|
||||||
|
All too often we hear public figures equating freedom with democracy. There is no necessary correlation. People living under a benevolent monarch could be entirely free. Likewise, people in a democracy could vote for laws that completely restricted their freedom.
An analogy will illustrate. A condominium complex is owned by a person who rents units to the public. He places no restrictions on his tenants who may do as they please with their unit. They have perfect freedom, though no voice in government of the project. The owner, an absolute Monarch, as it were, could take away all their freedom at a whim and regulate their use down to the color of the light switch covers. The fact that he does not do so makes his governing good–good government (if you love freedom!), but the project does not have a good form of government because it does not require the consent of the governed to function. Now our little tyrant sells the units to the renters who form a homeowner’s association based on one man one vote. At their first meeting a majority of those present decide that while they have enjoyed their own freedom, they do not like the freedom their neighbors have enjoyed. They vote for regulations that include the color of light switch cover a unit may have. For one who respects freedom, theirs is poor government arising out of a good form of government, the form is good because it is the governed who are doing the governing. They are simply doing a lousy job. As we get involved in politics, as citizens in a republic we need to be careful that we understand this difference. We should ask ourselves, “Is the problem we perceive the result of a bad form of government or is it simply poor government?” The later can be fixed at the polls next election. The former must and should be approached more carefully and more methodically. more on that later. Copyright (c) 2006 by Blake S. Atkin |
||||||