I get tired of reading about how Democracy is a goal - for government, for foreign policy, etc. Democracy is not a goal, it is only a means to an end. That end is liberty and prosperity. Democracy is only one means to this end, certainly not the sole means, and arguably not the best means.

In simplest terms, Democracy is the rule of the majority. But voting doesn't determine who is right, only who is more numerous or louder. Mencken famously said democracy is just another way for the many to dominate the few, without the need for actual fighting. But even that is too kind to democracy, because violence (or the threat of violence) is used to enforce democratic decisions.

If 300 people on a street corner vote to rob (or kill) the next passerby, that's democracy in action.

Because of this, even under democratic government, voting constitutes the use of force and should be used only as a last resort to resolve issues. Mutual voluntary cooperation should always be used first wherever it can be made to work, which in reality is in most cases, though certainly not all.

Under democracy it is impossible to have civil rights. If the term "civil rights" means anything at all, it holds certain basic respect for individuals to be fundamental. But how fundamental can anything be when subject to the whim of tomorrow's majority?

The desire to correct these deficiencies leads to democratic governments that are not pure democracies. One example is a Constitution or Declaration of Rights that establishes fundamental rights that can never be abrogated or subject to vote. Put differently, as a society we agree certain things are too sacred to be voted on. This constitution supersedes all other laws, but is small and enumerated. Mutual voluntary cooperation and contract should be used to resolve the vast majority of all other issues. Democratic voting should be used only as a last resort when all else fails, and the issue falls outside the protected realm of constitutionally protected rights.