It is traditional in many States to have the laws passed by the last legislative session take effect on the 1st of July. This theoretically gives the bureaucrats and the cops time to adjust their procedures and gear up for enforcement, and the victims of those laws time to be informed, warned, and prepared. Ah, the joys of democracy and the process of law. Unlike the dread decrees (“executive orders”) which can be signed without any “democratic” process of law and take effect instantly. But people still grumble, don’t they?

A fellow lover of liberty recently wrote in response to an activist in Colorado, who said: “It’s the radical influence of wealth and power that stifles our democracy from enacting laws aligned with majority will.” He was complaining that some unWoke, politically-incorrect measure made it through Colorado’s General Assembly, despite overwhelming Democratic Party control and polls claiming majority support among the Colorado population.

The libertarian wrote: “This is the “No True Scotsman” version of democratic theory. Any democratic outcome that you like is a straightforward and proper implementation of “majority will,” whereas any democratic outcome that you don’t like is “not true democracy” because the process was somehow tainted, say by people paying lobbyists. This presumption allows some people at the same time to hold that majority will is inherently good but that specific majoritarian outcomes can be bad.

“The” alternate view, my view, is that democratic outcomes are neither inherently good nor bad. Rather, they are good or bad depending on whether they conform to underlying moral truths.”

While I do respect and appreciate the writer who upholds liberty, I do not fully agree with him.

Now, there is nothing wrong with democracy in some circumstances. And with reasonable limits. For example, a majority vote on where to go for lunch? No problem, if the majority has some decent concern for the minority. If you are going “dutch” and the vote is 5 to 4 for Ruth Crisp Steakhouse but the four who were outvoted are having a hard time making ends meet? If it’s 5-4 for Burger King over Sonic, maybe.

Most political/government “democratic outcomes” are bad, because they are based on bad principles. Not just majoritarian will, but the idea that the public – as supposedly represented by a democratic government – has any business meddling in people’s affairs. The only justification I can possibly see for this is that of preventing harm to others – real harm, not hurt feelings or “being offended.” And only if applied wisely – a characteristic commonly missing in democratic regimes.

But democracy mobilizes actions (by the majority) that are not good: even if there is not an absolute dictatorship of the majority. The minority (even if it is just one) is always harmed to some degree. They not only have less liberty, they have less security because what the mob gives the mob can take away. And often does. Because mobs, honestly, do not have morals.

Back to the discussion of “not true democracy” in Colorado:

He adds: “Why, then, do I think some form of democracy is the best form of government, even though I do not think there’s anything inherently morally special about majority will? I think a republican form of democracy, one with dispersed power, checks and balances, and constitutional limits on government force, is most likely to lead to moral outcomes. Yes, democratic systems also often lead to immoral outcomes, but other systems of governance tend to do even worse, and at least republican democracy offers means of reform. Within republican democracy, we can always hope for better outcomes and strive toward them.

Again, TPOL can agree with most of this. But we present a radical alternative to simply hoping for something better. The best way in government to have “better outcomes” is to take away the power of government, of the majority, to dictate to anyone. Put simply, to reduce the power of government, preferably completely.

The other problem our libertarian friend in Colorado did not address (in this particular discussion) was the truth that history teaches us: democracy decays and degrades. Often rapidly. It seems as those Coloradoans moaning about “not true democracy” in reality want some kind of benevolent tyranny. History shows that comes after democracy becomes mobocracy, and a “man on a white horse” comes to power to fix the mess. As long, of course, the dictator shares their beliefs.

It does not have to be “a” man (or woman), of course. It is often a committee – a cabal or a junta or some such. And it is usually still called a “democracy” or even a “democratic republic.” Lovers of liberty need to call it what it is: tyranny. But not effectively different from the tyranny of democracy.