> A democracy functions under freedom of movement, speech, self-defense, self-reliance, etc Not to nit pick, but while I'm picking nits. What you refer to is l

> A democracy functions under freedom of movement, speech, self-defense, self-reliance, etc Not to nit pick, but while I'm picking nits. What you refer to is liberal democracy. Karl Popper explained this very well in his book Conjectures And Refutations: > The difference between a democracy and a tyranny is that under a democracy the government can be got rid of without bloodshed; under a tyranny it cannot. > Democracy as such cannot confer any benefits upon the citizen and it should not be expected to do so. In fact democracy can do nothing—only the citizens of the democracy can act (including, of course, those citizens who comprise the government). Democracy provides no more than a framework within which the citizens may act in a more or less organized and coherent way. > We are democrats, not because the majority is always right, but because democratic traditions are the least evil ones of which we know. If the majority (or ‘public opinion’) decides in favour of tyranny, a democrat need not therefore suppose that some fatal inconsistency in his views has been revealed. He will realize, rather, that the democratic tradition in his country was not strong enough. If people in Switzerland choose a government that restricts their movement, this is what they should get, and if they don't get that, democracy is broken.