Posted on 11/26/2006 11:40:24 AM PST by tpaine
The Role of a Majority Vote in a Free Society Versus Unlimited Majority Rule in a Democracy
IF the Founding Fathers who put together our Constitution HAD wanted a democracy for this country they would NOT have put in such "checks and balances" as the Electoral College (which checks against the majority) or the arduous amendment procedure, the Bill of Rights, and so on. They would have just let the majority decide.
Asked what sort of government they had set up, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A Republic -- if you can keep it!"
And, make no mistake, by "republic" they didn't mean merely a representative democracy. By no means of interpretation! They meant a government whose scope of authority was LEGALLY LIMITED by a device called a written CONSTITUTION.
Jefferson said, let me hear no more about having trust and confidence in the men of government -- but rather BIND THEM DOWN BY THE CHAINS of the Constitution!
A republic is a government whose scope of authority is limited by law. The officials of government would be under explicit limitations as to what they could and could not do. The men in government were expressly forbidden to pass ex post facto laws or bills of attainder. The Bill of Rights would not allow Congress to pass laws setting up a monopoly Church or abridging freedom of religious worship, or of speech or of peaceful assembly, etc. In other words, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights said to the officials of the national government, "You can't do this, and you can't do that -- and, if we forgot to explicitly mention anything important, we've got the 9th and 10th Amendments which say you can't do that either!"
No, they didn't set up a democracy, representative or otherwise. The Bill of Rights would not have been ncessary if they wanted to let the majority decide the issues. It was a republic for which they stood -- a government of legally limited authority.
Limited? Limited by what principle? By the principle of the natural individual rights of peaceful men.
"Rights" are enclaves of freedom and privacy of people as individuals which are off-limits to the interference of other people, including any majority. The only proper function of government is to secure these rights of individuals in their persons and properties from being violated by the initiation of the use of violence or fraud by either criminals or foreign aggressors. This position, from the original text of Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, outlines the proper scope and limits of jurisdiction for government, the institution that wields legal force in society.
Again, it is the principle of individual rights which is the standard -- NOT majority whim. Amd, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, whenever government becomes destructive to its proper function (i.e., securing rights from crime by protecting people from criminals), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and start over.
Note that it would NOT be legitimate for any majority of people to alter or abolish a proper government and replace it with one that, by deliberate policy, violates the rights of peaceful people. No magic number -- not even fifty percent plus one -- can transform an act that is wrong and criminal if committed by an individual (such as murder or theft) into a collecltive right. Jefferson did not advocate majority rule.
The "consent of the governed" applies to choosing the officials who will administer a proper government -- not in "legitimizing" tyranny. The Bill of Rights recognized this. Note that the First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law abridging" various freedoms. It does NOT say "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom UNLESS A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT IT TO DO SO."
In a free society, individual rights of peaceful people are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of any peaceful individual, or any minority of peaceful individuals. Voting is merely a political procedure or mechanism -- within a strictly limited sphere of activity -- for choosing the specific, practical MEANS of implementing a proper government's basic policy, or choosing the specific OFFICIALS who will ADMINISTER the government's basic policy -- but that basic policy (the protection of indiviudal rights from coercive violation) is NOT determined by majority vote. Not in a Laissez-Faire Republic.
The citizens of a free society may disagree over the specific means or officers for implementing or administering the basic policy of government (to protect their rights to person & property from criminal violation). The specific legal procedures, rules of due process, and methods of enforcement, etc. are problems which are the province of political science and the philosophy of law.
But a majority cannot rightfully vote to change the basic policy in order to violate the rights of innocent people. In a Laissez-Faire Republic, as in the original Aemrican Republic, the actions of government and its agents and officials are LIMITED by rules based on principles -- not to be changed at the ARBITRARY whim of ANYONE, be it one man, a minority group, or a majority. (The arduous amendment procedrue set up in the Constitution by the Framers is an example of this.)
Again, it is Principle versus Whim.
Are there constitutional limits on majority rules?
You need to read the Constitution...
States ratify Amendments... WITH SUPER MAJORITIES!
Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
From where are the rights in the U.S. Constitution derived?
ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence.
Francis confusedly asks:
Are there constitutional limits on majority rules?
"-- as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, whenever government becomes destructive to its proper function (i.e., securing rights from crime by protecting people from criminals), it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and start over.
Note that it would NOT be legitimate for any majority of people to alter or abolish a proper government and replace it with one that, by deliberate policy, violates the rights of peaceful people.
