Log in

No account? Create an account
eyes black and white

Against Democracy

While commenting on my previous post, l33tminion makes himself the candid voice of the usual democratic propaganda. Always incredible how otherwise intelligent people can drink wholesale the kool-aid. Yet, I believe that he and other people like him may not only be intelligent enough, but also have enough intellectual integrity to eventually reject the premises that they were brainwashed into accepting uncritically.

Here I will not be arguing that Democracy as an institution doesn't work at achieving the official goal it purports to achieve, of bringing good government for the people. How Democracy fails has been well documented by better people than I: Buchanan and Tullock, Hoppe, Caplan, Kling. I will argue that Democracy as an ideology actually works towards its real goal, i.e. its natural consequence, which is the destruction of societies by an oppressive power.

Magical Assumptions

Though he defends himself from assuming anything magical in the democratic process, my democratic friend still repeats as a fact the oxymoronic democratic propaganda according to which Democratic governments are both controlled and funded by the people they govern. Really? The ruled who control the rulers? Democracy is so magical, even Grammar is turned upside down! Kto Kogo? Who (rules) Whom?

My interlocutor affirms with assurance that he think[s] constitutional democracy has worked pretty well for the US. Although he does not reveal the mysterious standard by which it is meant to have worked or not, nor the means by which he can trace the supposed workingness that his standard would measure to constitutional democracy rather than another phenomena that constitutional democracy would be preying upon.

I suppose, if we can neglect the destructive effects of decades of slavery beyond the time it was abolished in Britain, a civil war killing almost a million people at home, many foreign wars involving millions of victims abroad and plots installing foreign regimes making even more victims, if moreover we suppose that the resources expended by said Democratic regime would not have been used productively under a different regime but would have burned in self-combustion in protest to the absence of such regime, if we discount the crises generated by its financial system, the erosion of liberties in its laws, and the corruption of its power elite, then yes, the sum total of Democracy in America can't be too bad.

Problem is, when you take all these issues into account, the answer doesn't look quite as obvious. And then, you find a more fundamental problem is: what epistemic process are you using to compare what is to what isn't? My interlocutor as well as all who repeat that Democracy works lack any epistemic method to decide if Democracy works better than the alternative, because they don't even have an understanding of what it means to be an alternative. Instead, they fall victim to the accounting fallacy.

Retreat to Subjectivity

When faced with their own incapacity of forming logical arguments allowing to discuss alternate histories, dogmatic followers will resort to their personal preferences, which they argue shall be respected. I, personally, prefer to live under a democracy as opposed to a monarchy or dictatorship declares l33tminion. How does he know? And whatever his preference may be, why should it matter? The Law is not a matter of preferences. The Law doesn't care what you do with your own life and property. Go meet with friends and elect rulers amongst your gang, that's your right. But when you start supporting your elected rulers ruling over other people who don't agree to that power, moreover without any limiting principle but the "preferences" of the winning party, then you're imposing your preference for "democracy" upon others and you're making yourself an oppressor. Mob rule is the essence of democracy; whichever superior you can use to contain this mob rule can be better used without any mob rule at all.

Incidentally, the preference argument ultimately rests on a libertarian principle, though misusing it: indeed there is a domain where someone's preferences matter and should be inviolate: his self and his own — his life and property. However here the argument is used to defend a preference as applies to other people's life and property, i.e. about violating their own preferences by submitting them to political violence as per the democrat's preferred political regime. And of course, this is the rub. Democracy is about making people subject to each other's preference. Society is not to be ruled by an objective Law anymore; instead, anything goes that emanates from the almighty Will of The People, fickle construction of collective subjectivity.

Like most libertarians, I don't care whether the ruler is a president, a king, a guide, or Papa Smurf, chosen by a ballot, born into his job, asserted through force, or "just drawn that way". I just care that this ruler should have and exert as little arbitrary political power as possible (ideally none at all), and that instead the Law should rule as much as possible. Now, the democratic myth has introduced the totalitarian notion that Power is unlimited. What King Canute used to know, that his power is subject to the laws of nature, is unfathomable to the voting masses, incapable of coherent thought (for only individuals think), and unstopped by the economic laws of nature. Demagogues flatter the public into believing that anything can be demanded, that majority demands are ipso facto justified, that electoral "representation" is a limitless mandate, that there are no constant laws of economics to take into account when voting the laws of men. And then they use their power to rule each and every aspect of our lives to their profit and for our ruin.

