1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

to arbitration and forbade them the option of ignoring the unions altogether, a violation of freedom of association. More grievously, Churchill designed a national sickness insurance system in Britain, analogous to Medicare in the United States, which used the tax money of some to pay for the health care of others, with the attendant economic consequences of higher health care costs for those uninsured by the government program. Furthermore, in 1946, as the head of the Conservative Party, Churchill refused to oppose Clement Atlee's introduction of near-full socialism in Britain, under the pretext that the Labor government was legitimately elected, and it would be "anti-democratic" to oppose the legitimately elected government's actions during its own term, never mind the horrendous violations of individual rights that would result as a consequence of the Conservatives' inaction.

Churchill not only found the abuses of "the people's" power in a democracy perfectly acceptable, he also actively worked to remove checks on the power of the majority to oppress and expropriate individuals. In 1910, Churchill led the effort to end the House of Lords' power to veto spending bills passed by the House of Commons, on the grounds that the House of Lords was an unelected body that would obstruct "the will of the people." Yet no veto power over positive legislation can ever violate anyone's rights; it can only prevent such rights from being violated via intrusive, regulatory, or redistributive laws which meet the approval of the majority and its representatives. Having an unelected body, independent of the majority, with the power to veto such legislation can go a long way to protect individual liberty. With that safeguard removed, the road was paved for the colossal expansion of the British welfare state in the coming years.

Above all, Sir Martin's lecture convinced me, though this was none of Sir Martin's intent, that pure "democracy" is a highly flawed and dangerous system, as is any system where a given political power is unchecked by another. Without clear limits, "the will of the people" is just as dangerous as the will of a dictator, because the tyranny of either will cause the best among individuals to be legally coerced, robbed, and even killed. Remembering that it was a democracy which poisoned Socrates, I by no means share Winston Churchill's fondness for democracies in general.

Learn more about this author, G. Stolyarov II.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Winston Churchill's welfare: Statism and the dangers of democracy?
We want to hear your view. Write now!