You’ve been lied to: Freedom and democracy are different things

By David McElroy · September 1, 2011

Can you tell me the difference between freedom and democracy? I’ve tried this with dozens of people over the years. They almost always look at me blankly, because they’ve been taught the words mean exactly the same thing. They were taught a lie.

I’m reminded of this because of a great article my friend Zachary Caceres published Wednesday that centers around mainstream intellectual ignorance on this subject. (If you’d like to know more about where Zach is coming from, check out his TED talk last spring about free cities.) If you’re already familiar with the difference between freedom and democracy, you’ll find his article a treat. I urge you to read it.

If you’re not already familiar with the differences between freedom and democracy, everything in the article is going to sound perplexing, so let’s take a look at what the words mean. Here’s what my dictionary says about the two:

Freedom — the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Democracy — a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

In other words, freedom is about the individual. It’s about what he has the right to do. You can argue about where rights come from, but the concept of freedom is purely about the rights of the individual to be unrestrained by others. Democracy, on the other hand, is about the collective “people,“ not about individuals. A democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

The United States was founded as a republic based on ideas of individual liberty. I don’t believe it went nearly far enough toward liberty, because even the powers granted to the governments (state and federal) in the beginning were certain to be abused in the long run. (I’m not going to go into the moral reasons for opposing the state here.) The original idea was that governments were the enemies of people’s rights and that government power should be severely restricted to protect individuals. But subsequent generations forgot all about the evils the people had suffered at the hands of government — and they started turning to government to fix things they didn’t like in the world.

As the 19th century went on and the progressive movement started rolling, the idea picked up steam that the coercive power of government could be used to force people to behave according to the ways that right-thinking people believed they should behave. It’s a first cousin to both socialism and fascism, because it combines features of each. It led to alcohol Prohibition, drug Prohibition and a wide variety of new coercive regulations prohibiting people from living their lives as they pleased. Along with the progressive movement came the idea that democracy — the naked will of the majority — trumped the individual rights of people in most cases (and certainly in economic matters).

The majority in a democracy can decide that you should pay for their health care. They can decide you should give them food or housing or pretty much anything they want. That majority can tell you what you’re allowed to do with your property and even what color you’re allowed to paint your own home. It can even tell you what you’re allowed to put into your own body. Because in a democracy, the collective “people” own you. You are not a free man or woman.

The founders of the United States didn’t believe this. Here’s an example that John Adams wrote in 1814 about democracy:

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”

— John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

Many modern scholars — and almost all modern civics and history teachers — have completely missed the point of explaining the difference between freedom and democracy. As a result, most people assume they’re the same thing. It doesn’t help when politicians regularly use the words synonymously. In his arrogant 1992 book, “The End of History and the Last Man,” American political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued that the current form of democratic government seen in the United States is the ultimate evolution of human society. In other words, “we’ve been moving away from barbarism for centuries, and what we have now is the best it can possibly be.” Fukuyama wrote at the end of the Cold War, and it was basically a statement of triumph for the democratic system. He wrote:

“What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

It’s hard for me to imagine anything more arrogant, ignorant and self-centered from a scholar.

There is a future beyond blindly accepting the dictatorship of a majority. It’s called individual freedom. It has nothing to do with democracy or a coercive state. If you want freedom just because you want to own and control your own life, you have every right to do that. If you want to keep every penny of everything you make for yourself, that’s your right. But even if you don’t believe in being selfish, working toward freedom changes everything about the future — for your children and grandchildren and generations to come. When you find ways to free your mind and then escape state slavery, you’re creating the early stages of a precious gift to make their lives better on this Earth.

If you continue to support a majoritarian system that hands power over to other people, you’re supporting a continuation of a form of slavery that holds all of us under control of the whim of the passions of the majority. I don’t intend to keep living under that system. I can’t change the entire world. I probably can’t even change much of this country anytime soon. But I started by changing my mind — and that’s the start of changing the future.

I’m still a slave here, but I’ve been awakened to our plight. I’ve said before that I intend to escape. I don’t know how long it will take, but the escape is coming. If you’re willing, I want to take you with me.

Share on Social Networks

I’m seeing a lot of simplistic and dishonest explanations right now for the current rioting in France. Those on the populist far right claim it’s all about Muslim immigrants to France disrupting the culture. Their message is that this sort of thing is going to happen in the U.S. unless “we defend the border.” On the far left, socialists and their fellow travelers claim the riots are all about wealthy people in France not paying enough taxes, resulting in cuts to government services. The truth is far more complicated, but it’s rooted in the decline of population growth in Europe. There simply aren’t enough young workers paying into the tax system anymore, so cuts in social services were inevitable. There is genuine cultural tension as more and more people immigrate from other countries, but government cuts to education and other services are even more important to what’s happening. The situation is complicated, so don’t let dishonest people with U.S. political agendas tell you that it happens to support whatever they were already promoting for partisan reasons.

Here’s another reason to appreciate the cats in your life: New research involving 93 countries found that places with more cats per person also tended to have happier people. The researchers say the finding fits with previous evidence that living with pets can reduce loneliness and stress while providing companionship, emotional attachment and social support. The study doesn’t prove that cats cause greater happiness, but it certainly adds to the evidence that sharing your home — and your life — with a cat might be good for you.

The company that owns Facebook and Instagram is heavily promoting its new AI-based software assistant called Muse, but people who are using it as it was designed are incredibly foolish. An early adopter of the software discovered that a few days ago when he advertised an item for sale on Facebook Marketplace — and he inadvertently gave Muse full authority to act on his behalf. The software agreed to a lowball offer made by another Facebook user and then gave that man the home address of the man for whom he was an agent. The software told the buyer that the seller was home and waiting for him. When the buyer showed up and waited angrily, the would-be buyer left an angry review for the man. And this angry man had the seller’s home address. It was only well after that that the software reported what it had done and admitted it had made a mistake. I won’t be putting that much power into the hands of any software. I think anyone who agrees to such terms is a fool. And the software’s user agreement says you’re responsible for purchases the software makes in your name. Nope.

Meet my new girlfriend. Her name is Meg. And she’s my little sweetheart. A couple of months ago, a neighbor across the street told me about a new stray in the neighborhood that she and I were both soon feeding. The cat had been very skittish about contact and she had a lot of scabs and parasites in her fur, but a trip to the vet last week revealed that she was otherwise in good health. The vet estimates her to be 1 to 2 years old. I named her for Meg Murry, the 13-year-old protagonist of Madeleine L’Engle’s wonderful book, “A Wrinkle in Time.” (Please read the book. Don’t watch the horrible movie.) Since we lost Lucy almost a year ago, it seems appropriate that we finally have a new little girl to join the household. She’s already captured my heart, but Alex, Oliver and Sam aren’t there quite yet.

There’s nothing socially acceptable that’s as dangerous as drinking alcohol. Most people grow up being told to “drink responsibly” — and all of us see people abusing this drug in one way or another — but the truth is that drinking alcohol is always a terrible risk. The alcohol in these drinks is toxic and the human liver has to work hard to filter the toxins out. What most people don’t realize is that alcohol is classified as a known carcinogen by the World Health Organization — because of the well-established connection between imbibing and various cancers. Many people have taken refuge behind the idea that light or moderate drinking might be safe, but a new study shows that drinking even one drink a day increases the risks of 10 types of cancer. When I was a teen-ager, I looked around and saw the negative effects that this behavior had on a lot of people and decided not to start drinking, so I’ve never even tried this poison. The evidence keeps piling up that I was lucky to have come to that conclusion early.

Related Posts