Is Democracy Overrated? Q&A with Columnist David Harsanyi

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Is Democracy Overrated? Q&A with Columnist David Harsanyi

HD Video Download

"I think the Founders weren't wary enough of democracy," says David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist and a nationally syndicated columnist (read his Reason archive). "I think there are bigger problems with it."

Harsanyi sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss his laest book, The People Have Spoken and They Are Wrong: The Case Against Democracy, why we put too much weight on voting, and why praising democracy is just celebrating mob rule.  

"Democracy is just a process that reflects the morals and ethics of the people who vote," he said. "It doesn't guarantee you freedom—just check out the Gaza Strip or Egypt or anywhere else."

About nine minutes.

Edited by Amanda Winkler. Camera by Joshua Swain and Winkler. 

Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

Comments

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

Democracy is mob rule but Harsanyi is nothing more than a third-rate neocon who thinks the creators of Reefer Madness were against prohibition and just wanted to "persuade" people to not consume a substance less harmful than alcohol.

Him and Daniel Fake Tan Mitchell should both fuck-off to the Heritage Foundation where they belong. They are enemies of those who believe in civil liberties and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

[Cytotoxic]

I knew this post would attract some asshole shouting BURN THE NEOCON but I didn't think they'd first.

[fish]

Fuck off shreeky junior!

[Palin's Buttplug]

I like the cut of his jib - whatever that means.

[fish]

Take your hand out of his ass so we can hear what he really thinks when you're not moving his jaws!

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

I sure as hell DO NOT like the cut of your jib, and you made yourself look like a huge idiot by saying "whatever that means" with Google in existence. Even before Google there was no excuse to say that on the internet after I like the cut of his jib.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

@ fish

Whose this shriek/shreek person people keep calling me? Is that the handle used by Will Wilkinson or Gary Johnson? Because those are the only Reason-affiliated people that I can say sound like me most of the time. I mean I LOVE Gillespie and Welch but I don't have quite as much in common with them as the former two.

[Calidissident]

Palin's Buttplug, the guy you responded to above, used to post on this website under the handle of shrike, and thus people at times refer to him as shriek/shreek.

[Hawk Spitui]

Whose this shriek/shreek person people keep calling me? Is that the handle used by Will Wilkinson or Gary Johnson?

Probably.

[Ken Shultz]

Democracy is good insofar as it lets us get rid of our overlords periodically, but just because we get to pick our overlords doesn't mean they aren't overlords.

Actually, that latter overlord problem is probably the worst thing about democracy--our overlords use democracy to legitimize the horrible shit they do to us and as a primary justification for violating our individual rights.

In the meantime, yeah, representative democracy is less democratic than individuals representing themselves in a market, and being a minority in a democracy stinks to the point that people routinely vote on whether to respect other people's rights.

So, yeah, democracy has a lot to answer for.

[Duke]

Ok, I admit it right here -- I cannot support "one man, one vote" any longer. Yes, I understand it was to combat racism and sexism which is fine. But since we are now in a straight democracy, without any constitutional limitations, then it is totally unfair for someone who pays zero in taxes year after year can vote my taxes up each year. I paid so much in taxes last two years that I'm still very bitter over it.

[Calidissident]

No way that could end poorly.

/sarc

I've never really gotten the logic behind this argument - do you think the problem with the American system of government is that wealthy people don't have enough influence over it? Not to mention that there are countless way government affects people that aren't related to taxing and spending. And is this a $1 in taxes requirement, or a sliding scale?

[Stoic]

From what I've seen, the poorer you are the less likely you are to vote (at least on the low end of the spectrum, such as those who are completely dependent on government benefits). And I'd imagine the poorer folks are even less likely to vote in primaries than the general population. There's also the fact that federal income taxes are only one piece of the pie. There are also things like sales tax, property tax, state/local income tax, fees for stuff like car registration, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if the voting rates of the lowest income levels are pretty proportional to their contribution to government coffers. I would imagine it's a different story for middle class folks, at least based on the extent to which politicians pander to them. Of course, there is also probably a reverse proportion when comparing national vs. local/state elections. As in those who pay no federal income tax are more likely to vote in a presidential election than in a state/local elections.