With the Sovereignty of the Majority being placed as principle for political legitimacy, no life and no property are ever safe from the interference of political majorities: democracy is intrinsically totalitarian in its claim of sovereignty. Once objective Common Law has given way to some subjective "Will of the People", infinitely manipulable by the Establishment, that can emit arbitrary Statute on any domain without limit, Power becomes Total.

War of All against All

The totalitarian nature of democracy can be opposed by long and strong traditions of respect for individual rights, as in the western world, or confirmed by the reigning ideology, as in Soviet Russia. The contributing factor of democracy as such is always totalitarian. But the pretense of democracy is not only totalitarian in that it applies to all aspects of life and society total, it is also totalitarian in that it enrolls each and everyone in the power game.

Under the Ancien Régime, when several populations live under a same Empire, and differ in races, languages, customs, religions, etc., they can all leave peaceably together as subjects of the same ruler. They are not enemies to each other. They may have a common enemy at the head of the empire, if the ruler is unjust and cruel; but at least their political situation does not pit them against each other. The Colonial British Empire, the cosmopolitan Austro-Hungarian Empire, the varied Russian Empire were as many examples of people living at peace with each other under a same ruler. What more, Ancien Régime rulers understand that inhabitants of disputed lands are assets to be preserved to maximize the spoils of war; inhabitants only care marginally which king rules them and prefer whichever king will be more just, which coincides with efficiency at using resources. Under the Ancien Régime, wars are limited in scope and in destruction, and not directed against populations as such, only at rival régimes.

Eventually, the foreign or domestic ruler crumbles, and lacking an ideology to resist it, there does Democracy rise to Power. With the democratic virus, under the principle of one man one vote principle, these populations can vote taxes and regulations on each other; the discrepancies between cultural values become clashes in legal norms and political power. All these different people are no more peaceful neighbours, but minority groups vying to grab power so as to control other groups rather than be controlled by them. The threat of one group overtaking the others is permanent. If one party is firmly in charge, or if the clash is not too hard, then one party or coalition may seize control and prevent further party strife, establishing itself as a corrupt unelected oligarcho-bureaucracy oppressing the country under the cover of democracy. The Communist Party may run China, Republicrats may run the USA, UMPS may run France, Jews may run Israël, the PRI may run México. But when power is less secure, then civil war ensues — a war of the kind where entire populations are targeted for massacre, because it is the votes, hence by the democratic principle the very life, of these people, that is threatening.

Genocides, "ethnic purification", mass deportations are the direct, necessary consequence of the democratic principle of "one man, one vote" applied to countries with culturally divided populations. Each man who can be categorized as resolutely "other" becomes either a prey or a predator, always an enemy. Democracy is the war of All against All. Populations against populations. All against individuals. And this war isn't just notional and symbolic. Palestine, British India, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Tchechnia, Sudan, Georgia, and many more countries have known it very concretely. Other countries may know such horrors as they descend into chaos. Not only has the democratic ideal failed to bring good government on earth, it has led to mass killing on an unprecedented scale, before it reverts to a corrupt state of rule by unelected Establishment. Even religious wars are more merciful, since they offer conversion as a way of pacification. Democratic wars and oppression persist until the victim population has wholly disappeared.

What more, when two "democratic" "nations" are at war, it is no more a limited war between two Ancien Régime gangs of rulers. Now the entire populations are involved in war. War becomes total war. All the inhabitants of the other nation are your enemies, and consider you as theirs. Civilians are targetted by organized famine through blockades, captured populations are subject to large scale oppression and massacres, large numbers of people are parked into concentration camps, cities are bombed. War becomes total. Millions die. Horray for the democratic "ideal".

The Fruits of "Democracy"

In the name of Democracy, we've had World War I, World War II, communist regimes, ethnic massacres all around the globe, etc. Dictators and dictatorial parties such as Robespierre, Napoleon III, Hitler, Allende, the FIS got elected. Based on "democratic" ideology, and with the support of "democrats" abroad, the bolcheviks, the national socialists, the maoists, the khmer rouge, have risen to power and killed hundreds of millions. It's easy to dismiss as "dictatorships" entities that have emerged in the name of "Democracy", based on democratic propaganda and democratic beliefs. But the "democratic" ideal underlies the very existence and mode of expression of those democracies, even though the results are opposite to the propaganda and the hopes of the utopian proponents of "democracy". One has to judge the tree by the fruit it bears, not by the rosy results that are always promised and never delivered. And though the "democratic" ideology promises paradise on earth, the fruits it bears are deadly.

