The national elections this November 5 (Guy Fawkes Day, FWIW) have every chance of turning into a chaotic catastrophe. I'm not, therefore, going to discuss either candidate. Let's instead talk about principles. That's something few people discuss these days.

"Democracy" is not like the consensus of a few friends agreeing to see the same movie. Most often, it boils down to a kinder and gentler variety of mob rule, dressed in a coat and tie. The essence of positive values like personal liberty, prosperity, opportunity, fraternity, and equality have little to do with democracy. Those things exist because of free minds, free markets, and limited government.

Democracy, by contrast, focuses people's thoughts on politics, not production, on the collective, not on their own lives. That's not good.

Although democracy is just one way to structure a state, the concept has reached cult status, unassailable as political dogma. It is, as economist Joseph Schumpeter observed, "a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion." Most of the founders of America were much more concerned with liberty than democracy. Tocqueville saw democracy and liberty as almost polar opposites.

Democracy can work when all concerned know one another, share the same values and goals, and abhor any form of coercion. It is the natural way of accomplishing things among small groups. But it doesn't work well with a conglomeration of 350 million people, many of whom are voting in order to get something for nothing. Or at the expense of their neighbor.

Once the belief in democracy becomes a political ideology, it's necessarily transformed into majority rule. And, at that point, the majority (or even a plurality, a minority, or an individual) can enforce their will on everyone else by claiming to represent the will of the people.

The only form of democracy that suits a free society is economic democracy in the laissez-faire form, where each person votes with his money for what he wants in the marketplace. Only then can every individual obtain what he wants without compromising the interests of any other person. That's the polar opposite of the "economic democracy" of socialist pundits who have twisted the term to mean the political allocation of wealth.

But many terms in politics wind up with inverted meanings. "Liberal" is certainly one of them.