[JWatts]

"It wouldn't surprise me if the voting rates of the lowest income levels are pretty proportional to their contribution to government coffers."

Below a certain point, their contribution is negative, so no their voting rates are Not proportional.

[craiginmass]

Where rabid libertarians reign, Fascism is not far behind....because, of course, they know better than we do. If liberalism wins (is voted in), they feel fully justified in squashing it and even preemptively approve the process - as this dude seems to be doing.

Definitely Burn the Neocon......or Fascist, whichever label you approve of. I'd say both labels represent a corporate/state point of view. That is, they know better.

[Ken Shultz]

The machinery of capitalism is oiled with the blood and tears of the proletariat!

Freedom is Fascism.

Conformity is Diversity.

Ignorance is...

You must be so blissful.

[Drake]

Wait, what is time again?

[John Aronson]

Time to Organize!

An old Wobbly call and response.

[dinkster]

In before "libertarianism is juvenile"

[Sevo]

craiginmass|4.22.14 @ 5:43PM|#
"Where rabid libertarians reign, Fascism is not far behind....because, of course, they know better than we do"

Question: Is it possible for a brain-dead lefty to post without lying?
Earlier today, this particular twit was trying to conflate libertarians with those who support Jim Crow laws.
I doubt it's possible for someone to be s stupid as to figure those who desire small government desire a government big enough to enforce racism, so I'm left with the alternative; that this prick is merely lying.

[OneOut]

"Question: Is it possible for a brain-dead lefty to post without lying?"

No. That was easy Sevo.

Ask me another one.

[Will4Freedom]

If taught from birth that sky is green and grass is blue, is the progressive lying when he proclaims this?

[Sevo]

"If taught from birth that sky is green and grass is blue, is the progressive lying when he proclaims this?"

If the proggie is old enough to post on forums and has not learned, yes.

[Brandon]

It's possible, just not common. This is not one of those cases, although I don't know if "lying" is the correct nomenclature for spouting poorly-understood talking points on reflex. I think lying requires cognition.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

In fairness, this twit is too stupid and ill-informed to possibly be lying; more likely than not it just sounded good and he posted without thinking.

[Gorilla tactics]

What is incredible about this is that Jim Crow laws were implemented because businesses were actually catering to blacks in the south. That's why it was voted in. It's like what Walter E Williams said, when you see a prohibitive law you have to assume that people were doing that prohibitive act before the law was passed.

[OldMexican]

Re: craigmass,

Where rabid libertarians reign, Fascism is not far behind[...]

As evidence, we present to you 1919's Italy, libertarian paradise!

No, wait...

[JWatts]

"As evidence, ..."

Evidence, what's this evidence you speak of?

Is it like the list of talking points I get emailed to me every day, with instructions to post canned responses on a wide variety of internet forums and sites?

/derp

[Calidissident]

Can you post one historical example of letting rabid libertarians in power leading to fascism? Just one is all I ask

[The Immaculate Trouser]

So which of the classical fascist countries were preceded by 'rabid libertarians'? Italy? Germany? Perhaps one of the countries often (erroneously) stated to be fascist: Austria, Hungary, Spain, or Portugal?

Near as I can tell, the countries with the greatest traditions for liberty (UK, USA, Canada, Australia) also had the least tendency to give fascism purchase over their politics, and the countries more willing to indulge authoritarianism were most likely to give way to fascism and/or communism.

[R C Dean]

Where rabid libertarians reign, Fascism is not far behind

Because fascism (you remember, "Everything for the State, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State") is what libertarians yearn and work for.

Proggy projection. It just never fails.

[Gorilla tactics]

I don't even think leftards have any idea what fascism is. It's just a stylistic device really.