Ancien Régime monarchies never did anything quite as bad. The worst was possibly Czarist Russia, which was admittedly a pretty bad authoritarian hell hole — and still vastly better than the "democratic" regimes that followed it. At the polar opposite, in colonial America, people revolted against taxes, oppressive laws and unnecessary wars, and a "massacre" counting five hooligans as victims; they have had but higher taxes, more oppressive laws, massacres with hundreds of victims, and unnecessary total wars since they installed a "democratic" regime. Europe abolished the Ancien Régime in bloody revolutions and wars the destructions of which offset any good that may have been gained in abolishing the old privileges, only to end up with Establishments as entrenched and more corrupt than the previous ones, and policies that sacrifice all long term considerations to short term elections, leading to financial bankruptcy, runaway immigration, cultural disintegration and out of control crime.

With the democratic principle being forced upon all by the Anglo-american supremacy, their French copycats and Russian caricatures, entire populations have become the permanent enemies of each other. Democracy has institutionalized permanent war and political violence of all against all, with no end in sight. Modern mass deception, nationwide brainwashing, deep systematic mind control, is also directly linked to the need rulers now have to generate not just military dominion, but constant support in popular opinion.

No Turning Back

I am a libertarian, not a conservative. Therefore, inasmuch as my opposition to "democracy", "progressivism", "socialism" and other such people's utopias make me a reactionary, I certainly am not calling for a return to Ancien Régime.

The Ancien Régime failed to Democracy because it was weak. Kingship was doomed by inbreeding. The Aristocracy was doomed by firearms. The Clergy was doomed by the printing press. There are good technological reasons why the political structures of the past were no more sustainable.

My point is not that the Ancien Régime was a lost paradise: it wasn't. My point is that Democracy was in many ways a vast political regression from this Ancien Régime. My point is that to regenerate the countries being destroyed by Democracy, it is necessary to understand what was lost, that it may be regained. It is also necessary to identify what has actually been gained, so that it shall not be lost again. And for that you need sound political theories that go beyond mere propaganda.

There remain few Ancien Régime monarchies today, and in almost all of them, princes have been surrendering slowly or quickly to the prevailing democratic ideology, though sometimes with a backlash (as in Thailand recently). A few countries have been bottomed as democratically inspired terror regimes, and are now following a reverse evolution, trying to recycle the former democratic terrorist power into a neo-Ancien Régime, but often failing for lack of a proper ideology to replace the cult of democracy. Hope in Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Lybia or Vietnam will not come from a longer descent into democratic lies, but in the rulers re-learning the principles of Natural Law previously destroyed by those lies. As the pretense of democracy wanes away and the Establishment feels stronger in its political hold not depending on opinion, totalitarian control can be loosened. But only if a viable alternative is offered to either tyranny or democracy.

And this alternative is: Natural Law. An old technology to maintain peace and prosperity, that has been kept alive and refined by libertarian scholars, and that could profitably be used again.



Anti-Democracy Agenda

On this, check out my blog, the "Anti-Democracy Agenda":


I thank you for this well-thought-out and substantive response to my comments.

My interlocutor as well as all who repeat that Democracy works lack any epistemological methodolody to decide if Democracy works better than the alternative

I'll admit to that. I can compare present-day democracies to present-day dictatorships or monarchies, but it's difficult to distinguish to what extent those differences have to do with form of government versus other factors. What if the American Revolution had opposed involuntary government in general as opposed to "no taxation without representation"? Hard to imagine. Even harder to imagine how that would have turned out two-hundred years down the line.

Of course, I'd level the same criticism at libertarians.

Civilians are targetted by organized famine through blockades, captured populations are subject to large scale oppression and massacres, large numbers of people are parked into concentration camps, cities are bombed.

Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

Ancien Régime monarchies never did anything quite as bad.

Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.

As the pretense of democracy wanes away and the Establishment feels stronger in its political hold not depending on opinion, totalitarian control can be loosened. But only if a viable alternative is offered to either tyranny or democracy.

My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.

