Winston Churchill said ""Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." (from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947) But is democracy, which is simply a form of collectivism- the collective will of a majority in some particular geographical area called a "county", "province", "watershed management district", or whatever- ethical? An old joke goes that democracy is three wolves and a sheep discussing what to have for lunch. In a democracy the majority makes the rules and minorites can be discriminated against or killed, as in the democratic parliamentary system of The Third Reich. Aha! but isn't a Republic different than a mere democracy? How so? Republics are declared to exist either by victorious generals or by groups of people which either constitute a majority at best, or a single dictator at worst, but this in no way appears to have any more legitimacy than a pure democracy, which, again, is "might makes right" in sheep's clothing.

Jefferson said "That government is best which governs least", and philosopher/abolitionist Henry David Thoreau said he go Jefferson one better, and say that the government is best which governs not at all. Abolitionists Lysander Spooner and Josiah Warren declared that not only should slaves be free and not subject to "runaway slave laws" wherein government authorities return them to people who claim to own them, but that all people should be free of restrictions and taxation by people who claim a form of ownership over them.

Although almost all humanity is indoctrinated in government-run schools to believe that obedience to governmental authority is the only socially acceptable behaviior, it would seem that neither democracy nor republicanism has any more inherent legitimacy than "the divine rights of kings and popes". Spooner and Warren claimed, as did John Locke earlier, (but later abandoned his position), that it was illogical for a person who did not possess a right to control another person, to transfer this right to a third party who then acquires this right. Since Spooner and Warren's day no logical explanation has been offered as to why noncoercive individuals should be deprived of individual liberty, the "social contract" of Aquinas/Hobbes/Rousseau notwithstanding.

What's the ethical alternative?

Emancipation, and individual liberty.

Tom,

I think the question you are asking here is not "is democracy ethical?", but "is government ethical?"

I agree with you that government which is unethical (or a particular instance of government which is unethical) does not become ethical merely because of democratic endorsement. So, for example, the treatment of Jews by the Nazi government of Germany was unethical, but it would be just as unethical if perpetrated by a democratic and accountable government.

But all this shows is that democracy is irrelevant to the issue. Whether a particular measure implemented by the state is ethical or not does not normally depend (and perhaps does not everp depend) on whether the government is democratic or not.

The real issue is, what are the proper (ethical, moral) limits of government power, isn't it?

Some aspects of this are very interesting problems indeed. The subversion of democracy for criminal exploitation by the leading party by ZANU PF in Zimbabwe makes it clear that the starry-eyed idealism of the western world was wrong about the benefit of democracy for Africa. The ruthless exploitation by the 'Big Men' in a society based on tribalism mean that the structures of democracy are just an easy route to power at the cost of the ordinary people.

An enlightened colonialism would have given a far better result for sub-Saharan Africa.

How would the more enlightened colonialism have worked? My dad worked for thr British Colonial government, while they developed the coffee growing industry in Tanganyika, now it seems quite beneficial to modern Tanzania, which is also one of Africa's most stable countries.

But the key word here is "enlightened". Colonialism is just as capable of producing a bad outcome as democracy; perhaps more so. Zimbabwe's own colonial history, in fact, produced a pretty poor outcome in terms of tyranny, brutality and oppression, and we don't have to look far to find many other examples.

So it may be true to say that enlightened colonialism would have produced a better outcome, but it is just as true to say that enlighted democracy would have produced a better outcome. The observation is trite, and it tells us nothing about the relative merits of colonialism and democracy.

with the inevitable rise of 'strong men' who organize a system of society, usually for their own benefit.

Even relatively un-enlightened British colonialism was a lot better than thugs who massacre the weak in the tens of thousands, and loot the wealth of their nation to the point of starvation.

Belgian colonialism was horrifically evil. German had its definite downers. British had some examples of bad, but was generally much better than that.

Enlightened colonialism is shown by contrast in a fairminded look at history - the mildly exploitative is so much better than the genocidal.

If you plant grass seed to avoid tracking in mud, you create a maintenance job. So, too, when planting the seeds of freedom. (Any prizes for Worst Analogy? )

Peregrinus, you ask if it's not just a question of democracy, but "The real issue is, what are the proper (ethical, moral) limits of government power, isn't it?

We might take that a step further and ask if it's actually a question of whether coercion of peaceful, nonagressive people, even for their own benefit, is ethical.

The people who wrote the U.S. Constitution recognized some of the risks to Democracy, tyranny of the majority, and tried to write in protections for the people in general and minorities. Of course, those protections have been hated by the government almost from the start. And, the battle still rages.

Of course. But that's equally true of democracy, isn't it? The question posed by Tom is not whether enlightened goverment is better than genocidal government. The answer to that is obvious, and trite. But Tom raises an entirely different question, which he frames as "is democracy ethical?" Observing that enlightened governments are better than unenlightened ones doesn't really help us to answer that.

Well, is that in fact the question you want to discuss?

I am not so much worried how a government is constructed as I am how it comes to the decisions that it does - how does the government define what is ethical?

With a fundamental 'majority rules' voting system, can a majority of people vote in something unethical? Or is ethical in this case defined by what the majority perceives to be right? I would be worried if that is the case.

A constitution or human rights bill means that the government cannot vote in an unethical bill, only so long as the constitution is ethical.