[Drake]

Most of the Founders had far better classical educations than present day Americans. The Athenians proved what a debacle unrestrained Democracy is over 2,000 years ago.

That is why they create a Federal REPUBLIC with a severely restricted span of authority and guaranteed Rights. The mob leaders have been working on breaking down those restrictions ever since.

[dinkster]

The founders fucked up when they didn't make the BoR's 1600 line items long. They really did need to define every last thing, because shitheads will find a way to weasel out of it.

[Sevo]

dinkster|4.22.14 @ 6:08PM|#
"The founders fucked up when they didn't make the BoR's 1600 line items long."

There's something to this. By using a list of ten, leftie will always presume that's the total, ignoring the content of #9 and #10.

[jdfinct]

Yup. Some framers did feel that a BoR that only listed certain rights would lead to non-listed rights being ignored That is what the 9th was supposed to deal with but you can see how that worked.

[JWatts]

"The founders fucked up when they didn't make the BoR's 1600 line items long. They really did need to define every last thing, because shitheads will find a way to weasel out of it."

No, sorry but that's just flat out wrong. The same kind of mentality that is able to ignore or make emotional appeals against the 10 amendments would be even more successful arguing against a much longer list. Your average American has a hard time with remembering and/or caring about the Bill of Rights. That same person wouldn't even pay any attention whatsoever to a list that was 100 times longer.

It would be great if we could just say a longer Bill of Rights would be better, but human nature doesn't work that way. After all the Soviet Unions Constitution had dozens of specifically detailed rights. It didn't make a bit of difference.

[np]

A republic is still democracy, just using compartmentalized mechanisms. Local decisions are still made through voting. Federal decisions are still made through voting. And you hand off all your rights to your representative.

Remember, many if not most other countries worse off in their rights are still republics.

[OldMexican]

Is Democracy Overrated?

Yes.

Any other questions? No? Good. Well, then, we're adjourned for the day. I thank you all for coming. Please follow the lines to the exit, be courteous. Thank you.

[OldMexican]

"Democracy is just a process that reflects the morals and ethics of the people who vote," he said.

Indeed, the same morals and ethics you would find in an auction of stolen goods. Democracy is the clear reflection of the kind of people that make up the majority in a nation or group of voters: two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.

[Warren's Strapon]

"Democracy is just a process that reflects the morals and ethics of the people who vote," he said.

Except, it isn't. The principle flaw in collectivism is that it assumes its members share one set of morals. You can't even get that in self-selected groups to agree on a set of morals (pro-choice Catholics, for example). Trying to do that to a random population is meaningless folly.

[Jake_Witmer]

Except, it isn't. The principle flaw in collectivism is that it assumes its members share one set of morals. You can't even get that in self-selected groups to agree on a set of morals (pro-choice Catholics, for example). Trying to do that to a random population is meaningless folly.

Stanley Milgram's study suggests a more nuanced view is in accord with reality. Most people are empathic conformists who mistakenly attempt to "not lose" by conforming to the moral quality of the system they live in. This is the uninformed "base moral response" provided by evolution.

When power-seeking sociopaths have succeeded in creating a sociopathic system, empathic conformists ignore their "empathy"(psychology)/ "mirror neurons"(neuroscience, cybernetics)/ "conscience"(Founding Fathers). This is why the foreman in the trial of the Waco survivor trial cried while reading the verdict, and later decried the punishment (that she herself stupidly voted for!).

[Jake_Witmer]

This (inherent, uninformed, majority-shared empathy) is why MOST of the test subjects in the Milgram study wavered before "shocking" an innocent person, possibly to death. ...But why they still took the "obedient to authority" conformist action they took. (This is also why some, with greater numbers of mirror neurons, and/or better educations, resisted the authority entirely.)

