From the White-PillBox: Part 21
Democracy is simply not as advertised - replete with false notions, myths and destructive outcomes. Take heart - it may be on its last legs.
From the point of view of the State, democracy has had a great run. Over the last centuries it has served government quite well. It has been the key reason the State is perceived as legitimate; it has taken false credit for the explosive growth in standard of living; and all along it has fooled the public into believing the people are in charge.
Most importantly, democracy enabled a formerly unimaginable growth in the power and reach of the State.
But now democracy’s inherent weaknesses are showing.
This is a significant White Pill. We are witnessing the beginning of the end of democracy.
First, a detour: a high level review of political power
From early history political power was highly centralized. God-kings or secular kings dominated most cultures, and their power over the people was nearly absolute.
With time, the power held by a single person began to be shared with royal families, wealthy elites, religious authorities, military leaders, etc.
By the 18th century, power was further shared by assemblies of men such as senates or parliaments, who came to hold their positions based on wealth, family name, royal assignments, etc.
Representative democracy had taken hold by the 19th century. It was structurally very similar to the most previous forms of government. Its main difference was that certain government positions were attained by winning elections, with only a prescribed segment of the general public permitted to vote.
Today the vast majority of governments are democracies. Even totalitarian and communist governments recognize the brand recognition of democracy: the terms “Democratic”, “Republic” and “People’s” are frequently used in their countrys’ formal names.
The illusions of democracy
There is a false perception about democracy and the road that led to it. Namely, that government evolved and improved over time: that power started off highly centralized, became less so with time, and was finally disbursed down to the individual. It imagines a trend that culminates in representative democracy as the pinnacle of social organization: each person sharing political power equally via one vote.
The reality of democracy
The public gets one thing right: power is more disbursed now, compared to the days of authoritarian kings. But the public falsely imagines democracy as the end of a trend-line of power.
It is false because democracy did not place meaningful power within the hands of the people. Instead, power is shared only among various special groups:
Elected officials, their chosen staff, and the staff of permanent State bureaucracies
Private groups enjoying State monopoly privileges (such as defense contractors)
Private groups whose self-interest incentivizes them to champion the State (financial institutions, academia, the public school system, the corporate press, the medical establishment, unions)
The plain truth is that democracy accomplished almost nothing for the average person: they had no political power before democracy, and have no meaningful power now 1. Power remains in the hands of an entrenched elite. The people have only the illusion of shared equal power.
Moreover, democracy is hardly part of a trend.
In fact, State governance has had only two basic forms: the primitive form (absolute rule), and the post-primitive form (a ruling elite and their bureaucracies). The latter form remains the same, even under democracy.
Democracy merely staffs some officials by holding elections.
Democracy: a big win for the State
Democracy is one of the State's most successful scams. It infects peoples’ minds with unquestioned slogans that buttress public support: “power ultimately rests with the people"; "we are the government" 2; "if you don't like it, you can vote to change it".
These notions indoctrinate people into believing they have authority over the State. Which means, of course, if you are unhappy, don’t complain as it's your own damn fault 3.
These beliefs have helped the State secure its power for centuries.
Democracy’s results: not quite as advertised
False credit
Its cheerleaders credit democracy for the prosperity and advances of the last centuries. But they commit the simplest of logical errors: confusing correlation with causation:
They observe: astounding improvements in living standards starting in the 19th century
They observe: democracy spreading in the same period
They falsely conclude: democracy caused these wonderful improvements
Proper credit to the actual causes of human betterment
But other conditions were in play.
The theories of thinkers like John Locke helped normalize the idea that individuals have rights…rights that stand outside and are independent of government. The printing press helped spread those ideas. The evolving common law was largely consistent with principles of private property: self ownership and original appropriation.
These pre-conditions of a free and prosperous society were emerging in the centuries of the Middle Ages, well before the time of democracy. By the 19th century, the ideas of individual rights to one’s self and property were solidly recognized, and evolving. Human prosperity was accelerating.
