First, there isn't an “increasing” importance of “democracy” in our lives. In fact, the United States has never been democratically run. As I mentioned in my comments to Jason's article, a fundamental premise of his argument is that voting is connected to policy. But, I was never asked my opinion on the Iraq invasion, the bailout, or reducing the deficit. There are many problems in the world, but majoritarian tyranny isn't one, in the United States or anywhere else. My personal belief is that the United States would be far better if it were more democratic, and not run by special interests. I also believe that issues like dating won't and shouldn't be decided democratically, because we have a constitution that limits the intrusion of government into the realm of personal freedom. You – and I – might wish that the scope of the protection of personal freedoms be expanded, but that has nothing to do with whether the decisions that remain to be made by the government should be made through representative democracy.

These happen to be the principles that the nation was allegedly founded upon, although never put into practice. I didn't invent these ideas, or even particularly promulgate them. I am not your problem. I can have limitless adultation of democracy, and you can believe that adulation is corrupt, but that really doesn't make a bit of difference in either of our lives.

I am not running your life, or asking to, nor is anyone else. The reality is that elections will continue, and the relatively weak democratic elements of our government will probably not change much in our lifetimes, though you want them reduced and I want them increased. But you seem to have a chip on your shoulder, against me, or someone else. You will not get what you want from the government, and neither will I. What you do with your situation is up to you.

I don't resent you personally; I don't know you. I disagree with your views on the value of electoral politics, just as you disagree with mine.

“I” am not “playing” any “game.” “I” am not refusing to let you “out “- I'm not even sure what you want to be let “out” of. I'm not even forcing you to engage in conversation with you, but somehow you seem to resent me.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Good luck to you in your quest for personal happiness.

The Lysander Spooner demographic has no interest in playing your sorts of political games. We want out. You won't let us. That is unfortunate.

Meanwhile, we will continue to point out that democracy rests on irrational and immoral foundations – that most voters are not equipped with either the knowledge or the incentives to run other people's lives for them, and that it is wrong for them to try, and wrong for people to encourage eligible voters to participate more, when they should be participating less.

If one is concerned with the social impact of racism, and less so with the inner intellectual errors of individual racists, then there are more than your two suggested responses available. An additional option is to reduce the number of questions that are addressed by the political realm. An example: suppose our dating options had to first be approved by democratic vote (much like many business decisions). This would amplify the social impact of racism. Instead of merely worrying about glares and unkind looks, those who would like date interracially might be legally barred from doing so, if enough of the electorate disapproved.

Dating is one obvious example of something that should not be decided democratically, and why democracy would be a horrible nightmare if expanded. Since democracy amplifies the social effects of racism, those who wish to minimize racism should look towards minimizing (and eventually completely eliminating) electoral democracy. And that is why your adulation of democracy troubles me. I have no interest in running other people's lives, and I except the same sort of respect from them. And from you.

2. As to the morality of racism:

a. As a moral question, racism is immoral, no matter how expressed. Period. The degress of harm from each expression is another question.

b. As a practical question, it makes sense to say exactly what I did: the problem is racism, not racists voting. If you strike at the roots of racism, and eliminate the attitudes, you eliminate racist voting as well. If you are only concerned with racists voting, you are either left with stripping racists of the vote, or what Jason does: make the pathetic argument that racists should somehow have the good sense to know their racism is wrong, and stay home. THAT is nonsense.

And, Don, if you still don't see how it's dangerous then I'm not sure we share enough understanding of politics to communicate about it.

Which, frankly, is troubling in a world with a history of movements to prevent the “wrong” people from voting. Given this history, and given that “bad” voting is undefinable, I find your focus troubling.

When I look at the world, I see a history of movements of various interest groups trying to command and control the lives of other people, and the all too predictable response of some of these interest groups who try to gain control of these commanding heights by preventing other people from voting. Given this history, I find your adulation of democracy troubling.

One of your comments earlier in the thread was:

It is also rather silly to claim that a racist vote is immoral – in fact racism is immoral, on message boards, in coffee shops, anywhere. Singling out voting as a particular instance of the evils of racism is beside the larger point – racism is bad, in any form

This is nonsense. It doesn't bother me very much if some anti-Semite living hundreds of miles away from me hates the abstract concept of my identity. It does bother me when this person's bigoted preferences are expressed through the ballot box, and consequently through policy.

The Lysander Spooner demographic.

Consent, of course, is a self-evidently absurd notion in the absence of unanimity.

Here is Randy Barnett, explaining Why “We the People” is a Fiction:

This point becomes clearer when one realizes that if consent is an expression of a willingness to go along with something, then this presupposes it is possible to express unwillingness. Just as I can say, “I consent,” there also must also be a way to say, “I do not consent.” I am not here talking about the likelihood of such a refusal or all the considerations that might leave one “little choice” but to consent. Rather, I am simply insisting that, just as the word “no” means the opposite of “yes,” for consent to have any meaning, it must be possible to say “I do not consent” instead of “I consent.” But notice where the argument has taken us when consent to obey the laws is based on voting: If we vote for a candidate and he wins, we have consented to the laws he votes for, but we have also consented to the laws he votes against. If we vote against the candidate and he wins, we have consented to the laws he votes for or against. And if we do not vote at all, we have consented to the outcome of the process, whatever it may be. It is a queer sort of “consent” where there is no way to refuse. “Heads I win, tails you lose,” is the way to describe a rigged contest. “Heads” you consent, “tails” you consent, “didn't flip the coin,” guess what? You consent as well. This is simply not consent.

And on The Dangerous Fiction of “We the People”:

Some use such slogans as “We are the government” or “the government is us” (though I heard this more frequently in my youth before Vietnam and Watergate). This view of government gives legislators an enormous power to do what they will, provided only that they muster the requisite number of votes. For if “we are the government,” then we would seem to consent to anything the government does. The fiction of popular sovereignty, therefore, becomes dangerous when legislatures are conceived of as a literal surrogate for “We the People” themselves. Because “the people” can “consent” to alienate any particular liberty or right – though not their more abstract inalienable rights – legislatures, as the people's surrogate, can restrict almost any liberty and justify it in the name of popular consent. The fiction of popular rule, as opposed to a popular check on rulers, allows a legislature to justifiably do almost anything it wills. And this, in turn, allows majority and minority factions of the electorate to gain control and wield the power of the legislative branch at the expense of the aggregate rights of their fellow citizens.

What demographic do you belong to being ruled over without consent?

Let's try this again: If people believe their interests are in some way served by the system, they will vote. If they feel excluded by the system, they will not. Therefore, low voter participation is a symptom of a system that isn't resting on the consent and approval of the populace.

And, if you believe that the system lacks legitimacy, by all means there is no sense in legitimizing it by voting. Work outside the system, if you believe that the system can never be responsive to your needs. You may decide this is a fiction (although it seem logical to me), but I don't see how it is dangerous. The degree of voter disinterest and alienation in the United States throughout my life is a sign of the government's illegitimacy. If voter participation spikes in 2008 in response to widespread dissatisfaction with the current administration, that presents an opportunity for the government to restore its legitimacy. If participation dwindles again, it has failed.

Upon reflection, perhaps “legitimacy” is not the precise word, since that is an up or down, legal concept. I think perhaps moral authority is more appropriate.

That moral authority doesn't exist in the first place, to any degree, unless there is a consistent respect for rights. Hence, a popular authoritarian regime doesn't have moral authority and ultimately destroys the free democratic process that confers legitimacy. I haven't advocated legitimacy or moral authority solely by majoritarian force.