Let's imagine a hypothetical nation. It's a pure democracy - majority rules. However, in this nation, there is no recognition of minority rights. The majority decides every policy, and there are no checks on its power. The moral integrity of this nation is going to depend on the whim of the majority. The majority could very well outlaw slavery, but it's within their power to institute it. The majority could foster an environment of free public discourse, or they could strictly regulate speech. The economic model is also dependent on the attitude of the majority. Let's think about this for a moment. The people in this nation are going to generate wealth, like in any economic model. However, the majority is going to decide how this wealth is treated. Are property rights going to be respected, or is wealth going to be taken and redistributed? With no bars on majority rule, there's a conflict of interest in a democracy. A person can generate wealth, but the majority can vote that wealth out of the person's hands. Your vote holds power over your fellow citizens, and there are no checks on its power. Unless the citizens possess incredible virtue, a welfare state is almost guaranteed. There's no structural barriers that prevent you from bolstering your own prosperity at the expense of your fellow citizen. All you have to do is be in the majority. Unless a nation recognizes property rights, voting has a conflict of interest. If you're going to have a state, then it seems reasonable to give every citizen a voice. However, majority rule doesn't free you from the threat of tyranny. A recognition of property rights is necessary to eliminate a conflict of interest in voting.