[SRS BUSNSS] The paradox of democracy

Day 1,036, 04:20 • Published in United Kingdom United Kingdom • by Sir Humphrey Appleby
Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
-Edmund Burke

Some of you may find this article to be significantly more boring than any of the others, so to make up for it I’ve supplied a pretty picture of Keira Knightley to get your vote. Those of you interested in the concept of a democracy, please continue reading below. It’s a very interesting debate.


Avast! Pirates!

Context: The longest customer support ticket in living history

Admin: Greetings, Sir Humphrey. I am told you believe that democracy is bad, and aristocracy is good.
Sir Humphrey: So you believe democracy is the best good - can you tell me why?
Admin: The individual is the most important good, and democracy allows the individual to express themselves and have the most power against societies that can cause them harm, through representation. It is freedom for the individual, and that is the highest goal of an advanced society.
Sir Humphrey: That sounds well enough. But tell me - if an individual were to develop a virus that would eliminate all of humanity, would you stop him?
Admin: Certainly. He would be impeding the rights of individuals, and would have to be stopped.
Sir Humphrey: Even though he has the right to freedom, and to express himself?
Admin: His expression of self would prevent others from having the same freedom, so in the name of the collective, we would deny it to him.
Sir Humphrey: So if the individual is doing something destructive to the whole, it must be prevented?
Admin: Obviously, if it restricts the freedom of the whole.



Sir Humphrey: What if the individual was using his freedom to create a political state which would restrict the freedom of the whole?
Admin: He would have to be restricted.
Sir Humphrey: So if one individual were using his freedom to restrict the freedom of the whole, he would be restricted. What if more than one individual were doing so?
Admin: They would also, have to be restricted.
Sir Humphrey: What if these individuals did not know their vote would restrict the freedom of the whole?
Admin: They would still have to be restricted.
Sir Humphrey: What if these individuals constituted a majority?
Admin: If the democracy were to keep existing, they would have to be restricted.
Sir Humphrey: But then there must be someone to restrict them?
Admin: Yes, a wise leader.
Sir Humphrey: So how is this different from a king?
Admin: Well, the people have freedom.



Sir Humphrey: But only to choose what is already chosen, namely democracy?
Admin: Anything else restricts the freedom of others.
Sir Humphrey: And to keep them from this fate they need - a king?
Admin: No, an elected leader.
Sir Humphrey: But if they do not know when their decisions will restrict the freedom of the whole, how can they pick the right elected officials?
Admin: If they do not, they will lose their freedoms.
Sir Humphrey: But with a king, they always have freedoms?
Admin: Except to choose a leader!
Sir Humphrey: But we've already established that they cannot know if they are choosing a leader who will restrict freedom of the whole, or not, and that if they choose the wrong options, they must be restricted. Therefore, do they really have the freedom to choose a leader?
Admin: Well, it's freedom within limits.



Sir Humphrey: It seems to me a king offers the same limited freedom, and removes the chance of the people making choices they do not understand. Supposing that people today are voting for something that would restrict the freedoms of the whole in, say, 500 years, and once it is voted for, nothing can change that course?
Admin: Of course that would have to be changed. Through education, or something of that nature.
Sir Humphrey: What if education didn't work - if it was something so complex the average person could not understand it?
Admin: Then their vote would be restricted.
Sir Humphrey: So if someone is voting for something that in the far future would necessarily limit freedoms for the whole, their vote would be restricted?
Admin: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Yet democracy, in order to preserve itself from bad votes, must limit freedom of the whole. Do you agree?
Admin: Of course.
Sir Humphrey: And votes which restrict freedom of the whole must be limited?
Admin: Yes.
Sir Humphrey: Does that include... voting for democracy?
PUNCHLINE - Admin: If it means MOAR GOLD, sure.
Sir Humphrey: ;_;



Yours, as always,


Sir Humphrey Appleby MP, PP, MoFA, MoT, MiD, SAS, QC, GCB, KBE, MVO, MA (Oxon)
British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of Trade