Is democracy the same as freedom?

I believe it is insufficient to provide freedom.

What are some of your opinions on this subject?

-Tim

No, it's not. Several hundred people telling several hundren million people what to do and how to live is not freedom in my opinion. That is if you are using the commonly accepted, but nevertheless incorrect definition of democracy, i.e. American government. It is actually a republic.

A true democracy (think ancient Greece, Athens in particular) is still not freedom, because it's basically mob rule. As long as 51% of the population agree with something, the other 49% have to obide by it.

I think that's a good point. For example, look at the Gore/Bush election. Gore got the popular vote, but Bush just got one more state. makes ya think...

I believe that not every Democracy is the way to my freedom, but it provides a platform for change and for voicing our differences.

In all. No I think that it is the way to freedom. Without Democracy you can't have freedom. Unless your the dictator .

Well just think..Berlusconi was democratically elected...and is in fact the prime minster of a democracy. I think that alone proves that democracy can and will fail freedom.

Freedom is all about rights.

For example, I have the right to own property. If someone comes and takes away my property, my freedom to exercise my right to ownership has been compromised. If a government protects each citizen's right to ownership, then the people are free in that area of their lives.

Democracy of the Athenian brand ensures everyone's right to recourse in government, therefore giving them freedom of political expression in a set forum (the voting booth, in modern equivalent terms). This does not ensure freedom in other forums, but by participating in government, the citizens of such a state can, in theory, keep themselves free in other areas.

For example, if someone steals my property, I can vote for a law which will increase police presence.

However, any majority can take over such a government and suppress the minority's rights. Also, a charismatic individual could take over the government by winning popular vote, then taking away the rights of the citizenry.

My point: democracy is a sincere attempt to ensure freedom, but it is certainly not equivalent to freedom.

Democracy in no way equates to freedom. As stated previously, pure democracy really equates to mob rule of any group of 50% plus 1.

A bigger contributor to freedom is limited government. The government is, almost universally, the biggest threat to individual freedom. Look at any dictatorship, they are usually juntas, supported by the military.

Democracies can, will and have taken the freedoms of minority groups. It is virtually guaranteed unless some limits are placed upon the power that the government has--in our case, its the Bill of Rights and other "limited government" measures.

In my view freedom = individual liberty, not national collective self-determination. I'm for whatever system best guarantees the government will do only what only it can do, and otherwise leaves us the heck alone. That might be benevolent despotism - find me an incorruptible immortal libertarian monarch, and I'll support that. There is no such person? *sigh*, I guess not. So the next best thing is a limited constitutional republic, like our Founders invisioned. That does involve a certain amount of democracy, but as a means to the end of securing freedom, not as freedom itself.

An important thing to remember about democracy is that it is a system of government. Therefore, it necessarily imposes rules and restrictions on its citizens which restrict freedom.

Don't get me wrong; governments are wonderful things in my opinion, but technically, no one in an environment with any semblance of order is entirely free, because the rules governing the environment involve restrictions.

For example, in the United States, I am not allowed to go get in my car and drive on the left side of the road. In that respect, I am not free, because any right I otherwise would have had to drive anywhere I want is compromised. So, while I am not 100% free, I am much better off because the chances of deadly crashes are drastically reduced when there are restrictions on automobile use.

In other words, my freedom to drive wherever I want is a small sacrifice for the security of my life.

In all governments (and government-like environments, such as families and school classrooms) freedom is reduced in the interest of order and security.

Therefore, democracy cannot be equivalent to freedom because, as a form of government, it cannot help but restrict the freedoms of its citizenry to some extent.

I agree, democracy only secures the will of the majority.

When that happens, the rights of the minority are the first casualties.

That is why the founders endeavored to close every possible gateway for "democracy" to plant root in America. They knew what a majority could do.

• "In a democracy the majority of citizens is capable of exercising the most cruel oppressions upon the minority ...and that oppression of the majority will extend to far great number, and will be carried on with much greater fury, than can almost ever be apprehended from the dominion of a single sceptre. Under a cruel prince they have the plaudits of the people to animate their generous constancy under their sufferings; but those who are subjected to wrong under multitudes are deprived of all external consolation: they seem deserted by mankind, overpowered by a conspiracy of their whole species." -- Edmund Burke
  
  

Such outcomes are forever precluded and individual liberty is better secured because the powers of this government are strictly limited, the powers of the people are diluted by Representatives apportioned by population and the President is chosen by electors apportioned to representatives and most of all a Bill of Rights, which to quote the Supreme Court of the United State:

• "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." West Virginia State Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943).
  
  

Izdaari, I love that, can I steal it! I've got a discussion going elsewhere where that fits perfectly!

I agree with Shild that freedom is all about rights. Government is instituted for the sole purpose of securing these rights. And as Amlord points out, limited government is what allows these rights to be secure. Without government, rights are insecure because they can be violated without consequence by your fellow man. But in unlimited government, your rights are no more secure as they can be violated without consequence by the governemnt. Now that we've established that limited government is needed, then it becomes a practical matter of prescribing a method by which government can be held accountable to the law (or Constitution) that sets forth the legal limits of that government. This is where the democratic process comes in. Democratic processes, such as elections (which are actually more of a Republican thing than democratic, but that's another discussion) are the means to the end -- not the end in themselves. If another effective means could be found to keep government limited, I'd be all for it. But the end objective is to hold government accountable -- not establish the will of the majority.

Indeed, democracy, as Izdaari describes, is a kind of collective self-determination. What must be recognized here is that collective "self"-determination is not only different from individual self-determination, but collective "self"-determination is often had at the expense of individual self-determination. And what good is a "society" that is free to determine its own course when a large portion (if not the majority) of its individual members are not free at all to determine their own courses? What has been gained? If "society" as a whole (the majority) determines that it wants to build a great structure by enlisting the agency of all its citizens, what about the citizens who do not want to labor to erect this structure? While society was free to determine it wanted a great building, what of the individual members?

So no, democracy is definitely not freedom. Indeed, democracy alone can be a potent agent against freedom. Democracy can only secure freedom when it is used as a means to keep a government accountable to limitations laid out in a Constitution. But notice here that the emphasis should not then be on Democracy -- the means to the end -- but rather on the end itself: Limited Government.

To answer your first question, yes! In a perfect utopian world, we would live in a democracy where everyone votes on everything and everyone is free to do so as they please, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Of course, this doesn't make for a practical government, so I'm not an advocate for it. A statement of yours somewhat puzzles me. Why would it be insufficient? If people possessed the right of democracy, I doubt they would give it up easily. If you are talking about it being impractical, then you have no argument from me.

My opinion? I think that we have found the perfect balance. I believe that we are a republic with democratic tendencies. Our Republican government provided stability and order. At the same time, it has become more democratic-no longer do state legislatures choose members of the legislative branch. The citizens possess the right of recall, initiative, and petitions to create new laws. I think these provisions have improved the efficiency of government ,as well as to empower the people to a greater degree. The "democratizers" have also helped guard the republic against corrupt politicians and corporations who at one time or another, had the scales of justice tilted unfairly their way.