgment will be drastic. Large groups of people have been persuaded to believe in the right to hold slaves or commit genocide, for example. As such, what rights we agree to uphold for one another should try to be consistent in consideration of these limitations and variables. Libertarians, ethical Objectivists and other adherents to the NAP believe therefore that the right to self-ownership, and subsequently the rights to have one's person and property (stemming from the concept of self-ownership) live free from the aggression of others are the true fundamental rights that ought to be upheld; no other rights should probably exist, as they would inherently violate the NAP and require non-voluntary force of some kind. Ideas about what rights should exist are determined by one's individual (and subjective) values and preferences. However without the right to live your life free from the aggression or threat of aggression, one could not exercise or even enjoy their values to begin with. Self-preservation and protection are basic survival instincts and universal rights that should be established and respected for all. It is presumed that Con agrees with upholding the arguably innate right to life. Indeed if inherent rights can even exist, the right to life is perhaps the only reasonably absolute one. Without it, one could not employ or promote democracy or any other ideology. However what good is the right to life if one could have one's right to liberty (live free from the force of others) be taken away by virtue of the law? In that case, one could simply have the right to kill another on the basis of their religion - i. e. the Holocaust - rendering a Jew's life meaningless and their right to it non-existent according to 1940 German law, for instance. In other words, the right to live free from aggression and the force of others ought to be absolute and trump democratic principles. I'm assuming Con will not employ the argument that, say, children are limited from certain autonomous decision making and thus the NAP is not absolute, because I would simply point out that likewise children are inhibited from participating in the democratic process for similar reasons, making this an arguably moot point. Hopefully we are on the same page, and clearly arguing from a genuine difference in value rather than trivialities. ((( Depending on the approach Con takes in his response, I will argue through an either fluid discussion of these points, or a reference to justifications according to various philosophical principles. For example, Hans Herman Hoppe argued from the value of Argumentation Ethics, which supposes that arguing for the legitimate use of aggression violates praxeological utility and thus the NAP ought to be upheld [5]. The economist Ludwig von Mises argues from a Consequentionalist perspective, and insists that adhering to the NAP yields the best tangible results [6]. Thus far I have argued more of a Rothbardian proposition regarding the concept of natural rights. .. but again, I don't want to distract the audience with bulky terminology or references -- I'm looking for a clean debate and valuable discussion about why I simply disagree with democracy being a superior principle to the NAP. However I am prepared to argue ethics from a double Philosophy major's perspective if that's what this comes down to. *cracks knuckles* )))The Role and Functionality of the StateAs 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. Adhering to the concept of individual rights does not mean that cooperation within society is impossible or even discouraged. Within such a system, individuals may associate with whomever they want on any mutually agreed upon terms, so long as they do not warrant aggression. People are free to engage in trade and other social, political, religious or business affiliations that do not require force or coercion. In other words, people cannot legitimately be held at gun point and have that agreement to trade be considered valid, for example. The threat of force (antagonistic aggression, which is contrary to defense against aggression) disqualifies the NAP. People within society may freely form their own societies operating on their own rules within the framework the state, provided such rules are agreed upon by the members of their respective communities. The Amish are an example of a group who operate on their own agreed upon rules within the larger framework of the state. Problems with DemocracyMuch like the problem with establishing rights, even more problematic is the concept of democracy. First and foremost, democracy could easily be compared to tyranny of the majority. The idea that a proposition is necessarily moral, worthwhile or its utility could be determined by majority opinion is both dangerous and unsupported. By adopting the NAP, it would protect against things like legitimate or legal slavery, genocide, fascism, imperialism, institutionalized oppression, etc. On the contrary, with democracy all of those things could be validated by simply having the majority of a given population agree to them. Second, not many people in a given society are informed enough to make intelligent and valid decisions. Plato addressed this concern by suggesting only philosopher-kings (the wisest men) should rule over the populace as a just form of government. However that brings up other concerns and does not count as democracy anyway. In addition to being uninformed and irrational, voters also have a huge bias to advance their own interests. This may stand contrary to the greater good, or stand contrary to the individual rights of other people in such a way that is aggressive and inhibits their right to life, autonomy or property. Not only are many in the masses uneducated on particular political and social subjects, but humans have been observed to act greedy, selfish, destructive or otherwise vicious and justify it by the psychology of mob mentality or otherwise [7]. Democracy is also inefficient, and promotes popularity and personal gain amongst representatives compared to its intended goals. People vote for someone they prejudge or feel they "connect to" rather than who would be the most effective and/or moral representative. The qualities that make a good leader and skilled politician do not necessarily coincide. 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. The ever-changing whims of the masses, based on a plethora of factors, can create an element of instability that affects not only the moral fabric of society but the market. The slippery slope of legislating away people's property rights (eg. the government forcibly demanding your earnings through taxation) should arguably be considered criminal. Some tease: democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner. Someone with particular capital (or property or anything) can have their rights usurped by others simply on the basis that she has something they want, or has more of it. My opponent must justify legal theft or for the forcible seizing of one's earnings or property for no other reason than they have acquired more than others approve of. ConclusionIt's fallacious to imply that the threat or initiation of violence (or theft) against peaceful people is justified by numbers. "Democracy? I want nothing to do with a system which operates on the premise that my rights don't exist simply because I am outnumbered. " —R. Lee WrightsBack to Con for now. [1] . http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] . http://www.learnliberty.org...[3] . http://www.psychologytoday.com...[4] . https://www.nifc.gov...[5] . http://mises.org...[6] . http://wiki.mises.org...[7] . http://source.southuniversity.edu...