| Isherwood --
Thanks.
Regarding the democracy and money thing, I am wondering if it is really possible to have democracy without money influence of control.
People today tend to denounce the "rich, white man" from 200 years ago as being racist and sexist. But think about it from their perspective. Let's say you are a rich, white man AND you are in a democracy. What will likely happen?
You will have your wealth voted away from you, that's what. So, to protect yourself, you will argue that only "certain" people should have a vote. After all, if the poor can vote to take the wealth of the rich, then *everybody* will be poor. What will that accomplish?
If you are not able to persuade others that only "certain" people should have the vote, then what are your options? You will have to buy the legislature. Ultimately, you will probably throw in the towel and just say, "What the hell?" and you will jump into the free-for-all yourself and get as much tax money flowing your way as the farmers who get paid to grow no crops or the welfare moms who get paid to have babies do.
Democracy becomes a free-for-all and I don't see any way around it.
So, I think that is why the "rich, white men" from 200 years ago were not only against democracy but also why they were against universal democracy. Not saying they were morally justified, but I can see where they were coming from.
I also agree that democracy and liberty really have very little, if anything, to do with each other. Sometime when you get a chance, check out Dubai. It's basically a monarchy, but considered a very free society (not what most Westerners think of as an Arab country).
A benign dictator or king who leaves everybody in peace to live their own lives as they see fit is probably a much better society than a democratically-elected free-for-all government that does the bidding of those who would like to oppress others.
One has nothing to do with the other (democracy and liberty); it's just that the Founding Fathers had nothing else to go on at the time.
~ zynner |