No magic number -- not even fifty percent plus one -- can transform an act that is wrong and criminal if committed by an individual (such as murder or theft) into a collective right.
Jefferson did not advocate majority rule. --"
rainy day bump
"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."
"...The type I error, erring on the side of over-caution, has little or no cost to FDA officials. Grieving survivors of those 10,000 people who unnecessarily died each year don't know why their loved one died, and surely they don't connect the death to FDA over-caution. For FDA officials, these are the best kind of victims — invisible ones.
"When an FDA official holds a press conference to announce its approval of a new life-saving drug, I'd like to see just one reporter ask: How many lives would have been saved had the FDA not delayed the drug's approval?" -- Walter Williams
Looks good, thanks.
Thanks for the bumps fellas..
And a special thanks to ol franny, who works hard to put out the majority rulers positions.
So this essay basically says that majority rule can happen outside the government (for example when a group of people just by chance make the same choice)?
If there is no repurcussion for deviation and the mechanisms of government are not involved, that is majority rule?
You are hysterical Franny. Get a grip
You suggest we should not be represented by our votes... even by a super majority...
"-- In a free society, individual rights of peaceful people are not subject to a public vote; --
-- a majority has no right to vote away the rights of any peaceful individual, or any minority of peaceful individuals.
Voting is merely a political procedure or mechanism -- within a strictly limited sphere of activity -- for choosing the specific, practical MEANS of implementing a proper government's basic policy, or choosing the specific OFFICIALS who will ADMINISTER the government's basic policy.
-- But that basic policy (the protection of individual rights from coercive violation) is NOT determined by majority vote. --"
Not in a free Republic.
Article V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
It says: -- "Rights" are enclaves of freedom and privacy, -- of people as individuals, - which are off-limits to the interference of other people, including any majority."
(for example when a group of people just by chance make the same choice)?
Not many rational people choose to infringe on our right to carry arms, "just by chance"...
If there is no repurcussion for deviation and the mechanisms of government are not involved, that is majority rule?
Translate "repercussion for deviation" please..
Thanks for the bump, franny. Good boy..
Lets say there are 100 people. 60 of them decide to drink Coke. Is this 'majority rule'?
Lets say later, one of the 60 decides to drink RC Cola. At this point, ca the previous 59 use the power of the state to enforc compliance?
That is what I mean by repurcussions for noncompliance.
Rights entail restrictions, correct? Due Process, Free Speech, Political Determination all mean that an opposing party cannot 'infringe' those rights or take action to diminish them. Therefore, you are saying that as individuals while we have rights, we also have limitations in that we can't infringe other's rights. Is this correct?
It says: -- "Rights" are enclaves of freedom and privacy, -- of people as individuals, - which are off-limits to the interference of other people, including any majority."
(for example when a group of people just by chance make the same choice)?
Not many rational people choose to infringe on our right to carry arms, "just by chance"...
If there is no repurcussion for deviation and the mechanisms of government are not involved, that is majority rule?
Translate "repercussion for deviation" please..
Lets say there are 100 people. 60 of them decide to drink Coke. Is this 'majority rule'?
Lets say later, one of the 60 decides to drink RC Cola. At this point, ca the previous 59 use the power of the state to enforc compliance?
That is what I mean by repurcussions for noncompliance.
Let's just say someone's drinking more than just Coke or RC, and is trying to make a point about "repurcussions for noncompliance". -- Imho he didn't.
Rights entail restrictions, correct? Due Process, Free Speech, Political Determination all mean that an opposing party cannot 'infringe' those rights or take action to diminish them. Therefore, you are saying that as individuals while we have rights, we also have limitations in that we can't infringe other's rights. Is this correct?
Whatever, graf.. You need rest. Take two more 'cokes', -- and call me whenever.
Democracy is one of the cornerstones of socialism, something I did not realize for most of my life, but finally figured out. Luckily we don't have it in a pure form here. Yet. OTOH, the Democrats, and apparently some freepers would love a pure democracy.
I have seen this (roughly) on a leftist website during the past year: "since the government and the people are the same, the power of the people shall not be restricted." In other words, the power of government shall not be restricted. Kind of says it all.
Anyhow, while democracy is desirable, we need a Constitution to keep the people from voting away their freedom, voting for themselves the possessions of others, voting themselves the power to infringe the freedom of others, and to keep our government within limited boundaries. Or at least that was the theory the way I understood it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.