This is why systems that inform juries of their power are robust and self-organizing, but systems that do not (such as the ignorant government-controlled U.S. education system, which allows tax-financed bureaucrats to teach children about taxation) are not. The "proper-American-system" means of resisting taxation is to plead "not guilty" and demand a jury trial, and to use strong constitutional arguments to defend oneself in court.

Proper jury systems trend towards society-wide libertarianism, self-reinforcing democracy, abundance, and benevolence.

[Duke]

Sort of OT: You guys really need to read the comments at the NYT about why the US middle class is vanishing.

Pro tip: It's because taxes aren't high enough and we don't have "free" healthcare and education.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04.....ml?hp&_r=0

[Sevo]

Nope. I'd rather get a root canal or worse, read several consecutive posts by Tony than do that.

[Duke]

I'll do it for you:

How many more studies like this will it take to finally make us question the wisdom of free-market economic fundamentalism in large enough numbers that we stop supporting movements and politicians - Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, the Tea Party and libertarianism - that seek to keep us tethered to it?

Let's not forget why people like Ryan are in office and why the GOP must cater to the Tea Party: People vote for them. These are people who've been tricked to thinking that anything to the left of Reaganomics is "socialism" and therefore unacceptable, even when it produces better results. Even many liberals are accustomed to thinking of the Swedish and Canadian economic models as "socialist," when all they really are is capitalism that addresses the inequities that inevitably result from unfettered free markets, despite the empty promises of libertarian and free-market economists that free markets lead to some imaginary equilibrium.

[Sevo]

..."Even many liberals are accustomed to thinking of the Swedish and Canadian economic models as "socialist," when all they really are is"...
Socialism, that's what they really are.

See? See? that's the reason I didn't bother. Brain-deads are really not capable of posting without lying.

[Virginian]

Yeah the WaPo had a story about Francois Hollande a few weeks back that included "the so-called socialist". Hollande is of course the head of the Socialist Party of France. But the American media reflexively attempts to change every socialist into a pragmatic moderate common sense solution finder.

[Sevo]

..."But the American media reflexively attempts to change every socialist into a pragmatic moderate common sense solution finder."

Yeah, that ol' Uncle Joe was just misunderstood is all. I mean, he didn't want to do all that killing stuff; it was the guys working for him!

[Calidissident]

That was probably the least bad part of that post. "Socialism" can be a very broad label, and putting say, Canada and the USSR in the same category leaves a lot of room for very meaningful differences. You can certainly say that Sweden and Canada are socialist, but they're not as socialist as Cuba or North Korea, and there are more precise definitions of their systems IMO.

[The Immaculate Trouser]

Gunner Myrdal was a fairly explicit socialist (though not a Marxist).

[Sevo]

The Immaculate Trouser|4.22.14 @ 9:13PM|#
"Gunner Myrdal was a fairly explicit socialist (though not a Marxist)."

I have a problem with this.
It's sort of like the French in WWII who never killed any Jews; they handed them over to the Krauts who did so. The French, you see, have no blood on their hands.
Well, it's nice that Myrdal claims he's 'only' a socialist and really doesn't like what Stalin is doing.
But Gunnar, how do you separate the two? Your 'best wishes' are thin gruel, sounding like you'd like to ignore all the horrible and inevitable results of your desires.

[Drake]

Ironic coming from a paper published in a city that has successfully cleansed itself of the middle class. Manhattan is for the dirt poor and fabulously wealthy.

[dinkster]

Nothing so simple as the higher economic freedom ranking of Canada, right?

[trshmnster the terrible]

I love the calls to arms in the comments. Like these milquetoast motherfuckers know how to hold a gun, let alone shoot somebody to steal their money.

[Duke]

It's amazing how they don't realize that if the country would have been settled and conquered by their type, well...it would never have been settled or conquered to begin with.

[trshmnster the terrible]

I saw an article earlier today about "advice from the Great Depression" and the comments were telling. Everybody recognized the difference between a depression at that time v. a depression now. Back then, they knew how to feed themselves, take care of themselves, and work hard. Today, millions would starve to death within weeks of a depression because their EBT cards don't work anymore.

