“Jeremy Bentham has, however, pointed out that the use of even a single name can imply a Petitio Principii (questioning epithet).”W. Stanley Jevons

Jevons continue,

Similarly, in Parliament, a bill is often opposed on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and should therefore be rejected; but since no precise definition can be given of what is or is not constitutional, this means little more than that the measure displeases the adversary.

“Democracy” is also a word with no specific meaning, meaning whatever the user gives it to be. Of course, the technical definition is rule by the people, but this rule takes many forms. Is it government through plebiscites or representatives, or a combination of both? Does everyone have the right to vote, or is voting limited to some? Are the people constrained by a broader set of rules, such as a constitution, or can the majority govern as they see fit? And the state? Are his powers limited by anything other than the next election?

At least one political ideology asserts that since the people already decide policies and laws because they are the state, and the state East the people – the two are one in a spiritual sense, so why bother voting?

What is a healthy democracy?

Every even year, but even more so every two even years, the following statement rises above the din of daily political discourse: “The election before us is the most important ever. The health of our democracy – and its future existence – depends on getting it right.

But what definition of democracy does each camp refer to? And what does a healthy democracy look like?

Imagine this scene: you are standing in front of your house and looking up at the evening sky. Your neighbors are outside too, some watching you, others anxiously ushering their children inside, while others are desperately loading cars to escape the fallout that will eventually consume them. You remain almost paralyzed as you watch the missiles come and go, some clearly heading towards you – the end is near. You can only mutter, “Why is this happening?” Next to you, your seemingly optimistic neighbor responds, “Hey, at least we got to vote for the decision makers.” My voice was heard. I’m happy with that.

I pray that such contrails never mar the evening sky, even if the haunting specter of their possibility never fades. In a more mundane setting, I had conversations with those on the losing side on various issues and elections, such as discussions about an increase in local property taxes. Of course, those who opposed the increase were faced with a tax of $1,200 more per year, but instead of feeling defeated, they were happy to have been allowed to vote, feeling that their votes were accounts.

Maybe a tax increase is just a pain or annoyance and doesn’t challenge your core beliefs. Maybe you don’t mind a future without gas burners or electric lawn mowers, or diktats about how much money you can carry. But what would happen if, on the contrary, the problem in question touched on a more deeply rooted personal principle? a question that decides whether the majority, through the state, can force a store owner to violate their beliefs under threat of closing their store. Could a result transferring her rights to the state simply be dismissed by saying, “At least she had a chance to vote, I had a chance to vote, we all had a chance to vote and let our opposition to be heard. Or could we dismiss it by saying, “Don’t worry, we’ll have them in the next election.”

Is a healthy democracy one in which fundamental beliefs and principles are left to majority vote, even if voting is open to all and everyone has easy access to the ballot?

My definition of a healthy democracy

To the mix of definitions, I will add my statement about a healthy democracy: a healthy democracy is one in which future elections are less important than previous ones, knowing that subsequent elections will be even less important, and so on..

I contend that the most important and essential decisions of life cannot be resolved by a vote; they must be resolved by voluntary association. What I believe – what I hold to be true – cannot be left to a majority decision. Certainly, there are election issues that decide how the state will control my life, but a winning ballot and subsequent legislation will not and will not change my beliefs.

A healthy democracy is not a system in which everyone has equal access to the ballots that decide whether or not I can enjoy hot dogs over an open fire in my backyard. This is not a state in which the state, at the behest of pesky puritans in Massachusetts or radicals in California, or sympathetic conservative and libertarian fellow travelers from the heartland, has the ability to micromanage my life in the ‘Semi-rural Ohio, incurs debt that will impoverish my children, or decide whether my sons will be drafted to fight the ghost of an empire that disappeared thirty years ago. Or if the missiles will fly to satisfy the bloodlust of some.

I don’t want to have to worry about what time polls open, how mail-in ballots are delivered, or who can vote and how often. I want the votes to decide only what doesn’t really concern me, or a trivial concern, like which city council colleague gets the contract for road salt.

Questions at the core of my being, such as who and how I choose to worship, what I choose to believe and say, how I choose to defend myself, where I live and how I acquire, use and dispose of my property, personal and professional. , must be left to voluntary associations. Putting these decisions to the vote is not a solution, it is a lie.

In my opinion, a healthy democracy is a system that only puts trivial issues to the vote, leaving essential issues to voluntary associations.