There is no reason to assume that people do not know their own interests, in particular in reference to the state. To assume that the state always knows what is in the interests of the people even above their own stated opinions makes no sense because there is no evidence to support this. And if we have no evidence that democracy is bad then it makes sense to support it wherever possible.
Democracy is preferable to its absence and if someone seeks to suppress democracy then the burden of proof rests with them to show that the state knows best. And if the state knows what is good for one person then it knows what is good for all people. This makes no sense because ultimately this kind of state will reduce to all of the power being held by one person. There is no evidence to show that one person knows what is best for all people, and we would not be able to know how to choose the solitary leader.
In the end the burden of proof for the suppression of democracy rests with the person who doesn't like it because democracy gives people more choice where it would otherwise be absent and we presume in favour of choice, because there is no reason not to. There is no reason to reject choice and so we presume in favour of (more) democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment