Basically, democracy in its purest form is good, because all other forms substitute what’s best for the people for the will of the people.

As I said in my last post, though, I think democratic governments can operate with less volatility and with more safeguards and still be democratic because we want the government to be less able to do harm strip us of our autonomy. And we want the government to protect values of liberty which aren’t necessary to democracy, and which without constitutional safeguards we are likely to throw out more quickly than will ultimately make us happy.

The much admired ‘democracy’ – that according to a widely accepted doctrine is the best form of government – is a concept that presupposes certain characteristics.

Now, Dan Simon is trying (paradoxically) to use ‘democracy’s excellent reputation (“democracy is superior to its alternatives”) to strip it of its many essential characteristics. The idea that Dan’s version of ‘democracy’ (‘liberal democracy’ deprived of its essential characteristics) would still be “superior to its alternatives” is not at all obvious and would require some serious defense.

See, what about this one, for example:
1. Owning a house is a good thing.
2. We want more people to own houses.
3. We need to make houses less expensive so that more people can own houses.
4. Therefore let’s start build houses without roofs.

Well, but a house without a roof isn’t much of a house, is it? So now I have to go back to item 1 and perhaps reconsider the whole thing.

Your argument was that some laws will be “unjust,” and that this is a method by which to determine if a law is good. Your argument is, as I understand it, there is some system of justice in the world, and it is a better guide for what laws are legitimate than whether those laws are reached by democratic means or not.

A shorter version, to highlight the blindness of this view: “Laws which are just are good, and good laws are just.” The mechanism for determining justice is either democratic or you’re a horse’s ass for banging on the drums of “who are you to disagree with 300 million people.”

I know I’m late to the party, but bi’s nastiness compelled me. My own tone is beyond reproach, because it’s just. And if that sounds silly, well. . .

In response to abb1, Dan Simon states explicitly that what he’s interested in protecting is the democratic process, and all other parts of the state are pretty much up for constant change by democratic means. So, in that rule of law is necessary for democracy to not be subverted, I imagine he’s for it. Same deal with any guarantee of rights. Those rights which are necessary for economic or social equality can be altered, those which are necessary for ensuring equal access to political voice can not. Separation of powers, not so much. That you aren’t convinced by these arguments is indeterminate, because I can’t tell what you are unconvinced by; his arguments, or your interpretations.

I wouldn’t like to live under the government of Dan Simons, though, because I think that people, recognizing they are imperfect, have sought to limit the impact of that imperfection on their lives. So they set up all kinds of constitutional devices which delay their future attempts at political gratification. That doesn’t mean I don’t respect democracy as the best mechanism for determining values of justice, it means that I want that process to be less volatile. And more likely to err on the side of government non-intervention, because autonomy is crucial for happiness. I see this balance as less likely to result in a democracy which isn’t happy with its government.

The word ‘democracy’ here is being used, of course, as a short for ‘liberal democracy‘.

‘Liberal democracy’, of course, has the rule of law, separation of powers, unconditional guarantee of certain freedoms, etc. right there in its definition.

So, the logic here seems to be that because liberal democracy is superior to everything else (let’s assume for the sake of argument that it’s true), it needs to be destroyed.

Not very convincing, sorry.

The arguments for “judicial minimalism” are well-known—numerous books have been written about it. (Learned Hand was a famous exponent, for example.) I won’t rehash the arguments here—we’ve digressed quite a bit already. But we’re not talking about a 1-vs.-300-million thing, although I grant that judicial minimalists are a small minority in America.

George Washington, for example—he came up with this “Supreme Court” thing instead of putting all court cases to a popular vote.

There’s a difference between the courts applying democratically enacted laws to specific cases, and the courts invoking the Constitution to invalidate said laws based on what amount to public policy judgments.

…where the Axiomatically Correct laws are, of course, determined by none other than Dan Simon himself.

I’ve already explained that I don’t expect a democracy to come to the correct conclusions all the time, and I certainly don’t expect it to agree with me all the time. I do, however, expect it to work democratically.

The only reason why infrared neighbourhoods should be legal, you say, is that it’s a “democratically enacted” law—a law is good merely because it’s democratically enacted.

“Good” is the wrong word—I’d use the word, “legitimate”. Perhaps you’ll understand better by reading this argument, where I explain why racial preferences, which I consider to be a terrible thing, nevertheless should not be abolished by the Supreme Court.

I can never get why people even ask such a question (after all, blog discussions are usually quite ludicrous in the first place). But how about, say, showing that saying “infrared scans of neighborhoods” should be legal merely because it’s a “democratically enacted” law doesn’t exactly hold water? And I believe I’ve successfully shown this.

