I came here to say almost precisely this.
However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy, and that's a part of why we need a constitutional republic instead. Is there something wrong with that line of argumentation?
However, I do think it's true that people aren't smart enough for democracy, and that's a part of why we need a constitutional republic instead. Is there something wrong with that line of argumentation?
How can your laziness or greed affect me?
Smart / dumb are relative scales, so there will always be smarter, and dumber, no matter what you do. If you filled a society with what we currently define as genius level intellects, there would be the equivalent to dumb people amongst them - the dumb people would have 145 IQ's and the smart people would have 180 IQ's --- you get the idea.
Majority rules will always allow one group to optionally eat the other, and violate the rights of the minority. Whether that minority is the dumber 49% or the smarter 49%, either scenario is equally morally reprehensible.
Peikoff would say: think in extrapolated principles. Look up the first serious conversations Peikoff had with Rand (she couldn't get him to think in principles). Whether you're dealing with smart people with 250 IQ's, and 'dumb' people with 160 IQ's, the smart people might decide they know what's best for the 'dumb' people (and proceed to violate their liberty). The principle remains whether you're dealing with 70 IQ's and 160 IQ's or much higher scales of intellect.
FYI, I definitely think "people are not smart enough for democracy" is the wrong way to make the argument, because it misses the point; democracy is not the ideal to be striving for. But I'm not sure that it's wrong per se.
I usually take "dumb" and "smart" to really mean "ignorant" and "not ignorant" in a certain context. (Mabye I should not take them to mean that, but anyway.)
So, a democracy of people who were truly not ignorant about principles of government--i.e., they fully support individual rights--would work fine. Conversely, the reason democracy does not work is because people in general are ignorant of the proper principles of government and would trample individual rights.
I guess there is a key difference between the purpose of the government and the mechanism. Democracy can be thought of as either. In the former case, it's clearly wrong. In the latter case, it's just dangerous and suboptimal.
What does that even mean?
The majority of the people are not to be trusted with judging how to run their country, so we have to put intermediaries and dilute the majority's will?
I think the right way to go is a constitutional republic, in which the "way the country is run" is strictly defined ahead of time. Then, the elected representatives have to act within those strict parameters. You could call the constitution an "intermediary that dilutes the majority's will" if you want.
I certainly belive that individual rights have to be protected from the will of the majority. Or, the minorities have to be protected from the will of the majority.
Keep in mind that everyone is part of a minority sometimes, and everyone is part of a majority sometimes. Depends on the issue.
America today is somewhere between a true democracy and a true constitutional republic. Officially, it is a constitutional republic, and most of the key individual rights are protected (free speech, etc.). Unfortunately, there is no separation of state and economy, and your wealth can (and is) seized arbitrarily.
There is also a very large spate of regulations that severely curtail your proper right to act as long as you don't violate the rights of others.
So basically, the mechanism of a constitutional republic still exists in America, but its actual purpose has been sundered.
A "constitutional republic" is something defined by a set of laws with certain specific elements in common: having a constitution and being a republic (which is also quite a loose term, used to define "anything that is not a monarchy" -- Iran is also a constitutional republic, for example, albeit a theocratic one).
A "democracy" is not a comparable entity. Can you please point out any country who defines itself, in official terms, as a "Democracy"? Even classic Athens didn't call itself such a thing. This is because democracy is not a set of laws: it's a declaration of principles, an abstract utopia of where your laws should come from (i.e. "the people"), traditionally associated with some sort of voting system. On the formal level, there is no clear definition of a complete form of government called a "democracy"; it's commonly assumed such a thing involves some sort of voting rights (better if universal), but that's about it. The term is used to indicate the utopic state where government is carried out "by the people" in its totality. There has been no such perfect government throughout history and probably there never will be, but it's an utopia from which real forms of government can find justification and inspiration.
You can compare a "constitutional republic" to a "constitutional monarchy" or an "absolute monarchy": they are all specific forms of government with very specific common formal traits. A "democracy" is a completely different concept. You live in a constitutional republic based on democratic principles, i.e. a democracy... albeit a flawed one, like all of them are. You should strive to make your republic as genuinely democratic as possible, not renounce your rights "because after all we've never been a democracy".
From what I understand, the US Founding Fathers explicitly wanted to avoid a democracy, which was seen as an unjust system that punished Socrates and was associated with the downfall of Rome (at one point, the Roman emperors apparently had to essentially feed the populace in order to maintain enough popularity to stay emperor, bankrupting the state).
Rather, they wanted a system that protected individual rights. You know, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That is explicitly opposed to a system of rule by the majority or rule by the people.
The US was not supposed to be a democracy.
And regardless of the historical details, why would I want to be ruled by the majority? I want to rule myself, and I have no desire to rule others. That's the only morally proper attitude.
Are laws not written in an assembly by majority vote?
Are you not electing representatives by majority vote?
And this has always been the case in the US system.
See my other post here about the different types of majority and how they can represent different things and/or failing at representing the will of the demos. The fact that the founding fathers were trying to avoid the worst elements of democracy doesn't mean they didn't want a democracy at all; if that was the case, they'd have just nominated a new King and be done with it. No, they were establishing a government by "we the people", which is the exact definition of a democracy. Whether or not they misused the term to indicate the "tyranny of majority", which is a separate concept, does not mean that we should keep misusing it in modern scientific and political debate.
So working backwards you can see that the system failed to protect the rights of minorities.
I think you mean that it failed to protect the rights of some minorities.
But even at that, the system provided a framework through which those deficiencies could be address, while at the same time minimizing "leakage": as much as I complain, it appears that we've gained a lot more in human/civil rights than we've lost over that time.
Hah, I didn't even notice the name, was just urged to argue!!! ;-)
Keep in mind that everyone is part of a minority sometimes, and everyone is part of a majority sometimes. Depends on the issue.
Yeah, that's what I commented just now above. You have to allow for protections to the minorities for this very reason, but not for all individual rights. As a farfetched, but real example, not for, say, NAMBLA rights.