They don't secure personal or property rights. Therefore, pure democracies are always turbulent. There is nothing to stop the desire to sacrifice the weaker party or obnoxious individual. Usually, the majority will feel a common passion. "Democracy doesn't cure the harm caused by faction. And common sense makes it clear that personal rights could be easily trampled by the majority of citizens. Only in a tiny democracy can all the citizens meet and administer the government. It is clear that a democracy must be geographically tiny. Once a sheriff is elected or appointed by the town, he or she represents the citizens as he performs his duties. It might work in a small village, but as the village grew, the citizens would eventually hire someone to fulfill the role of sheriff.
The logistics of such a system seem impossible to imagine. In a pure democracy, the entire city would gather to decide the fate of alleged criminals, run the jail, and become the probation officers for criminals. The citizens of the city decided where to install a traffic light, but the company is representing the citizens when it installs the light. The company hired to install the traffic light represents the city's citizens. What if the city decided to hire a company to install the traffic light? Then the city is no longer a pure democracy. If the city needed a traffic light, all the city's citizens would have to gather, decide that a light was needed, decide where to place the traffic light, then go and install the traffic light. If you lived in a pure democratic city, all the citizens would gather to do the work of the city.
"In a pure democracy, citizens assemble and administer the government in person." Federalist Paper #10*
0 kommentar(er)
