Austin Ford

Pols 108
Trexel
Exam #2
12/14/04
Exam 2
What are the costs and benefits of relying on democracy for maximizing human
liberty and constraining human nature?


The goal of democracy as Americans have come to know it today is
set in the traditions of governance by the consent of the governed, so that our
government will always remain rooted in the great history and traditions that have
pushed us further and further towards liberty for all people while minimizing the
cost democracy can have on the society that it governs.
The democratic principles that have existed since the ancient Greek city
state of Athens evolved so that every citizen could have their voice heard in the
decision making process of how to govern the society as a whole. Democracy
exists in the world today because we wish to involve as many citizens in the
process as we can. This inclusion, while validating the outcome of policy
decisions also presents many drawbacks to the types of policies that can hence
be put forth. This cost of democracy can be looked at in the view of human
nature that Thucydides expresses that the policies only pretend to serve the
public (Thucydides 92). The government seeking to maintain power will stop at
nothing to do so, thus thinking nothing of piety, we see the lack of control on our
own human nature to gain and maintain power that democracy possess. While
this deals with the cost that democracy has due to our own human nature we
must also look to the benefits that arise from the fact that ever citizen gets a
voice in the decision process of government. Since all will have a say so in the
laws that are enacted we will be better at dealing with the laws and statues that
are enacted. This inclusion is a benefit to society in part to the fact that we will
follow the laws that we have helped create. We see this in Thucydides work
saying it was you who decided in favor of thisalong with me (55). That
attachment signifies the connection that a citizen must feel with the decisions
they make in regards to government. The citizen also must be obliged to follow
the laws they helped create. This is a benefit if the laws that are created by the
citizens are good, however we know that in democracy a law can be passed
based on other outside objects effecting the decision making process. In Athens,
the outside effects could be that a strong speaker could sway enough support for
a bad law that it could be enacted thereby becoming a huge cost to the overall
democracy and limiting the protections on liberty that we should have thought a
democracy. Because of this the democracy that we have today has protections
against such influence by a charismatic speaker. We have many procedural
votes, and committees that bills are sent to ensure that bills are not enacted to
quickly before all parties have had a chance to overlook them and express
concerns and make modifications to protect our liberty. This benefit has been put
into place to correct the cost human nature that we saw in an earlier version of
democracy.
Another aspect of human nature that we have sought to correct in our own
democracy is that of the good and bad nature of the ruler himself. As Machiavelli
writes that it is necessary for a ruler to know when to act like an animal and
when like a man; if he relies on just onehe cannot hope to survive.
(Machiavelli 54). We have sought to alter this aspect of human nature in our
democracy that we live in. We hope to inspire the best qualities in our leaders,
since we have placed institutions at their discretion that carry out the laws. We
expect a certain type of behavior at all times from any member of our society, so
we ask the same behavior also come from the person in charge of the
government as well. This would not fit with Machiavelli due to the fact he would
see a constant good acting leader or ruler as a liability to the politics of the day.
Machiavelli would argue that since people will always expect good from the
leader, the ruler in fact has less power to rule effectively. Machiavelli would state
that the need for both the fox and the lion (54) would be the best for the state.
The need for the fox would be to discover schemes that limit our liberties. This
would be backed up by the lion who would hold enough power to frighten the
enemies of the state. Those who would wish to limit the rights and privileges of
the people in our society this day in age However in todays society to maximize
the liberty we enjoy in our current state of governance we must place restrictions
on the power that can be exercised over the people. We do not allow the ruler to
be beastly to those who would oppose his ideals and policies. Now this benefit
of allowing many ideas and thoughts to flourish can also be harmful to the
society as well. If we curtain the power of the government to much then those
who enjoy protection from the onslaught of the government, might in fact seek to
overturn it. This cost would be slow building to a massive crescendo. This cost of
limiting the power being held by the government in a democracy to much is the
reason a delicate balance must be sought out so we can protect ourselves not
only from incursion of government unto our private lives and in every crevices of
our very existence but so we may also enjoy the protections that our democracy
affords to us directly as citizens of the democracy.
The next maximization that we seek is in the realm of our personal rights.
We have enacted a democracy be cause we believed it to be the best defense
for our rights were violated by King George the 3
rd
of England. These rights were
created by the state of nature (Locke 8) and are not given to any individual by
another man. Rather they exist in accordance with man and also without man as
well. They are the natural rule that exists and they govern the actions of all. The
rights we have in the state of nature are equal to all regardless of stature or
wealth. We do however submit a certain degree of our rights when we agree to
enter into and be governed by the rules of a society and as well the government
the people decide to establish. The reason for the establishment of a
government is the protection of the rights we have in the state of nature.
