Moral relativity: a blow against liberty

In a “thriving democracy,” most politicians tend to rely on surveys and polls to formulate policy decisions and ratify (or reject) legislation. The underlying assumption here is that positions are persuasive when they are popular–when they are backed by the majority of the population. The majority opinion is compelling because most people believe that a government should abide by the preferences of the community it was originally established to serve.

So goes the claim. So goes the conventional thinking and wisdom: the majority rules. And what an outrage! What a bloody, vile, despicable, evil, monstrous outrage!

I disagree. I most vehemently–violently–disagree! Indeed, any reasonable person should fiercely object to this fundamental problem of liberal democracy, which must be severely limited and restrained in order to preserve liberty.

For what the view explicitly endorses is none other than the tyranny of the majority: collectivism–moral relativism–in its most unadulterated form. What this view proposes is absolutely abominable. It proposes to sacrifice the individual to the group. Under this ostensible position, individuals would have no rights.

Majority rule Democrats claim that government should do what most people want. Very well, so suppose most people want slavery. A government should then allow slavery?

Suppose most people want to “soak the rich”. Should the rich then be taxed inordinately, merely because the majority wishes to arbitrarily violate their sacred private property rights?

Obviously, this relativistic majority view is intellectually bankrupt and completely without merit or foundation. Policies should be enacted, not because they are the most popular, but rather, because they are right–right according to objective reasons supported by a preponderance of facts.

There is a reason America’s founding fathers–the original architects of political liberty–promulgated a sacred Bill of Rights. There is a reason they established a Constitution, which has since been grossly perverted, most notably by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his socialistic New Deal.

In both cases, the reason was to preserve liberty by setting fixed limits and restraints upon, not only the powers of government, but upon the majority whims of the electorate in wielding such government powers in the first place. As Donald J. Boudreaux wrote in “Ideas on Liberty, “Thus, every time a decision is made collectively rather than individually, no individual is free. Each is a slave to the majority.”

The object of an ideal, freedom-loving democracy, therefore, is to render as few collective government decisions as possible, leaving private individuals completely free to decide for themselves and suffer the consequences of their own decision-making. That, my friends, is the price of liberty. Can we pay it?