Democracy, Pros and Cons Options

[Sparrowsmith]

So I'm currently studying Mill in philosophy (On Liberty, if anyone has read it) and he speaks a lot about freedom and how best to achieve it. One of the things which has struck me as quite odd, but at the same time remarkably sensible, is how much he finds the idea of a democracy repulsive.
He admits that a democracy is something of a necessary step in achieving freedom, but, unless it is gotten rid of quickly, it can stagnate a society.

His argument boils down to a concept called "The Tyranny of the Majority". Essentially he argues that any society with a democracy will introduce legal constraints on the minority within the population, because the majority will always have more power in a democracy. This makes progress slow down to a halt. Look at prohibition, gender laws, segregation, homophobia, and pretty much any controversial issue. What will have you arrested in one generation will be shrugged at in the next, any why? Because the majority of the previous generation didn't like it, so the state made it a crime.

What Mill argues for instead is a set of principles on which all society can be based. Minimalist laws which, when followed precisely, will always maximize freedom without causing harm to others. Essentially it's a society where no matter how offended you are by something, you have no right to legally constrain the agents of such an act.

I'll avoid getting to far into all the terms just yet, so I don't end up writing an essay. My questions are as follows, would a society like this be possible? Is a democracy really a bad thing? Does a democracy offer society anything that we could not otherwise attain?

[Sparrowsmith]

At first I thought you had missed the point Licentia, but you actually summed up some of Mill's arguments, albeit indirectly.
The Netherlands are very close to how Mill sees an ideal society, so far as restrictions themselves go, but it's arguable whether he would see all their taxes and systems as entirely perfect.
Mill was very liberalist, but also a utilitarian. He wanted what was best for everyone, but without usurping anyone's freedoms. Essentially he wanted an anti-dictatorship, where everyone is forced to make choices on how they live.
IE the only illegal things are things which reduce the amount of choice.

The arguments are much more in depth, and still outlaw a great number of things. Whoring, for example, would be legal, but pimping would be illegal. None of this would stop corporations from growing in monetary power, but would restrict them from having any physical power.
No elected figures, per se, or figures would be elected, but the people would not have a say in what is and isn't legal.
What is legal would be decided by its harm to others. Moral worth, self harm, offense, are all meaningless.

It's tough to imagine exactly what that would look like. But I do imagine the Netherlands as being close.