Machan's Little Libertarian Encyclopedia
Chapter 7: Democratic State
Democracy (people's rule) is a process by which some decisions are made and in the context of politics it means the kind of system that depends upon the right of participation of the citizenry in public affairs. (The scope of the public realm is, thus, crucial to where democracy may properly be deployed.)
What grounds democracy as a just mode of political decision-making is that citizens have the ultimate authority concerning certain matters in the polis — i.e., their organized community. And the reason they do have this ultimate authority is that they are, as adults, equal in their status vis-a-vis the stake they have in their political institutions, their laws, public policies, foreign relations, etc.
That they have this equal status hinges on certain extra or pre-political matters, to be discerned by way of reflection upon human nature and proper human relations. For now I'll simply note that as I understand political matters, they arise from the moral fact that each individual adult human being has as his or her task in life to choose to live it rationally, to flourish as a rational animal. Since this task for adults can only be achieved if they are not subject to another's will — in which case it is that other's rational choice that would be the ruling principle of one's life — in communities human beings must be sovereign. From this it follows that they must have a say in their own political fate, ergo, democracy.
In any case, democracy is derivative of what human beings are taken to be as they find themselves within a community that aims at justice, a polity. Based on Thomas Hobbes' ideas, democracy is recommended because all of us are equal in being composed of matter-in-motion, lacking any significant, fundamental differentiating attributes. Hobbes held that nothing justifies differentiating some people from others (indeed, if one were to be fully consistent, anything from anything else, at the metaphysical, fundamental level of being.)
A somewhat different reason for democracy arises from the Lockean view. For John Locke we are all equal and independent in the state of nature, i.e., prior to the formation (that is, apart from) civil society. Adult human beings begin as embarking on a human life. In this they are all equal. The life of each individual is to be governed by the laws of nature (which is revealed by one's reason, if one but consults it). So we are all endowed with natural rights, which spell out for each of us a sphere of sovereignty or personal authority or jurisdiction. There are no natural masters or natural slaves (although there may be borderline cases of defective or crucially incapacitated persons). If this is kept in clear focus, one will realize that a human community starts with no one superior or inferior regarding the issue of the authority to make law and to govern. Thus, democracy, a process, morally required by the right to take part in deciding political issues or the right to give consent to be governed. It is not a process that is applicable to everything one might want to influence, however. There is a proper sphere of democracy.
Some propose that democracy is unlimited — only the fact that people will things to be one way or another matters. Some interpreters of Locke have claimed this — e.g., Willmoore Kendall and his followers — as well as some liberals, e.g., Benjamin Barber, and some conservatives, e.g., Robert Bork. They tend to view democracy as a sort of nature community decision-making process to which everyone is naturally obliged to submit.
Yet, for Locke the justification for government lies in the need for the protection of natural rights, a protection not easily obtained (except by the strong) in the state of nature. So Locke sees the protection of everyone's natural rights as the proper purpose of government. Since establishing, maintaining and protecting government is itself a form of human activity that can be done well or badly, it must be guided by principles. These are our natural rights. The creation, development and operations of government may not encroach upon those rights, lest its proper role in a human community be undermined.
In any case, unless democracy is itself guided by norms — unless the people express and implement their will without violating anyone's rights - it becomes self-defeating. First, there is the problem that such a process is in violation of the rights of innocents who would be made victims of the use of arbitrary force. Second, unlimited democracy can, as noted earlier, undo democracy itself. If democracy, for example, is applied too broadly, it can lead to its abolition — the majority can vote itself out of power. Third, we could democratically vote to exclude some people from the voting process without proper (constitutional?) limits to the process. If by the democratic process the rights to life, liberty or property could justifiably be abrogated or violated, those taking part in the process no longer can act freely and independently. The majority can threaten their free judgments.
We can extend this analysis now to the realm of contemporary politics in Western democracies. Let's focus on the general situation in the United States of America today. Most people who invoke democracy to justify the myriad of public policy measures that violate individual rights do so only when it supports their agenda. Thus, it is OK to use democracy to rob the rich — it appears to make it valid public policy instead of theft. But if the poor or blacks or women or workers turn out to be outnumbered, then democracy is deemed to have gone too far. The reason is that democracy by itself is never enough for justice. There must always be some specification of those proper goals for which democracy is appropriate. The task of democratic political theory is, in part, to identify those areas of public life that should be subject to democratic decision making.
What are those areas? And why are they the ones?
Alone or with others, a human being may not do some things to other human beings. No one or group may take over another's life and property. That would amount to Murder, assault, kidnapping, battery, rape, or other forms of aggression. The mere fact that the numbers of those who take part in doing the act constitutes a majority makes no difference to the wrongfulness of the act, nor that a democratic procedure has been followed. Without the consent of those whose rights are to be violated such a process is unjust. It is wrong to steal on one's own as well as with the support of millions. It is wrong to enslave, to place others into servitude when they refuse, etc., no matter whether by oneself, with the minority or with the majority. Nor is it proper for majorities empower certain people, their political representatives, to carry out such deeds.