He's saying that freedom matters, and the form of government is secondary. Democracy is not "government by consent"; that's just propaganda. And democracy is not especially good at preserving freedom. The Palestinians had an election, and put dictatorial terrorists in power. The Germans democratically elected the Nazis to a plurality in the Reichstag, and then democratically granted Hitler the "emergency powers" in the enabling act. Israel's two most powerful parties are the socialists and the Orthodox. In the US it's barely any better. Democrats favor authoritarian domestic policy (at our expense), and Republicans favor authoritarian foreign policy (at our expense).
An interesting point about those democracies you cite is how consistently they fail to reflect public opinion-one might conclude that the problem isn't democracy, but a lack of it. Your opinion that the government infringes on freedoms and uses state money for improper purposes is widely shared by a public that generally doesn't approve of either party-yet things do not change, and no alternative is realistically available in elections. This is a count for more accountability to the voters, not a count against it.
Actually, it's not contradictory. Since "liberty" is nothing more than the absence of force against one's person or property, the statement amounts to, "I'll keep my mitts to myself whether you want me to or not." If someone insists on being coerced, he can hire a dominatrix.
--Len.
Here's the problem: What if a big part of your population thinks "liberty" means "the right to decent medical care and the right to a good job" (that's the case in venezuela)? How come all institutions of power are required to agree with your own vision of what liberty constitutes and what it doesn't?
Realizing that there is wide debate even over what constitutes a liberty and what are rights, I think democracy is the best system because it gives a medium for representing those different views and arbitrating disputes between them in a somewhat rational environment. If you really don't agree that some things demanded by voters are rights, try to convince them; but if you can't, using a dictator who will refuse to institute their vision of "personal freedoms" and instead will institute yours is a recipe for disaster. Large segments of the population will not respect the government, and bitterness over not having their own ideas of what constitutes "essential liberty" protected will only grow. Witness the hatred of liberal (classical liberal) economic policies in Latin America, largely instituted by dictators. Beneficial or not, they are widely hated...and their proponents are in serious political trouble because of the systems that implemented them.
I actually do think that your basic idea, of being left alone and not being robbed by state officials, is something most people do support and would like-absent the politics that come along with it. Perhaps more democracy is what the anarcho-capitalists and libertarians need, not less.