Yet at this time political democracy was only getting started, and therefore could hardly be credited as a cause of human advancement 4.
Similarly, democracy did not contribute to advancing human rights. It was merely the political version of a poor reflection of those ideas; the State’s version of “keeping up with the times”. Its advocates claim democracy secures human freedom. But they are simply doing what all States do to this day: using freedom as superficial window-dressing, hiding the ugliness within.
Uncovering democracy’s inherent flaw
Under democracy’s own rules, there must be elections, and they must be periodic. That is, elected officials must face the possible loss of their position at election time. Otherwise, their positions would be the same as if based on heredity, wealth, influence, etc.
This leads to democracy’s key structural flaw.
Those in elected office know their time in power is limited. Democracy incentivizes them to have a short time horizon - to use the power they command as quickly and broadly as possible, because that power can or will come to an end.
This means their decisions will favor short term considerations, and disfavor long-term effects. Money will more likely be spent now and regulations will be put in place now; all for the best visible public approval now. The long-term effects are disregarded or de-prioritized (and in any case, are unlikely to be traced back to them).
Democracy is a breeding ground for short-term decisions.
This is why democracy has been a disaster
Democracy’s inherent flaw is not merely theoretical; it has led to negative consequences far worse than those of previous systems 5:
At the community level: higher crime rates and lower standards of behavior.
Economically: erosion of wealth, impediments to advancement; job insecurity.
Socially: class or group warfare, a decline in educational standards and critical thinking.
Liberty: the erosion of personal freedoms; the intrusion of the State.
Internationally: war and foreign interventions; deference to multi-government alliances.
But these effects are largely masked because of the explosive growth in human living standards that has occurred in parallel. Prosperity has been a great distraction for democracy, allowing it to live as a parasite, going along for the ride. Its effects damage the host, but do not kill it. Indeed, democracy takes credit for the host’s health.
Finally, democracy’s claim to place power with the people implies its governments are limited. But far from limiting government, democracy has streamlined and advanced the growth of the State. The United States, for example, was the world’s first explicit experiment in severely limited government; yet it has grown into the largest and most powerful empire in world history.
Back to the White Pill: the cracks are showing
Free speech
A common promise of democracy is the guarantee of free speech. But today the very defenders of democracy are using the idea of misinformation 6 to squash free speech. This not only contradicts a tenet of democracy, but is highly misleading. By using the term “misinformation”, they imply that they already know certain information is false. But most often they do not know. Moreover, free speech is not intended to apply to debates about the weather. It pertains precisely to the freedom to say things that could be wrong, or even are wrong (as well as offensive).
But the speech-police reveal even more - that they are hypocrites. They do not even believe in democracy.
They believe the common people (who they claim are the foundation of democracy) cannot be exposed to unapproved ideas, because the public cannot be trusted to make up their own minds. Rather they see the masses as sheep, and themselves as the legitimate power elite.
In other words, they don't trust democracy.
Size matters
The number of people increase; the number of States do not. So each State progressively rules more people…with more preferences and evolving cultures.
Since the State is a one-size-fits-all model, over time a population will necessarily feel less served, less represented. Yet serving all the people is precisely democracy’s key claim to distinction.
Flag waving is actually hand waving
They still stand at baseball games. They still vote. They still put the flag on their porches and t-shirts.
They act out the motions they were taught.
But pin them down. Ask them if they trust politicians or the government in general. Ask them if they feel their vote actually counts. Ask them if they like having their businesses shut down when the State says so, or being labeled non-essential. Ask them if they like discovering that public school teachers push social agendas. Ask them if they like seeing their young sent overseas to die in wars. Ask them if they like seeing their wealth eroding.
Ask them. Ask anyone. You will not exactly see them tearily saluting the flag. You will hear mistrust, anger, resignation and disgust. This is a gleaming White Pill.