Yes, is the initiation of force against some peaceful people, even when endorsed by a majority of other people in a given geographical area for the alleged benefit of the first group, ethical? --such as involuntary taxation in order to provide involuntary building inspections, an involuntary military draft, and so on.

I think the first question is, is the state/the community ever justified in using force against the individual? And I think that most people would say that, at least sometimes, it is. For example, the state is justified in using the force necessary to prevent me from beating you up and stealing your wristwatch.

But once we concede this, a couple of things follow.

The first point to note in this example is that, at the individual level, the state would be using force against me, not for my benefit, but for yours – at least, primarily for yours.

The second point is that, if the state is justified in using force against me to protect you in this way, it must also be justified in using force against you to protect me. Thus you have to accept that the state is sometime justified in using force against you for my benefit.

The third point is that, if the right/duty of the state to use force in this way is to have any meaning, the state must also have the right to appoint, equip and pay a policeman. Which in turn means it must also have the right to levy taxes on you and me to fund this, even though neither of us (I assume) are among those who go around beating people up and stealing their wristwatches.

But if the state can levy taxes on peaceful you and peaceful me for this purpose (backed up with the ultimate threat of seizure or imprisonment) then we have an answer to your question. Yes, the state is at least sometimes justified in using force against peaceful individuals.

The next point is that it’s a mistake to individualise this too much. Human beings are social animals; our relationships with one another are a central part of what makes us human. Suppose I am big and strong and more than capable of protecting my own wristwatch. Or suppose that I don’t own a wristwatch. Does it follow that I receive no benefit from the existence of wristwatch protection squad of the the police force? No, it doesn’t, because I am adversely affected if I live in a society in which other people’s wristwatches are routinely stolen. By the same token, even if I have no children, I am adversely affected if gangs of neglected, unskilled, starving children roam the streets, so I benefit from the provision of schools and other social institutions which promote and support the rearing of children. They have to be paid for too. And these examples could readily be multiplied. So the state is justified in levying taxes not simply to provide a police force, but to build schools. And to construct and maintain roads. And to prevent shopkeepers giving short weight, and publicans selling watered-down beer, and builders erecting shonky buildings.

Note that this has nothing to do with “social contract” theory, which itself starts from an individualised “starting position” and tries to reconcile this with reality by imputing some notional “agreement” to participate in society. The fact is that we are social and relational animals; we don’t have a meaningful choice about participating in human society if we are to live in a fully human way. We are, by nature, both individuals and members of communities; we don’t need to posit some theoretical “contract” to justify treating people as members of communities.

Peregrinus, You said:
"I think the first question is, is the state/the community ever justified in using force against the individual? And I think that most people would say that, at least sometimes, it is. For example, the state is justified in using the force necessary to prevent me from beating you up and stealing your wristwatch.
But once we concede this, a couple of things follow."

I don't concede that. I think that you and/or your friends are justified in using force to prevent me from beating you up and taking your money, but I don't think that anyone is justified, even if they call themselves a state or a community, in forcefully taking someone's earnings -- involuntarily taxing them under the threat of forceful imprisonment. The state, itself, is often a mafia-like protection racket.

Whether most people would say that a state is justified in using force is irrelevant to me. Most people voted for George Bush for his second term, and at one time most churches taught that slavery was ethical.

Ah, but what if I myself am a weakling, and I haven’t got any friends? Are the wristwatches of the socially inept fair game? Is survival of the fittest the ultimate moral law?


Why not?


Possibly, but mafia protection rackets are even more like mafia protection rackets, and if you abandon the idea that the state is the sole agent authorised to use force you create a climate in which mafia protection rackets will inevitably flourish; they will be all that stands between socially inept wristwatch owners and destitution. Why on earth would you want to do that?

In the logic of ethics do two wrongs make a right? Is it ethical for the state tax you against your wishes, so that it can protect you from being robbed? If you accept the premise that no people, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, or sexual preference are created "more equal than others" how can it be logically ethical for anyone to be able to do unto someone that which he/she does not want done to them, or delegate this authority to a third party?

We’re not actually talking about “two wrongs” here, Tom. The whole point of giving the state the exclusive right to have recourse to force, and the mandate to enforce this exclusivity, is that the state will suppress – in so far as practicable – the mafia protection rackets. It won’t always be completely successful, of course, but nobody is arguing for a state of affairs in which we accept both taxation by the state (and other instances of the use of force by the state) and mafia protection rackets doing whatever they like, without hindrance of any kind.

The choice is between an environment in which we have a state which uses force to suppress mafia protection rackets, and an environment in which nobody uses force to suppress mafia protection rackets – the mafia rackets have the monopoly of force. Even if you regard both of these as wrong, you cannot regard them as equivalently wrong, unless you are going to argue that no value at all is to be attached to characteristics like the rule of law, or accountability.


I’d go further, Tom. It’s ethical for the state to tax you against your wishes so that it can prevent me from being robbed. (I’m the socially inept weakling here, remember.)

This may amaze you, but your wishes are not the only moral principle in the universe. Human beings are social animals, we live in community, our humanity is defined and constituted by our relationships with one another, we have moral obligations to one another which are not limited to not directly attacking one another.

So, yes, sometimes it may be moral for the community to do things to you that you do not want done to you. In particular, there is no obvious reason why the community should accept your assertion that the bills in your wallet can never be taken out of your wallet by anyone but you. It may upset you that the community does not share your view on this matter, but can you say why you think the community is morally obliged to accept your view on this?