Democracy vs Individual Rights (cont'd)

A response to my previous post:

My initial reaction is that i don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying, but i think it's dangerous to go to first principles (which deserved headline billing in 1776) and ignore the fact that the US is a 10 trillion dollar economy encompassing 300 million people. Another way to look at it is to consider China, which has 1.3 billion people - one view for the difference in governance between China and western democracies is that the expediencies of different governance models changes at certain inflection points. So what you are saying may be fine for a small republic but is not sufficiently nuanced to be able to respond to the demands of governing the USA. One other thing I would add - while I don't disagree with your individual rights vs. religionist argument, I think we have to agree that there are other principles that our society puts a premium on which, while not religion, do give prefer to some over others. These are also societal judgments of the majority imposed on the minority.

My response:

I would agree the American model of governance is not the most efficient. With all its intricate checks and balances, it was deliberately designed to be inefficient; so that no one man, group, or party could wield unchecked power on the populace. Surely a different government model with more central control and less protection to individuals would be more expedient; the worry of course is what is it that the government is trying to expedite? And is it right? To lapse into extreme examples, a democratic Greece voted to put Socrates to death for his heretical views, and a democratic Germany elected Hitler. The principle of individual rights is not an arbitrary antiquated obstacle to effective governance; it is our guarantee that government will be subordinate to moral law.

Our society certainly places limitations on individuals, for example, we may be imprisoned for violating the rights of others. These limitations are consistent with the principle of individual rights - to violate another individual's rights is to deny the base of rights, and thus your own - and recognize the government's proper role to defend individuals from force initiated by others.

Despite their good intentions, I do have issue with other societal judgments of the majority imposed on the minority (affirmative action, seatbelt laws, laws against euthanasia). I don't believe it's the government's proper role to force the citizenry to be moral. In our own personal spheres, we should have the right to make choices. And we should have the right to be wrong.