On February 10, 2015 the Keene Sentinel ran the following letter to the editor:
Last year, after all of the petitioned warrant articles were amended to nullities at the Keene School District deliberative session, Chris Coates wrote, “It was democracy in action.”
And this year, during the deliberative session during discussion on an article to impose a cap on spending increases, school board member Susan Hay said, “We don’t need a very small minority of people in this community — that do not in any way represent the will of the people — telling us how to do our job.”
In the end, all petitioned warrant articles were amended and nullified.
The quotes by Coates and Hay serve to show what many people think about democracy: The majority can force their will upon the minority. However, in practical application, democracy is a system in which a plurality of people impose their will on everyone else, which, based on voting results, is a small minority of people imposing their will upon the majority.
If the joint opinion of the plurality changes in the middle of the term, in most cases, there is no option for recourse. Why then should people not have a manner in which they can let it be known that they do not consent to the ideas expressed by the local (or national) government? Why must everyone be obligated to live under the policies chosen by a plurality of people as expressed on a given day?
The idea seems foreign to most people, and they would likely claim “it would never work,” or “it’s never been done before.” Both claims are, in fact, false.
Polycentric societies have existed in several places at various times throughout history: in Medina during the time of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, in Gaelic areas during the middle ages, and, to a lesser extent, in the United States before the New Deal, when most people received social services from fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies.
I long for the day when democracy, much like slavery, is viewed, not only as a thing of the past, but also a system that should have never existed. No government or society should be able to claim a monopoly over any geographic area, and every individual should be able to give his consent to, or withdraw his consent from, any “government” at any time.
In fact, I recall being taught that governments exist with the consent of the governed. Can someone then choose to not consent? If not, how is “forced consent” different than a contract signed under duress?