“Well, if you’re going to bring up the futility of commenting on blogs, then I’m afraid we’re both going to be a little embarrassed, aren’t we?”

I’m not talking about utility or futility here. Give me one good reason why 300 million people should believe that this one person (Dan Simon) is right.

“typically through the election of leaders who dismantle, with the public’s necessary cooperation, the machinery of democratic accountability. (I certainly hope I don’t need to cite the obvious historical examples.)”

George Washington, for example—he came up with this “Supreme Court” thing instead of putting all court cases to a popular vote.

“I believe that the democratic process is the best available process for determining the laws of the land…”

…where the Axiomatically Correct laws are, of course, determined by none other than Dan Simon himself. If you think the democratic process is good, then why can’t you just let the process work itself out?

But no. The only reason why infrared neighbourhoods should be legal, you say, is that it’s a “democratically enacted” law—a law is good merely because it’s democratically enacted. That doesn’t sound like an admission that the democratic process is imperfect!

“We’re—both of us—lone voices in the wilderness.”

No. You are a troll. And agreeing with the majority obviously doesn’t make me a “lone voice in the wilderness”.

“I don’t see why it should trigger so much outrage.”

Because you keep spouting outright nonsense like your statement above? Nonsense doesn’t become sense just because you give that “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!” look.

Precisely. I don’t believe, and my steadfast devotion to democracy doesn’t in the least require me to believe, that a democratic electorate is “always right”. Rather, I believe that the democratic process is the best available process for determining the laws of the land, even though it will sometimes—indeed, likely often—make serious errors.

One possible error, for example, is the rejection of democracy itself, typically through the election of leaders who dismantle, with the public’s necessary cooperation, the machinery of democratic accountability. (I certainly hope I don’t need to cite the obvious historical examples.) There is not much a defender of democracy can do in such circumstances, apart from reminding the public of the value of democracy, and exhorting the public not to abandon it. That’s really all I’m trying to do here, and I don’t see why it should trigger so much outrage.

And, why should 300 million people listen to one dude who just happens to comment on a blog?

Well, if you’re going to bring up the futility of commenting on blogs, then I’m afraid we’re both going to be a little embarrassed, aren’t we?

Look—we argue for what we think is right, because we think it’s right, and because we dare not despair that the world will forever be wrong. We’re—both of us—lone voices in the wilderness. Let’s not make fun of each other for that.

That’s so very not an “ad hominem”, Mr. Simon.

“…a democratic electorate is generally more receptive to minority arguments than is an insular, unaccountable ruling clique.”

And the “accountable” “democratic electorate” has decided that it prefers the judiciary as is. So why do you still keep arguing against it? A democratic electorate is right, except when it’s wrong?

“But I’ll grant that if I’d taken your advice and drawn all my understanding of political theory from children’s cartoon segments on American civics, my thoughts about democracy would probably be more simplistic and conventional.”

“As for ‘listening to the democratic majority’, I daresay I pay much more attention to what they say than they have to me.”

I can see that very clearly from the above. You pay much attention to what the democratic majority ought to say, which is to agree with you. The fact that the democratic majority doesn’t agree with you is just an inconvenient fact, and why should we let facts get in the way?

And, why should 300 million people listen to one dude who just happens to comment on a blog? Give me a reason, Dan. Give me a reason. And it had better be a darn good reason.

My question was directed at MPowell’s dubious claim that “on certain issues not having to answer to a public vote may make a person more committed to responsibility and principle”—not at the full panoply of standard arguments for a powerful judiciary. But I’ll grant that if I’d taken your advice and drawn all my understanding of political theory from children’s cartoon segments on American civics, my thoughts about democracy would probably be more simplistic and conventional.

Seperation and balance of power, dude.

Obviously you’ve never seen these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV0b4bqnjfo&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktuw7adBB40&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc&mode=related&search=

Secondly, I’m arguing that democracy is superior to its alternatives, in no small part because a democratic electorate is generally more receptive to minority arguments than is an insular, unaccountable ruling clique. It is therefore not the slightest bit inconsistent for me to attempt to persuade the American majority to listen to my arguments in favor of further democratizing their system. (I also recognize that a democracy is highly unlikely to adopt my every political proposal—but that a non-democracy is even less likely to do so. Again, my position is completely consistent.)

As for “listening to the democratic majority”, I daresay I pay much more attention to what they say than they have to me. So far, neither has convinced the other—but the disagreement of others doesn’t have the same hysterical effect on me that it seemingly does on you.