It seems as if my friend Phil is yet again unwilling to put his actual definitions for the terms of his arguments, thereby allowing vacillation between the what has become common parlance meaning and a specific facet of meaning he’s addressing. Ambiguity potentially ensues.
Consider just two of the several nuanced definitions of “democracy”:
(a) the sense of “pure democracy”, meaning “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly and where each individual voter in the nation (or state, or whatever) votes on every issue that arises and the minority is in all aspects subject to the whim of the majority which suffers no check on its decisions” (note: it is this form the founders railed against)
(b) the sense of “representative democracy”, meaning “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and involving periodically held free elections” (note: it is this form which the founders actually established)
Does Phil refer to one of these, or to some other? If so, which or what is it?
It is reasonable that our judgements on the issues at hand might well be different under definition (a) than under (b), and who knows on some unspecified (c). However, unless all participants in the discussion agree on which of these (or the various other definitions on offer) is to be used, meaningful discussion is unlikely to occur. As a specific example of the preceding sentence, I would offer this comment thread.
To speak to the quotes proffered, it’s not very hard to pull a quote off the internet. We’re all sitting right in front of it after all. To take the Adams quote first, (a) we don’t know which definition of “democracy” he was referencing (this should sound familiar by now) and (b) the mere fact that John Adams or anyone else did or didn’t say something or not doesn’t establish an argument. Appeal to Authority is a fallacy. Adams also said “This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.” The fact that someone famous and respected said it doesn’t make it so.
Regarding the other, there appears to be some debate among scholars as to whether it is indeed attributable to Franklin, particularly the second portion. (And for the record, though it’s just my opinion, I still don’t think it a very well formed metaphor.) It brings this to mind:
“The problem with quotes found on the internet is that it’s difficult to verify their authenticity.” –Abraham Lincoln
This is, of course, merely a Facebook comment thread, and not the Cambridge Debating Society, and so it’s not of any particularly great moment. Still, it is MY Facebook page, and I’d like it to measure up to at least a moderate standard of quality. I was truly taken when I read this essay.
Now, I’d be the first to say that what I’ve been writing has been but my opinion; I’m not an expert. But Eugene Volokh is. Dr. Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law at UCLA School of Law. I’ll (hopefully) end all this by citing this excellent article written by him.