Beyond modern nation states - The China Post

Sometimes you find interesting stuff in the unlikeliest of places. Taiwan's leading English-language newspaper The China Post has this nice editorial extolling the virtues of constitutional republicanism. The article "Beyond modern nation states" states:

The modern nation state is the instigator and perpetuator of the war of all against all because it is a perpetrator of injustice. It is a perpetrator of injustice because it “robs Peter to pay Paul.” It robs Peter to pay Paul because it is endeavoring to re-engineer society. It is endeavoring to re-engineer society because it has exceeded its original charter, which was merely to defend against aggression.

Does this sound familiar in times of Obamanomics? In fact it is true of almost all countries today and with our Obama the Robin Hood the long crumbling bastion of Republicanism seems to have fallen. The Post goes on to blast the "free and fair elections" as an excuse for all excesses.

Champions of democracy believe the modern nation state is well within its rights to coerce individuals, as long as it performs certain rituals as “free and fair” elections, plebiscites, and referenda.

It advocates repudiating democracy and reaffirming constitutional republicanism to counter the power that makes the modern nation state a constant threat to all its citizens.

Why Democracy does not work- Idea cellular advertisement on TV

Idea sells it's mobile service using democracy as a recurring theme in a series of ads being shown on TV in India. It shows people in certain situations not being able to decide what to do and taking an instant sms poll using their cellphones. The final decision is whatever the majority decides.

One advt. has a pretty girl who is bumped by a street hooligan and when she objects, he says he can do whatever because this is a democracy. Then she polls using her cell (I assume her friends) giving commando or Gandhi (show the other cheek) as options and when majority says commando -she gives him a commando style kick.

Now the problem with this is the same as problem with democracy- what if their was a third option- lets say slit his throat. Would she have done it just because the majority decided that it was what the hooligan deserved?

Instead wouldn't it be better to have a system where the mob or the majority does not have the power to decide the fate of the individual (the smallest minority) and instead certain principles governed the interaction between individuals. Situations like the one in the ad and in a democracy where individual rights are crushed by the majority should not be allowed to take place. Such a system to prevent these from happening does exist- it is called a republic.

Read the following definition from Ayn Rand Lexicon- The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule . . . a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights . . . . The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism” lecture series (1976), Lecture 9.

Click here to hear Yaron Brook talk about democracy. (via rationalpassion)