Time to read more

I'd level the same criticism at libertarians.

Except that libertarians DO possess epistemological tools to think about choice between alternate opportunities — praxeology.

Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars. Those kings regarded people as assets, not liabilities.

Good to choose the period of relative peace immediately after the Hundred Years' War.

To consider the contribution of Democracy, we should compare it to a different continuation of what was just before it. If you want to transpose Democracy to barbaric times, then see how it applies to those times, but don't play double standards by comparing Kings amongst XIXth century BC barbarians to Democracies amongst the XIXth AD civilized.

My statement about libertarian class politics striking me as really bizarre was evidently an understatement.

Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.

The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" (I found it!) but "That's funny ..." — Isaac Asimov

Re: Time to read more

It is certainly implausible for Ancien Régime kings the kind we had just before Democracy overtook the world to fight those wars.

Okay, I thought you were making a point about democracy and monarchy in general, not the Ancien Régime in particular. My point isn't that autocrats can never be benevolent, nor that democracy can never go wrong.

I still think that the historical change in whether people are viewed by "the Establishment" as an asset has more to do with technological change and population growth than any particular political idea.

Cognitive dissonance is a great symptom to recognize.

Not every instance of someone else's beliefs seeming odd is cognitive dissonance.

Assets and Secure rights

Stop "thinking" without an argument. Whether people are viewed as an asset is directly linked to one and only one thing: whether the (property) of the owner/ruler is stable or not. Where no property right is recognized (conquest underway), then the life of the conquered is worth shit. Where long-term property rights exist across generations without death tax, dynasties invest for centuries ahead (as was common under the Ancien Regime). Regimes based on recent usurpation by mere brute force are most oppressive. Old monarchies based on ancient usurpation are least oppressive. Democracies as such ensure a permanent usurpation with no possible long-term prospects, and are thus extremely destructive; this destruction is often limited by the power being actually held by a non-democratic establishment, but this establishment being insecure in its rights will be particularly ruthless. Western countries additionally have strong traditions of liberty countering democracy, but these traditions are eroding.

When under the influence of leftist scumbag do-gooders the Queen of Spain, with the intention to "protect" her subjects the (american) indians forbids the conquistadores from enslaving them, yet doesn't pay anticonquistadores to defend them (that she can't afford anyway), then she actually artificially lowers the value of the life of indians in the eyes of their masters, and leads to a vast destruction of her "protected" subjects.

Why do you believe?

You admit you don't have a good reason to believe what you do believe. Then what is your bad reason? Until you find out this reason and root it out, you are being manipulated.

Apply to forms of governments this quote: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." — Stephen F Roberts

Re: Why do you believe?

I'm not sure that quote quite works. After reading your posts and comments, I'm not sure we're rejecting dictatorship or monarchy for the same reasons.


Besieging or razing cities in war predates modern democracy. Ditto for slavery, civil war, genocide. There's nothing implausible about wars as bad as 20th century wars being fought in a non-democratic alternate history.

bvanevery writes: Alternate history? 80% of the casualties of WW II occurred on the Eastern Front, between 2 totalitarian states. It was "Total War."
I don't disagree, though Moldbug, at the very least, would characterize both the Nazi and the Soviet states as democratic in origin.


Yes, of course

Yeah. Of course. I'm not sure you know anything about what you are speaking about, really.

Otherwise you wouldn't ridicule yourself in speaking about a (science-fictional) British Empire made of "people living at peace with each other under a same ruler":

The great Mughal capital, in the middle of a remarkable cultural flowering, was turned overnight into a battleground.

The Siege of Delhi was a fight to the death between two powers, neither of whom could retreat. Finally, on 14 September 1857, the British assaulted and took the city, sacking the Mughal capital and massacring swathes of the population. "The orders went out to shoot every soul," recorded Edward Vibart, a 19-year-old British officer. "It was literally murder... The women were all spared but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference..."


British and Mughals

Democracy is not the only totalitarian ideology out there. And totalitarianism is not the only inspiration for mass murder. Religion is another one.

Here you see a peaceful king being overrun by forces of a democracy that is only nominally monarchical, in what is otherwise an intercultural war of conquest. Not worse than when the Mughals themselves overran India.

Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.

Now fast forward to the fall of the British Empire, or the Yugoslavian Empire, into the hands of Democracy. Observe how the people who were living peacefully together start killing each other.


