Free Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom by Ron Paul

precisely to prevent that from happening that the founding generation in the United States borrowed the idea of a republic from the Roman experience. Not everything was to be subjected to mob rule; voting was in place to rotate the management of a small government that operated under strict rules.
    Today that has changed, and not for the better. As much as I defend the freedoms of everyone, those freedoms should be limited in the following sense: People should not be able to vote to take away the rights of others. And yet this is what the slogan democracy has come to mean domestically. It does notmean that the people prevail over the government; it means that the government prevails over the people by claiming the blessing of mass opinion. This form of government has no limit. Tyranny is not ruled out. Nothing is ruled out.
    Perhaps more dangerous is the idea of exporting democracy. We’ve been told that one of the main reasons we’re in the Middle East and Central Asia is to spread America’s goodness and our political system of democracy. Among other lies, this justification for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has led to a huge sacrifice of American lives and wealth.
    This argument fails to address the inconsistency of the United States in continuing to support many dictatorial governments, both past and present. I doubt many Americans truly believe that “spreading democracy” is the real reason we invade, occupy, and threaten numerous countries around the world. How could it be when you look at those we support around the world?
    Less often, we hear that these invasions and occupations are necessary for national security purposes. Even if spreading democracy is the goal, we need to question the religious defense of the political system of democracy. It was Woodrow Wilson who originated this policy when he bluntly stated that World War I was a noble cause in our effort “to make the world safe for democracy.”
    A noble cause of spreading liberty, not democracy, would make a lot more sense, if it was understood that violence and intimidation would never be used to pursue this goal. Besides, if it’s liberty we want to promote, it’s a republic that we should seek—not a democracy—and only persuasion and education would be used to spread this message. Threats and violence arediametrically opposed to the message we would purport to be spreading.
    The difference between a democracy and a republic is important. Pure democracy, in which the law itself is up for grabs based on legislative maneuvering, is the enemy of individual rights, and it victimizes the minority. Dictatorial powers, by gaining acceptance by 51 percent of voters and colluding to suppress minorities, are every bit as harmful as a single dictator. The “democratic mandate” is more seductive since the people too often are conditioned to accept the notion that as long as the consensus of 51 percent agree, something is morally acceptable. A militant dictator is more suspect, and when he abuses the rights of individuals, it is easier to understand who the abuser is. A republic, on the other hand, is a nonmonarchical system that makes no claim to somehow embody the will of the people; it is a system merely for the appointment of leaders and the administration of law.
    This does not mean that democratic elections can’t be used to choose leaders whose job it should be is to promote liberty. But that is a far cry from allowing minorities to be victimized by a coalition making up the majority.
    Even so, there are many practical concerns about the democratic election of leaders. Unfortunately, quite frequently, elections are not honest. Texas, Louisiana, Chicago, and others have had examples where the political machine not the votes, controls the outcome. Most historians acknowledge that the LBJ race for the Senate in 1948 against Coke Stevenson was stolen. The election was decided on eighty-seven votes, and though it was highly disputed, most