The essence of democracy lays in the assumption that a society is best served when power is entrusted to the common people. This is perhaps why democracies have been most successful when those who are defined as the “common people” have a fair amount of free time, allowing them to consider political matters; when they have access to reliable information concerning the issues the society faces; and when they are all tied to each other with a bond strong enough to resist man’s natural temptation to use force when disagreements arise.

In the past, there was much doubt as to laypeople’s ability to consider political issues in a rational manner. With advents in education and communication, it has become more difficult to under-estimate people’s ability to reason for themselves, free of overly successful manipulation. Even if the common people do not consider the issues from a thoroughly objective and rational manner, they are seen as being at least capable of making decisions as to what is good for them. Since decisions in a democracy are fueled by a consensus that must be supported by at least a significant part of the population, the whims of individuals lose influence in favour of decisions which will benefit a large proportion of society – and perhaps the whole of it.

Even when we decide upon such a system, there are many details to be considered as to how our democracy should be designed. One of the primary issues deals with the centralisation of power and there is a whole continuum of possibilities to consider here: on one end, there is autocracy, with one individual being granted absolute power; and on the other, there is absolute democracy, with the whole of society involved in every single decision. As we try to understand which point upon this continuum would be ideal – ideal, at least, for a specific society – it is important to consider the various problems that can arise as we increase or decrease the centralisation of power.

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text

(recommended Artist: Karsh Kale – Distance)

REMINDER: I use “liberal” in the original sense of the term, so those who identify liberalism as “the left” — a mistake common in the United States and English Canada — should perhaps see it as being roughly (roughly) equivalent to “libertarianism” or “classical liberalism”. Read more about this detailhere (though I see liberalism a bit differently than the author of that page).

Reminder #2: This is a bit of a rant.

I have an issue with people who spout ideological garbage about individual rights and refuse to go further than that when looking at issues. Individual rights goes just as much for the person who wants to own a pit bull as the person wanting to paint his house pink; as the person wanting grow opium poppy in his backyard as the person wanting to dress as he wants; as the person wanting to masturbate on his front lawn as the person who wants to drive without a seatbelt; as the person who wants to have an abortion as the person who wants to own a gun; as the person who wants to live in a shaky house as the person who wants to let his grass grow tall.

It is extremely easy to argue in favour of each of these cases from an “individual liberty”, “personality responsibility” standpoint; such liberalism, stripped down to its core, makes individuals the sole agents responsible for their what they do to themselves and on their properties; and even, to a certain extent, on public property (such as dressing as one wants and perhaps such as walking naked in public).

Click here to continue reading »« Click here to hide text