Re: British and Mughals

> Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given
> ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not
> the enemies of each other
Perhaps, but this kind of situation is not what I call freedom. You could as well say that people jailed in a prison usually stop killing each other. But it is quite a feeble argument, IMHO.

Real freedom exists when people are ruled by themselves, and then, it's true, they become free to wage wars. Freedom is dangerous. In any case, I prefer freedom with perhaps a war than no freedom at all.

Looks like you think otherwise. You claim to be libertarian, so it seems you should defend freedom first. But then, by a strange weakness of your mind, in your criticism of democracy, you come to advocate regimes having a benevolent ruler, thus still, no real freedom. This is contradictory to your own stated goals.

You are not very convincing, really.


You misinterpret me.

No situation with a government whatsoever is what I call freedom.

Violence and aggression actually increases in prison as compared to outside a prison.

Democracy is not a lack of ruler, but the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression. Monarchs are not benevolent. Elected rulers are even less benevolent.


Re: Freedom

> the existence of millions of rulers, which makes it even worse
> than monarchy. It is not freedom, but universal oppression
Where is the logic of this ? There is no obvious relationship _at all_ between the number of rulers and how much oppressive is the rule !

The oppressiveness of a rule is mainly related to (1) the concepts the ruler(s) use to decide what to do (because if they use wrong concepts, they will decide harmful things), and (2) how much powerful is their police (for when the decision is wrong, or even partially wrong, a more powerful police makes things worse).

This is mainly from these two factors that the oppression comes from, not from an indirectly related variable like the "number of rulers" !

With such a weakly coherent thinking process, you can justify anything, really ! And *you* are the one teaching others how to use logic ?


Look who's setting a straw man! Oppression is not a direct magic function of the number of rulers. The logic is that now everyone is the enemy and corrupted by power. Democracy corrupts the whole of society. The oppression and destruction is completely determined by the Law of Bitur-Camember. Which ultimately rests on the source of legitimacy of power. Democracy contributes to making power legitimate on everything, especially as it lures people into identifying with the ruler rather than the ruled, and is therefore a source of total and totalitarian destruction the more people believe in it. Happily in western countries there are powerful forces of consumerism working against it.


Re: British and Mughals

Rulers aren't the friends of the conquered. But under a given ruler (who may be more or less peaceful), the ruled are not the enemies of each other.

bvanevery writes: This is ahistorical beyond belief. Divide and Conquer was standard operating procedure in the British Empire. Pit one faction against another so that the British can rule them all. After the British Empire crumbled we had, and still have, the historical legacies of India / Pakistan's civil wars, and Arabs vs. Israelis. The ruled are very much the enemies of each other, they are just kept in check by the dominant power, as it suits the dominant power's purposes. Their enmity is a resource that the dominant power exploits to its own gain.

Empires vs Democracies

Think again. The British didn't create the enmity between Muslims and Hindus. Read a bit about what the Mughals did before, or what the *democratically* elected regimes that followed did after. Whatever evil the British did is dwarfed by that. Religious fanaticism and Democracy together caused the wanton massacre of millions in "peace" time, where the British made massacres of thousands at most, in war time (with notable and sad exceptions).

Arabs vs Israelis - also hard to put this millenar religious conflict on the British, though the Anglo-americans certainly have propped the arabs through their communist foreign affairs department as much as they have propped the jews through their war departments. Mencius Moldbug calls that a proxy war between State and Defense - and that's precisely an artefact of the "democratic" way of ruling through Hegemony over proxy "democratic" regimes rather than directly as an Empire.

A much better argument against the British rule would be millions of dead people due to protectionist mismanagement by the British in times of War and Famine, forbidding the commerce of grain between provinces - in India just like in Ireland. But then you'd have to argue that Empires are inclined to be MORE protectionist than democracies, and that it isn't the democratic component of the British Empire that prolonged such protectionism. I *will* agree though that multiple democracies have over a single Empire the advantage of more competition. But by the same account, multiple "Empires" would have as much competition without the problems of Democracy.

Fine essay and good arguments in the follow-up discussion

Though I would say that NAP (the Non-Aggression Principle) is a better term to use. Different people mean different things by "Natural Law", whereas NAP is essentially unambiguous.

