From the White-PillBox: Part 46
Another logically inconsistent position of statism: democracy.
This installment of the White Pill series offers another example of the internal contradictions of statism. As explained in essay 36, one of statism’s fundamental weaknesses (and thus a major White Pill) is how so many of its positions lead to logical inconsistencies.
In this essay we examine democracy itself. When it comes right down to it, the rhetoric about democracy lays bare a virtual asylum of irrationality.
Don’t trust people…trust the people.
That is the essence of the fallacious thinking underpinning democracy. Somehow, two opposing ideas are held by the statist:
People cannot be trusted to make good decisions.
People can be trusted to make good decisions, within the framework of the State.
So…don’t trust people?
The statist doesn’t. After all, he predicts lawlessness and chaos if people are left free to live without a State.
But…do trust people?
Then again, he trusts them to have the wisdom to elect just the right people into government. And he trusts politicians and bureaucrats to run everyone’s lives.
Democracy - where the people are in charge.
The statist says the people are the bosses, making the big decisions that move society. We the people, deciding what happens with “our” government. Power is spread evenly among all of us - not hierarchical at all. One person, one vote, and so on.
Democracy - where the people are not in charge.
Actually, the statist doesn’t really want the people to play any meaningful part in it. Power is shared only among his preferred elite groups: politicians, bureaucracies, private monopolies, and private handmaidens of the State 1.
The statist loves these hierarchies…his preferred elite sit on top, ruling the people below.
I support democracy…because it works for me
When democracy does the things I like, says the statist, it is the people achieving collective consensus. Compromise (i.e., the outcomes I like) is the beauty of democracy. It works because it makes society into what I, the statist, like.
Yep, the people can be trusted.
I worry for democracy…when it doesn’t work for me
But if democracy results in conditions the statist doesn’t like, democracy has failed. Our democracy is in danger…
…because the people cannot be trusted.
The statist gets real
Our hypocritical statist has a few problems with actually trusting the people…
Free speech: well, yes and no
Sure, the people can have free speech…as long as they stay within the confines of what the statist approves of. But true free speech? Mmm, we can’t have that.
We can’t have the people saying what they like, or being exposed to what the statist doesn’t like. The people do not have the sophistication of the statist’s preferred elite. Better to cancel, belittle and even crush the people, rather than have true free speech.
Power to the people (as long as it’s subservient to the power of big government)
The statist has a problem with individualism. That’s a bit too much power for the people. He is much happier with a bigger and bigger State. The more the federal government runs things, the better. A world government? Even better.
Bottom line: get the power as far from the people as possible. Sure, the statist wants the people to feel represented…as long as he is actually represented.
The free market
The statist unironically hates the free market. But think about that.
The market is comprised of people. By being against the free market, the statist reveals he is against free people.
If the statist truly valued democracy, he would be the free market’s biggest advocate. That’s because the free market provides, by definition, each individual person what he wants, continually, and without conflict. Democracy is achieved to near perfection.
Truly, the last thing the statist wants is democracy.
Schizophrenic inconsistencies
Just listen to common utterances from the statist about democracy, and observe how wildly inconsistent they are:
I trust my ability to run my own life. I may even trust your ability to run your life. But I don’t trust people to run their own lives.
Now, people in government can fix this. They not only successfully run their own lives, they can run the lives of everyone else. They (somehow) excel at what the rest of us suck at.
And, you see, the way we find those special people is this: have the people choose them. True, people are admittedly incompetent, but…not when they vote.
And this, to the statist, is a realistic worldview.
He laughs of course at anarchists. You anarchists, he says, live in a fantasy world. You would have each person simply run their own life, and voluntarily interact and cooperate with others. You would have people risk making mistakes, and learn from those mistakes in the process of running their own lives. And, if they needed help, you would leave them free to engage others to assist them.
That’s all quite unrealistic…utopian in fact.
Statists certainly live in an interesting reality. They trust the incompetent to pick perfect people: those who have risen so far beyond their incompetence, as to competently run the world.
A real world example
We will use the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia to illustrate the statist’s hypocrisy (but note this can apply to virtually any political issue.)
A rather elegant and simple solution exists to the problems pertaining to the war in Ukraine. 2
Let democracy apply literally
The State can simply back out of the whole issue. Formally announce it will officially take no position whatsoever on the conflict. Fund nothing. Withdraw all troops, advisers, resources, and so on. Withdraw from NATO. Lift all sanctions. Remove all trade restrictions.
But coupled with this, a formal announcement that the State defers to every individual citizen on the matter. The State makes clear it acknowledges that each person is free to follow their own individual conscience. Free to contribute money or other resources to whomever they please, as they see fit…or refrain from doing so. Free to literally join in the conflict (on either side) as they see fit…or refrain from doing so. Free to advocate for or against either side…or refrain from doing so.
Truly democratic
That would be a position fully consistent with democratic principles. Where each person would act precisely as he thinks best. And while he may disagree with his neighbor, all would be free to fulfill what their conscience dictates.
Moreover, it would yield results far superior to the situation at hand. Foreign States could hardly complain about the U.S. government’s position, as it would be neutral. They could not assume a collective position exists among the population, as there would be about as many positions as there are people.
Financially, people would spend exactly what they wish on the conflict (pleasing them). Others would spend nothing at all (pleasing them).
Domestically there would be little strife since each person would get what he wants.
So why not do that?
And this brings us back to the statist and his contradictory views on democracy. He pays lip service to his faith in the people. But not one statist in a thousand would support this most-democratic-of-all solutions. In the end, despite what he says, he doesn’t at all trust the people.
Conclusion
Democracy’s pitifully obvious contradiction between faith in people versus mistrust of people provides a solid White Pill. It leads to a treasure trove of irrational inconsistencies.
The real world is revealing democracy’s weak foundations as it struggles on the road to collapse.
Banks, academia, public schools, the corporate press, the medical establishment, unions.
This is not to say it is a solution to the war itself. It is however a solution to the controversy; a solution to the financial expense; a solution to the risk of nuclear conflict.