All major decisions that affect society as a whole should be made by majority rule, rather than the small groups of experts. Granted, from a historical perspective, over the past years these “experts,” or governments made decisions for their societies in order to build and establish permanent, stalwart institutions, regimes, and nations for their people. These governments have also initiated political steps in order to protect its people. Civil liberty, democracy, the point where individual freedom is at its apex is the best form of rule, because society can benefit from the distribution of equality and the decisions of the whole, instead of one government.
Modern democracy, the form of government, where the individual can express his freedom at the highest level is the best form of rule, because society can benefit from the distribution of equality. In retrospect, in the 1950s through the 1960s, the experts, the early United States government, made all the major decisions for society through the form of democracy. Within the early United States government racial injustice thrived and many people that acquired skin of color did not have a voice and were treated unfairly. For example, African Americans were socially subjugated and by law had to sit towards the back of the bus, if the seats in the front were occupied by the opposite race.
The races in America were completely segregated, with the distribution of inequality. It was the early United States government, the experts on the political thrones that decided at one moment in time, segregation and inequality were an entity of society. It is this reason why small groups of experts cannot concoct the decisions for society. As of the 21st century, within a modern democracy, civil liberties are at an all time high, where American citizens of all races can vote and express their voices. Every United States citizen has the right to vote, the right to protest, the right to run for office, and the right to change citizenship. Racial injustices or injustices in general are not tolerated because of the vocalization of the Nation’s denizens.
From the philosophical perspective of the libertarian John Hospers, the proper role of government, in this case, the small group of experts, acquires only one obligation, one responsibility, and one prerogative—the protection of its citizens, the protection of human rights. These experts are to never wield an aggressive nature, never to enforce laws that choose for the denizen’s decision, unless that particular individual commits a crime. Because it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens, according to the liberalist, some expertise is necessary. From this perspective, small groups of experts should make the major decisions for society in order to fully protect its citizens.
In the early government, intervening and granting African Americans equal rights was most salutary for society. From this action, the government completed its mission by protecting the human rights of its citizens. Expertise of the government is also shown in modern democracy, with racial issues out of the portrait. For example, the mission of the United States Department of Defense is “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country” (defense.gov). War cannot be fought by “armless” and defenseless individuals who wield no knowledge on enemy foreign affairs.
Civil liberty, democracy, is the best form of rule because the majority, the people can express their voices to come to a consensus that points equality. However, within the early government, it was the civil liberties of the people that prolonged segregation and the injustices among the races in the 1950s and 1960s. Furthermore, it was the government, the experts who knew how to run society that allowed for unequal laws to continue. One still cannot help but wonder of experts or the majority to make the significant decisions for society. The following is one answer is one possible solution to this thought: As early governments form, experts are needed to intervene into society to make decisions in order protect the rights of its citizens; however, within a modern government, where all people wield the same rights, it is the majority that have the final voice.
Works Cited
U.S. Department of Defense. 17 October 2011 <http://www.defense.gov/about/>.
x40553 
Intro: So you are framing democracy as the most important reason behind the strength and stability of modern nations? I am not sure that this intro plays well into the prompt. You may want to look back at it and try to reword a few of your sentences. Also, use this paragraph to tell your audience why society benefits from equality.
I like how you note that democracy was originally instituted such that its primary directive was the defense of its citizens. Perhaps you could further expound on this argument as it seems to be one of your strongest. What conditions are acceptable for these experts to consider? Is defense the only topic of interest for the expert group?
Look at your conclusion paragraph and really nail your argument to the floor. Also, you may want to consider and refute some counter arguments like.. wouldn’t a group of experts tend to become elitist and thus make decisions that prefer their own wills over those of even societal majorities?