“The theory involves a conceptual conflation of democracy and liberty (freedom) that can only be called scandalous, especially coming from self-proclaimed libertarians. The foundation and cornerstone of liberty is the institution of private property; and private–exclusive–property is logically incompatible with democracy–majority rule. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism….the doctrine of democratic peace, which goes back to the days of Woodrow Wilson and World War I, has been revived in recent years by George W. Bush and his neo-conservative advisors, and by now has become intellectual folklore even in liberal-libertarian circles.”
–Hans-Hermann Hoppe, The Paradox of Imperialism
Follow Circle Bastiat
If only we could convince High School civics or “Social Studies” teachers of this, the next generation may have a fighting chance at securing freedom. Perhaps someday they will stop holding up Athens, Greece as the model of modern, enlightened government.
Gang rape, lynching, the Zimbabwe farm invasions, the War rapes in the former Jugoslavia…
all infringe private property rights and are therefore evil, but all are acts of “will of a majority” and all bring “greater utility to the greater number”.
We can pick up the following arguments from KANT¨S Perpetual Peace
“that of democracy is, properly speaking, necessarily a despotism, because it establishes an executive power in which “all” decide for or even against one who does not agree; that is, “all,” who are not quite all, decide, and this is a contradiction of the general will with itself and with freedom.” ( Kant; Perpetual
Peace (1795) Sec. II, “First Definitive Article for Perpetual Peace”)
And as first footnote of the Section II We can read
“Rather, my external (juridical) freedom is to be defined as follows: It is the privilege to lend obedience to no external laws except those to which I could have given consent. Similarly, external (juridical) equality in a state is that relationship among the citizens in which no one can lawfully bind another without at the same time subjecting himself to the law by which he also can be bound. No definition of juridical dependence is needed, as this already lies in the concept of a state’s constitution as such.” ( Kant, Perpetual Peace (1795) Section II “First Definitive
Article for Perpetual Peace” footnotes 4)