And after you observe what they say, observe what they do…
Participation
Ultimately democracy’s legitimacy relies on public participation (voting). But voter turnouts are typically 50-60% at best, and quite often far lower 7. More significantly, those who do vote generally feel the resignation of choosing the lesser of evils, rather than the enthusiasm of selecting the best.
Democracy cannot handle the competition
As the world grows more complex, choices increase. This is the free market expressing itself, even under the weight of the State.
With only so many hours in the day, people will make the choices they see as most beneficial. As our positive choices expand, less meaningful choices (like voting and political activism) are ignored. Democracy has nothing to offer in the face of better options. It is being crowded out.
Moreover, it is the older generations who tend to act out of habit, while the younger are open to new and better choices. Thus politics survives mainly on the inertia of the older generations, who were raised with a more rigid deference to authority. As today’s youth ages, their inertia will be more reflective of their upbringing (making more choices that satisfy them personally, less interested in political participation). As the older, more heavily indoctrinated generations die off, voting will diminish in kind.
More White Pilling: no need to fear the fall of democracy
There is a pervasive sense that should democracy fall, the results would be catastrophic.
This is our indoctrination talking. Democracy does not achieve consensus; it creates the social discord we have now. Democracy does not secure us from the effects of the powerful; we have such insecurity now. Democracy does not stabilize the world; it brings the wars and instability we see now.
We should not look upon democracy as special. All governments by their nature violate consent; arrange a government into a democracy and it still violates consent. We need not feel the need to replace it. If your assailant stops beating you, there is no "gap" in your life that needs to be filled by another beating. A person escaping a cult does not need a replacement cult.
Conclusion
Populations grow. Culture expands and differentiates. But the State, especially under democracy, pits group against group.
Democracy is doomed by its nature: a system purported to represent the people, in which not one in a thousand actually feels represented. And its elite and defenders, when push comes to shove, make it quite clear they do not trust or care about the people.
Anarchy is the natural state of man, in which no man can legitimately rule another. It is simply what happens when 1) there is no social urge for rulers, and 2) there is the expectation that all people and groups should interact by consent 8.
It is not a “system” of any kind, political or otherwise. Anarchy does not need to be built or voted in. It is already there…just invisible behind the veil of millennia of habit and indoctrination.
A free society will be there, ready and waiting when the political dust blows away.
It is true that the average person has a nonzero chance of becoming a politician, or becoming a member of one of the elite groups. But this side-steps the point: a member of the general public holds no political power. Or more accurately, holds whatever amount of power is represented by exactly one vote, and even then, usable only at the time of an election. So: a person in a non-democracy has zero political power, and a person in a democracy has the microscopic power of a vote. It should be self-evident the difference between the two is all but meaningless.
It is also true that the outcome of an election can, in some cases, alter the level or disbursement of power. But these are relatively rare, and usually minor alterations.
Notice how almost everyone (including, sadly, many anarchists and libertarians) falls into the verbal trap of using the possessive form when referring to the State (my/our government; my/our president, senator, congressman)
Essentially, the State (by means of democracy) successfully leveraged the psychology of an abused spouse.
Constitutional forms of representative government (in particular that of the United States), divide power among multiple administrative groups. In these cases the exercise of power becomes unwieldy, complex and competitive. This can result in some immobility, thus less of an impediment to liberty, as compared to other government arrangements. But it is important to recognize this inherent inefficiency is not distinctive to democracy; the interplay between competing State interests need not rely (and indeed, does not strictly rely) on elections.
To be clear, this critique of democracy is not meant to endorse or support other forms of government. As an anarchist, the author holds all governments as illegitimate.
Keep in mind that misinformation simply means incorrect information.
And remember: turnout stats are percentages only of those eligible to vote. The number of voters calculated as a percentage of the entire population is, of course, smaller still.
This does not mean crime would not happen. It simply means all crime that does happen is considered wrong...a violation of consent. Petty crime would exist because there is no utopia; the State would not exist because any attempt to rule others would be perceived correctly as just another form of consent violation, and thus a crime.