When we have made our constitution purely democratic, thinks to himself
the earnest reformer, we shall have brought government into harmony with
absolute justice. Such a faith, though perhaps needful for the age, is a
very erroneous one. By no process can coercion be made equitable. The
freest form of government is only the least objectionable form. The rule
of the many by the few we call tyranny: the rule of the few by the many
is tyranny also, only of a less intense kind. “You shall do as we will,
and not as you will,” is in either case the declaration; and, if the
hundred make it to ninety-nine instead of the ninety-nine to the
hundred, it is only a fraction less immoral. Of two such parties,
whichever fulfills this declaration, necessarily breaks the law of equal
freedom: the only difference being that by the one it is broken in the
persons of ninety-nine, whilst by the other it is broken in the persons
of a hundred. And the merit of the democratic form of government
consists solely in this,—that it trespasses against the smallest number.
The very existence of majorities and minorities is indicative of an
immoral state. The man whose character harmonizes with the moral law,
we found to be one who can obtain complete happiness without
establishing the happiness of his fellows. But the enactment of public
arrangements by vote implies a society consisting of men otherwise
constituted—implies that the desires of some cannot be satisfied
without sacrificing the desires of others—implies that in the pursuit
of their happiness the majority inflict a certain amount of
_un_happiness on the minority—implies, therefore, organic immorality.
Thus, from another point of view, we again perceive that even in its
most equitable form it is impossible for government to disassociate
itself from evil; and further, that, unless the right to ignore the
State is recognized, its acts must be essentially criminal.