My other problem with the essay is that you treat history as an epic struggle of good vs. evil (or freedom vs. tyranny). Government (i.e. violent coordination) is an emergent phenomenon, conditional on the technology and culture of the society. Democracy, in particular, depends on the condition that simple head count is a good predictor of the outcome of violent struggle. The Ancien Régime, in turn, depended on the condition that a coalition of men who exercise weapon-wielding from childhood and have an established military hierarchy where subordination, responsibility, etc. are well defined will always prevail in violent struggle against those who are outside of this coalition. Firearms, bayonets and industrial production undermined the second condition and brought about the first one. There is no point in comparing the two: depending on how technology stands, either one or the other is stable.

Of course, technology keeps changing and certain kinds of changes undermine the stability of democratic nation-states. The pace and direction of technological progress is something that people can influence through their actions. Sometimes quite dramatically.

NAP vs Natural Law

NAP supposes a definition of what "Aggression" is, and that doesn't come for free. If understood properly (pun intended), it's all about Propertarianism. But that also doesn't come for free. Lots of Propertarians say "NAP" without realizing that they are making lots of non-trivial assumptions about it, then wonder why they are not being understood.

The notion of Natural Law is an easier starting point on which to agree: ultimately, it is the notion that Law is not a completely subjective matter, but that there exist objective knowable principles that people may discover, some non-arbitrary law that is distinguished amongst all imaginable laws as being more efficient/desirable/simple, a Schelling point that allows to optimize the costs and benefits of finding and enforcing law. Denying the existence of Natural Law is but closing the debate and affirming that nothing matters and that force is the only valid argument.

We're in total agreement on the role of technology. As for the "black magic" undertones of my presentations, I've remarked as much in my Leiden speech.


I'm not really anonymous, I'm bvanevery.

You are spinning a myth about kings of old. You are conveniently forgetting the frequency of bad kings throughout history, and the arbitrariness of any given king's personal decisions. A king in this respect is like a command economy, exactly the opposite of what you as a libertarian are probably in favor of. You are also forgetting the ruling elite that is in cahoots with the king, that cooperates in order to dominate and take the greatest number of resources from the larger society. There's a reason the Magna Carta came into existence, the Barons wanted a greater equity stake in the running of the government and limits on the king's personal power. You can complain about Republicrats all you want but every dynasty has promoted a power elite at the expense of the common people.

Democracy is a power sharing arrangement. As a libertarian you fantasize about people never holding any power over you, and you think a weak government will provide that for you. You conveniently forget that this leads to an ecology of arch predators, such as multinational corporations that spew toxic chemicals into your water supply. You as an individual have no power to fight such arch predators on your own. You need an entity powerful enough to offer you realistic protection. The free market isn't going to provide you such an entity, as in the material universe it's far more profitable to exploit and kill people such as yourself. Nature basically works this way; if you are merely a squirrel, a coyote will eat you.

I suggest you concentrate your ideological energies on how to improve power sharing arrangements with real human beings in the real world, rather than on fantasies of reaching a social state where nobody can interfere with anybody else. It will never happen in this physical universe.
Kings, like any rulers including democratic elects, initially get their power from conquest and/or usurpation. But unlike democratic elects, they need not owe their power to renewing usurpation every so many years. The good thing about Old Kings is not "King" but "Old".

Democracy is a "power sharing" arrangement just like all other such arrangements: the rulers have the power, the ruled share what they have. You're a fool if you think otherwise. The arch predators, as usual, ARE the government and its friends, in a Democracy like everywhere else. By agitating the ghost of a fox that wouldn't be able to make a carnage if the hens were free, you are surrendering them all to a farmer. Congratulations.

No entity will "offer" *you* protection, unless *you* are the one in control, i.e. unless it's a free market and you are the customer. A monopoly government only offers services to those in power, i.e. not you. In which case your second best option is when your rights are the secure property of someone interested in your welfare - i.e. a permanent long term ruler as opposed to short term rulers only interested in getting as much as they can in the next few years. Incentives matter.

You readily admit that corporations can be powerful entities. With a free market in protection, this power will serve the public. With a monopoly "protection" racket, they will only vie to get a slice of the pie.

You make me laugh with your "real world". In the real world, the governments are doing the killing, the imprisonment and the oppression. Wake up!
Support democracy in Belarus
No, support liberty in Belarus - it's quite different from democracy.
eyes black and white

January 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com