To paraphrase Ferdinand I, your approach can be summed up as "let democracy be inviolate, though the world perish".
This implies that democracy is the absolute good, which trumps any other. That, if some policy is democratically enacted, that policy is right and proper, and no moral objection can override it. That, for example, mass murder and genocide is legitimate if the decision to carry it out was done via a constitutional democratic process, and that even those targeted by it cannot legitimately resist. Indeed, taken to the absurd (but nowhere guarded against in your definition of "no form of resistance is acceptable") extreme, it would imply that people so targeted would be obligated to dig their own graves and take their own lives, for the sake of democracy.
You are, of course, entitled to such a moral platform, but I doubt that it would be shared by many. History is replete with examples of democratic governments perpetrating atrocities. Indeed, US itself is no exception, from the treatment of Native Americans to Japanese internment. As far as I'm concerned, any civil servant who acted to subvert the latter, for example, by deliberately excluding people from the lists of internees, did the right thing, and I would expect and hope that others would follow their example in similar circumstances.
Democracy is not the end-all be-all; it is but a tool to maximize freedom within the constraints of good government. When the tool is misused contrary to the purpose for which it is intended, it is both moral and legitimate to resist it.
This implies that democracy is the absolute good, which trumps any other. That, if some policy is democratically enacted, that policy is right and proper, and no moral objection can override it. That, for example, mass murder and genocide is legitimate if the decision to carry it out was done via a constitutional democratic process, and that even those targeted by it cannot legitimately resist. Indeed, taken to the absurd (but nowhere guarded against in your definition of "no form of resistance is acceptable") extreme, it would imply that people so targeted would be obligated to dig their own graves and take their own lives, for the sake of democracy.
You are, of course, entitled to such a moral platform, but I doubt that it would be shared by many. History is replete with examples of democratic governments perpetrating atrocities. Indeed, US itself is no exception, from the treatment of Native Americans to Japanese internment. As far as I'm concerned, any civil servant who acted to subvert the latter, for example, by deliberately excluding people from the lists of internees, did the right thing, and I would expect and hope that others would follow their example in similar circumstances.
Democracy is not the end-all be-all; it is but a tool to maximize freedom within the constraints of good government. When the tool is misused contrary to the purpose for which it is intended, it is both moral and legitimate to resist it.