I’m going to take a fairly radical position, and ask the exact opposite question to see if I can shed a light on some of the differences.
Why do we want democracy? And what’s so hot about equality?
I’ve heard two different definitions of ‘democracy’–not on this thread, just in general. The first–the one used here–is that democracy is the system in which the majority gets its way. The second definition has to do with the granting of rights: a democracy is a system in which individuals are guaranteed protection from certain forms of state coercion, and given a voice in how the state apparatus is to be used. This idea of ‘rights’ gets to the crux of the issues discussed here.
2sense argues that there is no objective definition of ‘tyrrany’ or ‘oppression,’ so we should settle for a system in which as few as possible consider themselves ‘oppressed’ (if I misstate another’s position, I apologize; feel free to correct me). From a certain point of view, this makes some sense; if you believe there are no objective standards of acceptable conduct, this position is wholly coherent. However, there are some principles virtually required for any sort of interaction; the most important of these is that it is wrong to initiate force against another, to coerce him into a position that is not his. This would seem to be the premise behind the argument that everyone ought to be represented in a state–that someone not represented is being coerced into a power structure he does not accept (that is, he is bound by a set of rules he did not choose to be bound by, instead he’s being forced to accept them). This would seem to indicate that everyone needs an equal voice in shaping these rules.
The problem comes in when we stop and realize that a straight majority system doesn’t actually eliminate coercion–what about the minority? Isn’t it being coerced now? Rather than prohibiting coercion, the system merely ensures an equal distribution of coercion–everyone has an equal opportunity to force his beliefs on others. Thus, a homophobe has as much right to force his beliefs on a homosexual as a homosexual has to force his on the homophobe: approximately 1 in 300,000,000.
But what if you could create another system? One in which coercion as a whole was minimized? That would seem to be even better, and that’s the purpose of constitutional checks. We say that it’s wrong to force someone to profess a belief he does not hold, to worship a god in whom he does not believe, to do something merely because another wishes it. The most blatant forms of coercion are addressed by criminal statutes; these laws say that an individual may not initiate violence against another; against his life (murder), against his liberty (rape, fraud, enslavement), against his property (theft). People disagree about exactly how this coercion should be defined, and what penalties should apply; that’s why the laws are changeable. On the whole, though, these laws are fairly clear and prohibit violence by one individual against another.
But there is another, more insidious form of coercion: by the group or the state against individuals. People don’t always see the acts as the same: when another citizen extorts money from me at gunpoint, it’s a mugging. When the federal government does it, it’s a 1040. On the whole, though, we recognize that an act that would be immoral if done by an individual is still immoral if a bunch of those individuals do it together. Thus, we create a government to protect individuals from each other, but we give those individuals rights to protect them from the government. It’s wrong for one person to kill an innocent, so we ban murder; it’s wrong for the government to kill an innocent, so we give the right to a fair trial and ban cruel punishment. It’s wrong for one person to take random people’s money, so we ban theft; it’s wrong for a group of people to take random people’s money, so we create the due process clause (quoting from memory, so inexact, but roughly “no state shall deny an individual the right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law”). It’s wrong for one person to force me to do something by threat of violence, so we outlaw slavery and extortion; it’s wrong for several people to do this, so we once again have the due process clause. Additionally, we have several specific ways in which force against individuals is particularly frowned upon; thus the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to freedom of religion. These are just specific examples of ways it’s unjust to initiate force against others.
Now, for why this isn’t minority rule. [Absolute] majority rule, presumably, is when the majority can make whatever rules it wants and enforce them on the minority. Minority rule, similarly, is when a designated minority can make rules and force them on the majority (I say a designated minority because flexible minority rule–in which 40% can pass a law, for instance–creates total chaos because 40% will pass the bill, then a different 40% will repeal it). I would say that true democracy–in the second sense I defined it–fits neither of these definitions. Rather than giving any proportion of the population–1 person, a third, half, 3/4–the power to force its will on the remainder, it says there are certain ways in which no group may force its will on the remainder. It’s true that amendments can be repealed, but that’s not the purpose of the rule; the limitations on governmental power embodied in the bill of rights were supposed to be so obvious they didn’t really need stating, and certainly weren’t expected to be changed. They were supposed to be perpetual limits on government power.
This, then, is the distinction made by the ‘invocation of the monopoly of force’ that you asked about, 2sense. Those of us who incline toward the constitutionally-guaranteed-rights model say that it’s fine for the majority to make whatever rules it thinks are just, so long as these don’t violate the rights of the minority. Thus, I have no problem with a simple majority for decision-making. I also have no problem with an oligarchy, a monarchy, or a government that requires unanimity; as long as that government is not allowed to initiate violence, and to coerce innocents, I really don’t care how it makes its decisions. Now, I can say this more freely than others, because I subscribe to a broader definition of rights than others. Suffice it to say that there’s nothing wrong with a simple majority driving government in all spheres proper for government action. The limits on majority rule only serve to mark out places where no man may make rules for another. They are not instances of minority rule; they are instances where rule as a whole is inappropriate.
I conclude with Robert Nozick’s Tale of the Slave, which is about simple majority rule (taken from Anarchy, State, and Utopia, copyright 1974, pp290-292 in my book, in the chapter Demoktesis):
“1. There is a slave completely at the mercy of his brutal master’s whims. He often is cruelly beaten, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The master is kindlier and beats the slave only for stated infractions of his rules (not fulfilling the work quota, and so on). He gives the slave some free time.
3. The master has a group of slaves, and he decides how things are to be allocated among them on nice grounds, taking into account their needs, merit, and so on.
4. The master allows his slaves four days on their own and requires them to work only three days a week on his land. The rest of the time is their own.
5. The master allows his slaves to go off and work in the city (or anywhere they wish) for wages. He requires only that they send back to him three-sevenths of their wages. He also retains the power to recall them to the plantation if some emergency threatens his land; and to raise or lower the three-sevenths amount required to be turned over to him. HE further retains the right to restrict the slaves from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten his financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking.
6. The master allows all of his 10,000 slaves, except you, to vote, and the joint decision is made by all of them. There is open discussion, and so forth, among them, and they have the power to determine to what uses to put whatever percentage of your (and their) earnings they decide to take; what activities legitimately may be forbidden to you, and so on.
…
7. Though still not having the vote, you are at liberty (and are given the right) to enter into the discussions of the 10,000, to try to persuade them to adopt various policies and to treat you and themselves in a certain way. Then they go off to vote to decide upon policies covering the vast range of their powers.
8. In appreciation of your useful contributions to discussion, the 10,000 allow you to vote if they are deadlocked; they commit themselves to this procedure. After the discussion you mark your vote on a slip of paper, and they go off and vote. In the eventuality that they divide evenly on some issue, 5,000 for and 5,000 against, they look at your ballot and count it in. Thgis has never yet happened; they have never yet had occasion to open your ballot. (A single master also might commit himself ot letting his slave decide any issue concerning him about which he, the master, was absolutely indifferent.)
9. They throw your vote in with theirs. If they are exactly tied your vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
The question is: which transition from case 1 to case 9 made it no longer the tale of the slave?”
