Step by step, current democracy can lead to totalitarianism. How? Why? What is the public interest? How much do human rights cost us and what are our rights?
Today, in the long run, is one of the best times of humanity ever. Our standard of living is high, we have our rights, our responsibilities. But where are we going?
From the 16th century, European thinkers defended the principle of human rights, pointed to the injustice of feudal privileges, fought for a constitution, for the division of power. We enjoy these gains today, but this is our greatest weakness - openly no one goes against these basic and important principles, openly no one questions their function. Openly, everyone, whether "extremist" or "ordinary person", fights for these pleasures. At the same time, the proven fact that the road to hell is paved with good intentions is repeated so many times.
Most people today associate all of the above achievements with democracy. Government of the people she secured them - she thinks. Few people know that in the American Constitution, which was the first of its kind with such force and respect, there is not a word about democracy, about the rule of the people.
Let us look at what democracy, democracy itself, democracy itself, actually is. We have many examples of this - whether it is the Great French Revolution or ancient Athens. The source of power has always been the people. Who is the people? We are all people. So how can "all of us about us all" decisions work?
Ancient Athens is a beautiful example of the decision-making of "all of us about all of us". If citizens have decided if voted democratically, if the majority agreed, you could be "voted to death," such as Socrates. Why? Maybe just for a different opinion, for a different view.
And what about the Great French Revolution, which became the "mother" of all authoritarian revolutions of the last century (for example Great October Socialist Revolution)? The "people" also came to power there. This people then not only were a source of power, not just that they were one ruler, this people were then also one tyrant, the source of the power of the Jacobins. Or not?
The famous revolution also has its "big courts" - such as the trial of the former king, Louis XVI, whose crime for the then tribunal was mainly that was born a king. And so they executed him democratically.
As a result, classical democracy is the terror of the people, with the voice of the majority having the highest power. The decision and interest of the majority is paramount, unquestionable, and if it is, another majority can question it. Is therefore self - apologeticwhen classical democracy is an excuse in itself. In other words, if the majority votes the death of an uncomfortable preacher, it can never be considered a mistake or an evil. Why? Because it was decided democratically.
In classical democracy, there can be no permanent law, no permanent rule. Most can always change everything, most decide. Thus, there can be no human rights, such as the right to life, the right to property, the right to education and more. In classical democracy, the majority and holder of these rights is always the holder - and the latter can decide to take away this right from the individual. An individual does not own his body. It is a democratic majority.
There is no freedom in classical democracy. Only the majority decides what is right. There is no freedom of speech, because the majority decides what words can be spoken. Only most set rules that can change, rules that can only apply to some, rules that can be tyranny. Why not, when they are democratically approved.
Classical democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.
That in the above words you do not fully recognize today's "democracy"? Of course, because what we have here today is not that classical democracy, but a liberal democracy. It is a combination of the ideas of liberalism and democracy, although it has not always had the "right" result.
Liberalism itself presupposes that every person in the world is unique. Everyone is an "owner of himself", ie everyone has the right to their life, everyone has the right to own and have property and to decide on their property (ie also about themselves). These rights and freedoms - the right to property, the right to life and others - are inalienable, one has them whether one knows about them or not.
No one has the right to violate these basic human rights and freedoms. The majority should not be able to vote democratically for killing or collecting property. Basic human rights are inalienable, they are inalienable. Basic human rights are a prerequisite for progress, they are a prerequisite for wealth, they are a prerequisite for prosperity.
It is not democracy itself, but liberalism, which has created the state administration and the order of society equal and according to the law. It is liberalism that has opened up space for new ideas. It is liberalism that has given rise to communism, conservatism, nationalism, statism, democracy and many other ideas.
But what is the mistake of today? It is a decline in liberalism and an excess of democracy.
Most are beginning to vote for violations of primary fundamental rights, such as the right to property. After all - this is also the case with the above-mentioned comment by Mr. Křeček, when it was discussed whether yes or no referendum on breaking the limits on coal mining. A general referendum is an instrument of evil in the hands of the people. It is precisely the tool that can be misused to return to classical democracy, that is, to the dictatorship of the majority.
Once a fundamental human right, a fundamental human freedom, is violated, a dangerous precedent is set for the future, where a democratic majority can choose to simply and simply outvote those who defend their rights and freedoms. It can be your house, your life.
The public interest is a new mantra of the current tendencies to return to classical democracy (ie the dictatorship of the majority). It is often argued that the public interest is at odds with the private interest, so it is necessary to vote democratically (preferably in a referendum) for a violation or restriction of one's right. But let's ask ourselves the question: what is the public interest?
Who is the public? It's me, you, them, you. It's all of us. We are all part of some "public". It is also the people who live in the areas that decide whether or not to mine coal there. How can there be something in the public interest that is not needed in my interest, if I am also part of that "public"?
The fact is that nothing is of interest the whole public. What is often called the "public interest" is usually "the interest of the majority or a large part of the public." Most or large parts. Where are we? In Athens, or perhaps in Jacobin France? Are we all one ten-millionth ruler, one ten-millionth tyrant?
Another problem with the decline of liberalism and the excess of democracy is human rights themselves. There is self-apology, when democracy is an excuse in itself, when the majority decides on the rights of all.
What is a fundamental human right and freedom? It is certainly the right to life. Right to property or freedom of speech. Freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of opportunity. These are certainly fundamental human rights and freedoms.
But do you think that access to the Internet is a fundamental human right, as is the case in Finland? That the basic human right is an apartment? Ad absurdum, our basic human right could be "income over 30, - per month" or "the price of a croissant under 000 CZK". This is the true sign of democracy, the dictatorship of the majority.
Surely you will recognize that there are fewer grocery store owners than customers. What if those customers in a "democratic referendum" vote that it is their right to buy rolls for a price "under 1 CZK"? Surely you will recognize that there are more employees than there are employers. What if employees vote in a "democratic referendum" that it is their right to "have a salary above 30"? Are you saying that the right of bakers, the right of employers, is limited here? Sure, but who cares - it was approved by a democratic majority in a democratic referendum.
One does not have a fundamental right to live in prosperity. It is his right and freedom to live in prosperity, just as it is his right and freedom not to achieve it. One has the right to an opportunity. He has no right to the result.
At the beginning, I wrote that thinkers from the 16th century pointed to the injustice of feudal privileges. Who will point out today the injustice of the privileges of the majority? Who will point out today the injustice of the privileges of strong interest groups?