In this thread, I'd like to address in turn two issues that might at first seem to have little or nothing much to do with each other. Namely, (1) what I regard as the chief reason for most of us to value democracy, and (2) what I think is the chief or most usual objection to democracy.
"Democracy" here, is short for "representational democracy", which is any system in which the people do not directly govern themselves, but instead elect representatives such as members of a parliament or senate to represent them.
So, why democracy?
In a nutshell, all other systems of government are less optimal than democracy in allowing people, if they so wish, to achieve some significant measure of self-fulfillment or self-actualization. That's the gist of it.
There's no real need for me to explain here what I mean by "self-fulfillment" or "self-actualization" because I am using the terms in their most common senses.. If you are unclear about their meanings, google is your friend.
What might be more required is to say a couple things about what I do not believe to be very good reasons to value democracy. First, I reject the notion that "freedoms and liberties" are by themselves good reasons to value democracy. They are not, and for an obvious reason. Freedom to do what? Summon a majority to oppress a minority? Implement harmful laws such as mandating female genital mutilation? "Freedoms and liberties" are not necessarily good in and of themselves, but only specific freedoms and liberties can be good. I wish it were the case everyone had the sense to intuitively recognize freedoms and liberties can easily be taken too far, but so many of us don't have the sense for that.
Next, I reject the notion democracy is of much value in generally promoting virtues. It isn't. It won't make people kinder, more compassionate, more honest, generous, dependable -- any of that -- except perhaps very indirectly in the sense it most likely will do nothing to hinder or prevent them from realizing those things.
I am far from being so naive I imagine most people would use the opportunities that being, in effect, self-governing might afford them to pursue and achieve self-fulfillment or self-actualization (which I will from now on simply call "flourishing") in order to actually pursue and achieve such things. Even the most perfect democracy would fall far short at allowing everyone an equal chance to flourish. Beyond which, most people are probably clueless how go about such a project, or are diverted by spiritual or material goals, hedonism, or other such things.
Indeed, for most of us, whatever meaning we seek in living translates into pursuing necessarily fleeting pleasures, and avoiding as much as we can, pain and suffering such that for the most part we are predictably reduced to spending most of our time being simply bored -- as if life were essentially not much more than a matter of almost endlessly standing in line.
A certain palliative nurse used to survey her dying patients, and after much experience of it, she stated the first and universal regret that everyone had at the end was they had not been "truer to themselves". But that's at the end, and it's certainly not how most of us live the vast bulk of our days.
Other systems of government allow some people to flourish, even sometimes many, but I think democracy tops them all. It's the optimal system.
The single criticism I've most often heard of democracy is the greater number of people are fools and, hence, democracy boils down to no less than governance by fools. The argument implicitly or explicitly assumes that some other form of government would typically be lead by much wiser people.
The joke here -- and it's a good one -- is to so naively assume any government of any type is at all likely to be led by notably wise people.
I think a possible excuse for such astonishing naivety is that democracies are usually, it seems, a bit more open and "honest" that they are run mostly by predictably unremarkable people who are most likely qualified for their jobs only by the fact they know how to get themselves into positions of power. Other systems are much better at hiding the fact their claim the "trains at last run on time under them" is a whole lot of hooey.
Of course, there are things a democracy could at least in theory do -- and in practice, might even do marginally better than other systems -- to ameliorate the natural tendency of humans to be foolish. Better universal education, strong constitutional checks and balances, and wise laws to insure as much as possible that the people are well informed -- just three things that immediately come to mind.
In sum, I cannot take seriously the frequent criticism that democracies are any more prone than other systems to foolishness. It's a ridiculous objection. Yet it begs a very real question: Given all systems of government are at least about equally run by unremarkable people, then why not go with democracy if it is indeed the optimal system for allowing people a chance to flourish?
Comments and questions?
"Democracy" here, is short for "representational democracy", which is any system in which the people do not directly govern themselves, but instead elect representatives such as members of a parliament or senate to represent them.
So, why democracy?
In a nutshell, all other systems of government are less optimal than democracy in allowing people, if they so wish, to achieve some significant measure of self-fulfillment or self-actualization. That's the gist of it.
There's no real need for me to explain here what I mean by "self-fulfillment" or "self-actualization" because I am using the terms in their most common senses.. If you are unclear about their meanings, google is your friend.
What might be more required is to say a couple things about what I do not believe to be very good reasons to value democracy. First, I reject the notion that "freedoms and liberties" are by themselves good reasons to value democracy. They are not, and for an obvious reason. Freedom to do what? Summon a majority to oppress a minority? Implement harmful laws such as mandating female genital mutilation? "Freedoms and liberties" are not necessarily good in and of themselves, but only specific freedoms and liberties can be good. I wish it were the case everyone had the sense to intuitively recognize freedoms and liberties can easily be taken too far, but so many of us don't have the sense for that.
Next, I reject the notion democracy is of much value in generally promoting virtues. It isn't. It won't make people kinder, more compassionate, more honest, generous, dependable -- any of that -- except perhaps very indirectly in the sense it most likely will do nothing to hinder or prevent them from realizing those things.
I am far from being so naive I imagine most people would use the opportunities that being, in effect, self-governing might afford them to pursue and achieve self-fulfillment or self-actualization (which I will from now on simply call "flourishing") in order to actually pursue and achieve such things. Even the most perfect democracy would fall far short at allowing everyone an equal chance to flourish. Beyond which, most people are probably clueless how go about such a project, or are diverted by spiritual or material goals, hedonism, or other such things.
Indeed, for most of us, whatever meaning we seek in living translates into pursuing necessarily fleeting pleasures, and avoiding as much as we can, pain and suffering such that for the most part we are predictably reduced to spending most of our time being simply bored -- as if life were essentially not much more than a matter of almost endlessly standing in line.
A certain palliative nurse used to survey her dying patients, and after much experience of it, she stated the first and universal regret that everyone had at the end was they had not been "truer to themselves". But that's at the end, and it's certainly not how most of us live the vast bulk of our days.
Other systems of government allow some people to flourish, even sometimes many, but I think democracy tops them all. It's the optimal system.
The single criticism I've most often heard of democracy is the greater number of people are fools and, hence, democracy boils down to no less than governance by fools. The argument implicitly or explicitly assumes that some other form of government would typically be lead by much wiser people.
The joke here -- and it's a good one -- is to so naively assume any government of any type is at all likely to be led by notably wise people.
I think a possible excuse for such astonishing naivety is that democracies are usually, it seems, a bit more open and "honest" that they are run mostly by predictably unremarkable people who are most likely qualified for their jobs only by the fact they know how to get themselves into positions of power. Other systems are much better at hiding the fact their claim the "trains at last run on time under them" is a whole lot of hooey.
Of course, there are things a democracy could at least in theory do -- and in practice, might even do marginally better than other systems -- to ameliorate the natural tendency of humans to be foolish. Better universal education, strong constitutional checks and balances, and wise laws to insure as much as possible that the people are well informed -- just three things that immediately come to mind.
In sum, I cannot take seriously the frequent criticism that democracies are any more prone than other systems to foolishness. It's a ridiculous objection. Yet it begs a very real question: Given all systems of government are at least about equally run by unremarkable people, then why not go with democracy if it is indeed the optimal system for allowing people a chance to flourish?
Comments and questions?
