: Gee, i find your proposition that democracy is 'wrong in principle' a little hard to swallow. I'm pretty sure he was saying "unlimited democracy" is wrong in principle. Massive difference.
: The whole point of having a bill of rights in america is to protect minority interests when they are infringed by the tyranny of the majority.
: The other point to be made here is that democracies give to the individual a realm of private activity that is free from coercion.
No, the rule of law does that. Most think, and I tend to agree, taht limited democracy is the most effective and efficient manner of upholding the rule of law.
:Into such a private sphere the legislature is usually unwilling to venture. As such individuals are free from the majority rule in this sphere.
Medicare, Medicaid, the drug war, farm subsidies, abortion for public schoold teens and we could go on.
: As to the lack of a link between parliamentary reps and the people, well that is unfortunately to a degree true. But if people were not so passive in their polotics then such things could not happen. Indeed there is no such thing as a 'passive' democracy; the price that one must pay is eternal vigilence.
100% agreed. Your analysis is completely correct that good societies do not make good people but good people do make a good society. Please inform Deathy of this.
: But i digress, Gee if democracy (rule of the people by the people) is wrong in principle, what would you have in its place?
Again, I think he's referring to unilimited democracy.