Unfortunately we must surrender a portion of these said rights to enter unto the
government. And this entrance fee is also a cost that one must look at and
examine whenthey agree to consent to be governed by the laws and order of the
society.
When however the government that has been entered does not
fulfill the basic responsibility, the people must and are charged with the task of
toppling the offending government. The infringements upon our rights lead
Jefferson to pen our grievances. Jefferson used Locke to state ways in which,
we as governed citizens had the right and the responsibility to thus over take and
overthrow the government which had now come to govern us unjustly (Locke
107). We sought to create a government which every person has his property
(Locke 19). This was one of the biggest offenses that was done to the American
colonists prior to the American Revolution, and we sought ways to prevent the
same from happening again. We did protect our property rights and limiting the
power the governors had by creating a democracy where the foundations of
which would be life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which is from the
Declaration of Independence. Now under our form of democracy we have placed
restrictions on the government to protect a right of property (Locke 27). This
protection seeks to allow each individual person his or her own liberty to decide
what to do with that property. We cannot have a limited form of government
without having property rights be protected. This is because we must recognize
that each individual is himself proprietor of his own person, and the actions of
labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property (Locke 27)
meaning that even a person who did not own any land was still a property owner
and could not be forced to do or create, manage, or act in any way that was
contrary to what he wished to do with his own property. This ultimate
maximization of our liberty is only hindered by the fact that any person could
choose to do anything with his or her own property. And thus conflict arises when
these liberties collide with each other. This cost of our form of democracy has
been curtailed by the establishment of certain ideals and practices that we seek
to protect from the encroachment of government seeking to control ourselves
and thereby control our property. The first 10 amendments to the United States
Constitution can be viewed as the most important protections of our property
rights. Since they deal with directly with rules forbiddening government to act in
certain ways or interfere with citizens rights. By having these protections in place
we enjoy the full breadth of liberty while restricting the costs to our society as a
whole.
The liberty that we have had as American is due to the nature of
our democracy. We must always remember that our decisions effect the lives of
many of the people around us and it is in these regards we must make our
decisions. We should not live our life in order to force our wills on the lives of
others for as mill put it we must allow for the difference in peoples lives and the
only time where a restriction should be placed upon the liberty of one person is in
regards to the prevent[ion] of harm to other (Mill 52). That meaning we as
person being able to make decisions for our own lives must live for ourselves
and have trust in others to make the best decisions for them. Now this is the best
type of liberty that one can hope to have. Because one is free from all
interference of governments, people, and laws as well. Now the cost of this can
be easily seen in our lives. Who should be the person to say when or where
ones actions hurt another. What if ones actions do not cause a direct harm, but
by existing in society they harm people. Both of these questions must be looked
on and the answer is not know, there exists a grey area where, yes people
should have the right to decide how to live their lives. But their must be
restrictions placed on them because harm can be done. Some would argue that
by doing something that is not for the good, either physical or moral (Mill 52)
that a harm is being done to the society. This ideal is on loose constructionist
terms, where if the idea or action is not good then it must be bad or immoral.
There is no set list of what is bad and what is good so the decision must be
made each time and taking into account the circumstances and the people
involved in the action. That is why under our form of democracy we have
developed the judicial court systems which specific job is to judge when or where
the law extends and can interfere with the liberty of the people who are governed
by the laws they interpret. Now in response to the court the people can effect
that laws that they live under. This is done by changing the very law itself, this is
done to better reflect the will of the people and so the liberty they have is not
infringed upon. But this idea of a redress of grievances being done by both the
court systems and also the legislative branch our government brings problems in
itself. Rather if we have problems with the choices of those who live in our
democracy we should still allow them to have the liberty to make choices for
themselves, but we should use other means rather than laws and force to restrict
their liberty. We should try to persuade them to make better choices. And we
should limit the negative effects of their existence by advising others to avoid the
path that those we wish to minimize in society. But never, never should we limit
the liberty of those who have the same rights and responsibilities that we
ourselves enjoy.
Democracy as it exists is to bring the societies of men, women and
children under an acceptable form of government that will respect the wishes of
the people to live as they see fit. But govern in a way that all hold true to the
obligations and principles that have come to be embodied in the rule of
democracy. Without democracy in the United States our society would not
resemble anything we would care to recognize at all. Rather it is due to
democracy that we allow our worst natures to be controlled while at the same
time we come to realize it is by everyones voice being heard that we are better
able to govern. We must recognize the will of the people when it becomes a
deafening roar. But at the same time we must know what is right and
administrate based on these principles. For democracy allows for the best of the
protection of our rights, privileges and ideals. While at the same time it enforces
and gives us a method of control that all can enter into and be glad to dwell.