Men are not infallible; they err very often. It is not true that the masses are always right and know the means for attaining the ends aimed at. “Belief in the common man” is no better founded than was belief in the supernatural gifts of kings, priests, and noblemen. Democracy guarantees a system of government in accordance with the wishes and plans of the majority. But it cannot prevent majorities from falling victim to erroneous ideas and from adopting inappropriate policies which not only fail to realize the ends aimed at but result in disaster. Majorities too may err and destroy our civilization.
"I would rather be governed by the first 1,000 people listed in the phone book than by the faculty members from an Ivy League University." (Bill Buckley)
You can't test for wisdom.
Hayek wrote stark warnings about the pretense of knowledge, scientism as the demise of science by so-called intellectuals.
Thomas Sowell is so good on this topic that it's hard to choose, so here's a random sample: https://youtu.be/ERj3QeGw9Ok
I'd personnally require people to explain me why a free market with sound currency does not realize the democratic ideal.
On "direct democracy" vs republic: Direct democracy is not opposed to republic but to representative democracy. The best example of direct democracy is Wwitzerland, where the people can defeat any law with a veto referendum, and even pass laws directly.
Indeed I wonder how younger generations who grew up with the Internet do not see that they do not need "representatives", who are far more dependant on a political party than on the people they supposedly represent. Repesentative democracies are actually oligarchies for that reason. Direct democracy solves that - which is why it is impossible to instate.
A republic is a regime that protects people from government overreach by a complex mechanism of balance and control. It is highly unstable. Nothing is harder that to contain power for obvious reasons. As Ben Franklin famously replied to the woman who asked him what regime they had established: A republic if you can keep it.
2 centuries later it is obviously gone - the constitution is constanly violated while revered. That'S why supreme court justices are so contentious. If the constitution was actually respected it would not matter.
We are also losing the principle that has been the most successful for the longest time in restricting tyranny: Separation of Church and State. You might think it is a recebt invention: It is not. It is built in christianity because the Lord did not rule - and even respected the natural law (ie individual property). That kings were crowned by a representant of the church was no infringement on the separation, it was a symbolic and institutional protection from the king's power. Remember: It's the powerful who need to be contained and the weak who need to be protected. The republic and the human rights are branches of that tree.
BTW the human rights courts in Canada and elsewhere are orwellian reversals of the original concept: The Magna Charta was about protection individuals from the State. The modern HRC attack individuals - usually sued by subsidized "associations", ie the political left in control of the State.
Recall the founders restricted the vote to those who had property. That was their way of ensuring self-interest in least government. See https://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/04/at-founding-of-america-only-property.html for an analysis that describes what was true in 2012 remains true. The desire to lower the voting age reflects transfer of even more power to those who have no real stake in the government; who would support policies of benefit to themselves at the public expense. Along those lines perhaps we could develop an inverse - voters can only be younger than 25, see what that might bring as the really ill informed take charge.
The limiting factor to all this expansion is now visible as Thatcher noted " "Eventually you run out of other people's money." We are seeing transfer payments going past ~ 75% of the budget and interest payments are ~ 15% of the budget. All our taxes go to those outlays leaving little for government in general and the military, perhaps the only two things required by the constitution. Regardless of tax rates over many years voluntary taxation has been ~ 20% of GDP. That leaves confiscation as the only remedy and our very rich politicians along with their enabler friends won't like that. Expect some hard times ahead for many. The public will not be happy about reductions in transfer payments.
"I would rather be governed by the first 1,000 people listed in the phone book than by the faculty members from an Ivy League University." (Bill Buckley)
You can't test for wisdom.
Hayek wrote stark warnings about the pretense of knowledge, scientism as the demise of science by so-called intellectuals.
Thomas Sowell is so good on this topic that it's hard to choose, so here's a random sample: https://youtu.be/ERj3QeGw9Ok
I'd personnally require people to explain me why a free market with sound currency does not realize the democratic ideal.
What we need is not litterate voters but voters who realize what the State is: a fiction (Bastiat https://fee.org/articles/the-state/)
On "direct democracy" vs republic: Direct democracy is not opposed to republic but to representative democracy. The best example of direct democracy is Wwitzerland, where the people can defeat any law with a veto referendum, and even pass laws directly.
Indeed I wonder how younger generations who grew up with the Internet do not see that they do not need "representatives", who are far more dependant on a political party than on the people they supposedly represent. Repesentative democracies are actually oligarchies for that reason. Direct democracy solves that - which is why it is impossible to instate.
A republic is a regime that protects people from government overreach by a complex mechanism of balance and control. It is highly unstable. Nothing is harder that to contain power for obvious reasons. As Ben Franklin famously replied to the woman who asked him what regime they had established: A republic if you can keep it.
2 centuries later it is obviously gone - the constitution is constanly violated while revered. That'S why supreme court justices are so contentious. If the constitution was actually respected it would not matter.
We are also losing the principle that has been the most successful for the longest time in restricting tyranny: Separation of Church and State. You might think it is a recebt invention: It is not. It is built in christianity because the Lord did not rule - and even respected the natural law (ie individual property). That kings were crowned by a representant of the church was no infringement on the separation, it was a symbolic and institutional protection from the king's power. Remember: It's the powerful who need to be contained and the weak who need to be protected. The republic and the human rights are branches of that tree.
BTW the human rights courts in Canada and elsewhere are orwellian reversals of the original concept: The Magna Charta was about protection individuals from the State. The modern HRC attack individuals - usually sued by subsidized "associations", ie the political left in control of the State.
Recall the founders restricted the vote to those who had property. That was their way of ensuring self-interest in least government. See https://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2012/04/at-founding-of-america-only-property.html for an analysis that describes what was true in 2012 remains true. The desire to lower the voting age reflects transfer of even more power to those who have no real stake in the government; who would support policies of benefit to themselves at the public expense. Along those lines perhaps we could develop an inverse - voters can only be younger than 25, see what that might bring as the really ill informed take charge.
The limiting factor to all this expansion is now visible as Thatcher noted " "Eventually you run out of other people's money." We are seeing transfer payments going past ~ 75% of the budget and interest payments are ~ 15% of the budget. All our taxes go to those outlays leaving little for government in general and the military, perhaps the only two things required by the constitution. Regardless of tax rates over many years voluntary taxation has been ~ 20% of GDP. That leaves confiscation as the only remedy and our very rich politicians along with their enabler friends won't like that. Expect some hard times ahead for many. The public will not be happy about reductions in transfer payments.