I take solace and also am fearful of any prolonged downturn. I have the skills to survive without many of the modern conveniences. However, any culture with a completely unprepared populace ends in a bloodbath.

[Calidissident]

I'm not sure that's the best way of making that point. Is the fact that they (supposedly) wouldn't have engaged in colonialist conquest what makes them pussies? Is that a bad thing?

[Agile Cyborg]

Probably more of these bags of horrors would know how to hold a gun and fire it than found in the jello quags of pure shit-fuckery of Salon, Buzzpoop, and Huffyasshole?

[Calidissident]

Did those other countries not have those things before 1980? Why was the US ahead then? And in what ways besides marginal tax rates has the US become more economically free since then? Also, if the evil Reagan's free market ideology ruined the US, how did Thatcher not do the same thing to the UK? What about the fact that countries like Sweden and Canada have actually moved in the direction of freer economies in recent decades, and Canada's is actually freer than America's?

[american socialist]

so is this the thread where libertarians tell each other how much smarter they are then the unwashed masses? you all must be very ronery.

[Sevo]

american socialist|4.22.14 @ 9:10PM|#
"so is this the thread where libertarians tell each other how much smarter they are then the unwashed masses? you all must be very ronery."

Fortunately we get to point at piles of shit like you and feel very intelligent.
You're welcome.

[CentristClassicalLiberal]

Pull your lip over your head and swallow!

[Corning]

No this is where libertarians state the truth that everyone is stupid and should not be telling people what to do simply cuz they got a large mob.

[Jake_Witmer]

so is this the thread where libertarians tell each other how much smarter they are then the unwashed masses? you all must be very ronery.

This is also the thread where socialists indicate that believe they're smarter than libertarians because they support systems that demonstrate compassion for the poor (by electing sociopaths who incarcerate and abuse the poor). This is also the thread where socialists use ad hominem attacks (that make use of memes created by creative libertarians) to criticize libertarianism in an attempt to make libertarians appear to be "uncool" (since that would then presumably make people afraid to identify with the "uncool" libertarian philosophy, weakening the political influence of libertarians, and replacing it with still greater influence of the "might makes right" political philosophy of state collectivism).

You're in the right place for demonstrating the inherent intelligence of your philosophy!

[Mark22]

Democracy is supposed to mean making decisions within the constitutional framework that guarantees out liberties. That is, for most issues, in a democracy, it shouldn't matter what the majority wants because most issues are resolved simply by the Constitution.

The idea that democracy should implement the will of the majority no matter what is some kind of European delusion, closely tied to the idea of Fabian socialism.

So, no, democracy is not overrated: it is good for what it was intended for, namely resolving issues within the limits of the Constitution.

[Jake_Witmer]

"I think the Founders weren't wary enough of democracy," says David Harsanyi

No three men are more considered "Founders" than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander

Hamilton. All of them distrusted unrestricted democracy, and all of them absolutely refused to

conflate unrestricted democracy with a republic that used "democratic limits on government power" and

"republican limits on government power" to restrict government power.

Some Founders' quotes:

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of

the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the

greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in

controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the

Union over the States composing it."
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

[Jake_Witmer]

This forum really sucks. Unlike the fora at LessWrong.com, and the KurzweilAI.net forum, it doesn't allow one to edit a post that has been accidentally posted with errors. Also, it doesn't post simple editing rules (unique to every forum) above the posting window, which means that regular posters will know how to post better-looking posts than newbie posters.

This will then encourage newbie posters to post things that look worse, but may hold great wisdom. The worse appearance will then allow the newbie posters to be discredited, or for the newbie posters to be driven away from the forum. Also stupid is the 1,500 character post limit. Why not allow more, and minimize them above 1,500 characters? Why truncate the length of a message? What if it can't be adequately stated in fewer words?

