Moral Minorities and the Making of American Democracy [Kyle G

the framework of democracy …

The importance of Moses | Futile Democracy

Epistemologically, democracy is thought to be the best decision-makingmethod on the grounds that it is generally more reliable in helpingparticipants discover the right decisions. Since democracy brings alot of people into the process of decision making, it can takeadvantage of many sources of information and critical assessment oflaws and policies. Democratic decision-making tends to be moreinformed than other forms about the interests of citizens and thecausal mechanisms necessary to advance those interests. Furthermore,the broad based discussion typical of democracy enhances the criticalassessment of the different moral ideas that guidedecision-makers.

this wanton disregard for the foundations of our democracy ..

When most people think of "democracy" they usually mean a democracy. The function of a limited democracy is to decide who held political power and how that power is specifically exercised (such as how many policemen or judges are needed), but that power is should be strictly defined and limited in the constitution. (This is basically the original American system.) In a proper capitalist nation, a constitution based upon individual rights would be necessary to limit the actions of its citizens and the government. Under capitalism, the majority would never be able to vote to violate the rights of the minority, no matter how large the majority or how small the minority. Individual rights would not be subject to vote.

prosper and ensure the underpinnings of democracy

More detailed knowledge of the effects of political institutions canbe used to discriminate in favor of particular kinds of democraticinstitutions or modifications of them. For instance in the UnitedStates, James Madison argued in favor of a fairly strong federalgovernment on the grounds that local governments are more likely to beoppressive to minorities (Madison, Hamilton and Jay 1788, n. 10). Ofcourse the soundness of any of the above arguments depends on thetruth or validity of the associated substantive views about justiceand the common good as well as the causal theories of the consequencesof different institutions.

The Myth of Asia's Anti-Democratic Values

Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed todemocracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in thecharacters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that ademocratic method of making legislation is better than non-democraticmethods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via theimprovement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861,Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forcesdecision-makers to take into account the interests, rights andopinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives somepolitical power to each, more people are taken into account than underaristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement ofthis instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, forexample, that “no substantial famine has ever occurred in anyindependent country with a democratic form of government and arelatively free press” (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of thisargument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with freeelections and a free press have incentives to respond to theexpressions of needs of the poor.

Civil Society: Underpinnings of American Democracy: …

The agency also supports education, teaching, technical, and professional training policies of the member states, and encourages the use of new communication technologies. It supports the member states in their efforts to institute democracy, development, progress, and economic advancement. The agency collaborates with the various international and regional organizations on the basis of recognized principles and multilateral forms of cooperation.

Constitutional Underpinnings of the United States Government

Not all instrumental arguments favor democracy. Plato(Republic, Book VI) argues that democracy is inferior tovarious forms of monarchy, aristocracy and even oligarchy on thegrounds that democracy tends to undermine the expertise necessary toproperly governed societies. In a democracy, he argues, those who areexpert at winning elections and nothing else will eventually dominatedemocratic politics. Democracy tends to emphasize this expertise atthe expense of the expertise that is necessary to properly governedsocieties. The reason for this is that most people do not have thekinds of talents that enable them to think well about the difficultissues that politics involves. But in order to win office or get apiece of legislation passed, politicians must appeal to these people'ssense of what is right or not right. Hence, the state will be guidedby very poorly worked out ideas that experts in manipulation and massappeal use to help themselves win office.