Maybe not, but the idea that 51% of people voting in the USA can enforce their will on all 300 million citizens is pretty scary to meβ¦
Luckily that's not quite how it works - we're not a direct democracy. But, even when a majority of representatives attempts to exert their will on us citizens, the scope of their will is limited to the powers explicitly granted them by the constitution and they, within those powers, are further restricted from infringing on our natural and enumerated rights.
Certainly, a reasonable argument can be made that the legislature does push the limits with regards to their powers, particularly with respect to the commerce clause, and we do more arguing in defense of our individual rights than I think should be necessary, but all-in-all we're not doing too bad. In any case, we've so far only needed to use our first three boxes [1] in the defense of liberty. I wouldn't consider it a failure until we find need for the fourth.
Luckily? Democracy (direct democracy being a specific kind of democracy) has it's own issues as Thomas Jefferson pointed out (51% holding 49% ransom) but the problem with anything else is that it is not direct. In the US you can vote someone in for their stance on some hot button issue and when they get in office they can do the exact opposite. What do you do then? "Hold them accountable" by voting them out. But they've already done the damage.
Contrast this with Switzerland. The reason Switzerland isn't in the EU is because the citizens don't want to be and will not vote themselves into it.
>but all-in-all we're not doing too bad.
Really? Your phone can now be tapped and a warrant requested after the authorities have found something they think is incriminating, if you are suspected of being a terrorist you forfeit your rights, nearly all of the new candidates from one political party are openly on the payroll of one company [1]. What exactly would have to happen for you to say "well, it's not working so well at the moment"?
My view on governance has evolved as I've gotten older - these days I don't believe in one best form of government, and I think people should generally live under the government that they wish to.
Thus, I prefer to see rights reserved to the smallest groups of people practical to make a decision. I'd prefer a lot more decisionmaking to happen at local levels and state levels in the USA, which gives people more options for where they want to live and the kind of government they wish to live under.
Large scale, broad legislation almost always winds up with devil's bargains that don't quite suit anyone really well, special interests working in coalitions... it's bad stuff, in my opinion. Of course, everyone agrees with this for policies they'd like to see happen at a local level, and disagrees for policies they think everyone should follow. Drug control - local or national? Well, people who want decriminalization would prefer it locally decided, which makes it effectively almost legal. People against think it needs to be nationally decided to be effective. Labor laws? Pro-labor people want it national, people against want it locally decided. I'd prefer almost everything is locally decided, but of course, most people will argue that their favorite policies really have to happen on a national level that everyone must follow.
My view on governance has evolved as I've gotten older - these days I don't believe in one best form of government, and I think people should generally live under the government that they wish to.
Truly, and this too is at the heart of our form of democracy - that our inalienable rights trump any government's power, and that we as a free people have the right to choose the government that best serves us. As our founders made clear when declaring our independence, it is a self-evident truth "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."
That we continue to have, as a people, the natural right and ability as protected by the second amendment to abolish our government when we see fit, is (to me) evidence that our founders chose well. That is not to say, of course, that their choice of government will always be the right one for us.
I'd prefer a lot more decisionmaking to happen at local levels and state levels in the USA, which gives people more options for where they want to live and the kind of government they wish to live under.
I agree, and this is the reason for my comment on abuse of the commerce clause. The states, and their localities as they see fit, have complete control over their governance except where contradicted by federal treaty and law in pursuance of the constitution. Unfortunately, through the commerce clause the federal legislature, with precious few rebuttals from SCOTUS, has long managed to interfere in purely intrastate concerns.
Large scale, broad legislation almost always winds up with devil's bargains that don't quite suit anyone really well, special interests working in coalitions...
Yes, agreed. The constitution makes it clear where authority really lies - but short of SCOTUS revisiting their commerce clause rulings, we'll have to effect this change on the soap box and at the ballot box, by finding, supporting and electing national representatives who want to govern us the least.
Luckily that's not quite how it works - we're not a direct democracy. But, even when a majority of representatives attempts to exert their will on us citizens, the scope of their will is limited to the powers explicitly granted them by the constitution and they, within those powers, are further restricted from infringing on our natural and enumerated rights.
Certainly, a reasonable argument can be made that the legislature does push the limits with regards to their powers, particularly with respect to the commerce clause, and we do more arguing in defense of our individual rights than I think should be necessary, but all-in-all we're not doing too bad. In any case, we've so far only needed to use our first three boxes [1] in the defense of liberty. I wouldn't consider it a failure until we find need for the fourth.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_boxes_of_liberty