This is stupid, stupid, stupid!

[Jake_Witmer]

Here, let me post a correction, ruining the flow of this forum, since this forum is too damned stupidly-programmed to allow me to edit my prior utterly-fucked-up post. Let me also waste my time figuring out basic posting rules (such as how to do an indented quote), rather than post them right above this input window, so that everyone automatically knows the formatting rules.

[Jake_Witmer]

Test.

[Jake_Witmer]

"I think the Founders weren't wary enough of democracy," says David Harsanyi

No three men are more considered "Founders" than James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. All of them distrusted unrestricted democracy, and all of them absolutely refused to conflate unrestricted democracy with a republic that used "democratic limits on government power" and "republican limits on government power" to restrict government power.

Some Founders' quotes:

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."
?Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Paine

[Jake_Witmer]

"No Legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the Representatives of the People are superior to the People themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. If it be said that the Legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the Representatives of the People to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the Courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the People and the Legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the Courts."

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #48

[Jake_Witmer]

Harsanyi seems to not comprehend that sortition and "deliberative democracy" are essential, highly functional democratic checks on government power. By throwing out deliberative democracy (for example, by introducing a series of weakening imperfections to the historically-evolved institution of jury trial), we are left with "unrestricted democracy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberation

It really bothers me when seemingly intelligent people like Harsanyi fail to qualify their language with appropriate qualifiers when they terms such as "democracy."

His problem is with "unrestricted democracy," not "democracy" properly-defined.

Democracy, properly-defined, contains a set of context-based power-limiting networks that are comprised of non-sociopath, non-power-seeking "common citizens." (The common citizenry is comprised of unsophisticated conformist empaths. Therefore, institutions, such as properly-constructed juries, that give weight to the non-punishing among conformist empaths, the empaths whose empathy outweighs their conformity, are highly-functional in limiting government power. This is a special case of "sortition," without which, there is an "unrestricted democracy." With sortition, open elections, and proper jury trials, there is a functional, limited democracy, or "republic.")

[Jake_Witmer]

A republic's laws are less of a limit on government power than democratic institutions are, but a republic can build democratic institutions into itself. This then results in strong limits on government power, assuming an educated (self-educated; privately-educated; educated without conflict-of-interest) populace.

If you eliminate any democratic institution (open elections, jury trials, free speech), you weaken the power of democracy to protect individual rights. This then does not make you an enemy of "democracy" it makes you an enemy of "unrestricted democracy," in which both coercion-wielding decisions (laws) and the election of those in charge of such decisions (legislators and bureaucrats) are put to a "simple majority" vote.

This is much like criticizing a "republic" because the president is allowed to wage war by executive order. When the president can do that, we no longer have a republic. It's not that the "republic" failed, it's that we failed to maintain the existence of the republic.

This is a problem with the lack of an educated humanity, and the lack of an appropriate "systemic immune system" in the republic.

[Jake_Witmer]

The U.S. had a fairly good immune system in our republic, one that still slightly functions (free speech, jury trials, right to own and carry defensive arms, right to -admittedly undefined- due process of law, etc.). However, it wasn't enough to prevent "unrestricted democracy" or "unrestricted majoritarianism." Those two things, however, do not constitute "democracy."

However, the U.S. Constitution failed to outlaw government control of schooling, and thereby created a servile public, trained to servility (not educated) by property-tax recipient bureaucrats. This then allowed the transition of citizen-jurors into "proud taxpayers" (slaves who are proud of their own enslavement and servility).

Democracy didn't "fail," ...it was replaced with majoritarianism. Democracy =/= majoritarianism. Democratic limits on government power =/= "unrestricted democracy" or "mob rule." The core value of "networks of brains that contain mirror neurons" making political decisions about the use of power is a strong core value.

The Founders were all universally opposed to unrestricted democracy, as are all libertarians. The smarter libertarians don't conflate unrestricted democracy with "democratic limits on government power."