Thursday, 2 April 2015

Life After Democracy

Democracy has nothing to do with freedom. Democracy is a soft variant of communism, and rarely in the history of ideas has it been taken for anything else.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe

The 21st Century will see dramatic changes; technologically, culturally and politically. One such change will be how people come to view Democracy. The majority currently believe it to be synonymous with Freedom, Liberty and Prosperity. In reality Democracy is nothing more than a form of tyranny; rule of the majority over a minority; a system that removes individuals freedom of expression and replaces it with the submission to the 51% rule. The other 49% opinions do not matter; its the 51% who can dictate the terms.

In many areas of our lives we reject democratic choices. For example when we buy a car. Can we imagine allowing democratic rule on such a process? If the majority were to decide on a Ford Mondeo then what if I wanted a sports model, a small economy model, a classic or a luxury model? What about all the car manufactures who have all sorts of small differences between prices, quality and features? What about all the potential innovations that would not occur? We would think it absurd to use democracy to select our cars but this is what we do for many other choices that should be left to individual choice. Instead so long as a majority - it may not even be 51% for example in a cars case due to the sheer initial choices it may only require 10% to gain a majority, leaving the 90% with a choice they didn't want.

The reality of democracy is even more absurd than the above. In reality we have a single vote that represents dozens of decisions. When we go to the polls we vote on taxation, schools, hospitals, transport and so forth but we only get a single vote on them all. We have a handful of parties, in reality two parties, whose views we have to select from. When was the last time you voted for a political party that you agreed with on every point? It never happens, it can't happen as the diversity of individuals means it is impossible to model hundreds of decisions rolled into a single choice.

Once the party is in power they then have 4 years to loosely stick to their original mandate. When did a party do everything they said they would? I can't name one. It always ends up in inevitable U-turns. Worse still policies are enacted that we never even sign up to when we cast our original vote. David Cameron recently said he wants to ban encryption yet came into power under a pretense of bringing back rights to the individual. When did people in the UK vote for Tony Blair to invade Iraq or Afghanistan? Surely these were worth voting on? Of course all the frailties of Democracy are exposed once more in an event such as the Iraq invasion. Even if we were to allow a majority vote does this mean the 49% who oppose war should still have to pay taxes towards it, therefore funding such a cause. They would be forced to have blood on their hands in the name of so called "Freedom". The absence of Democracy would result in voluntary co-operation. If Tony Blair wanted to invade Iraq then he would have to persuade people. People would have been free not to provide any financial or moral support to such a cause. Of course with such mechanism the Iraq war would have never got going or would have not be prolonged as long as it was. Once an individual is empowered with their own choices then they can have real control and freedom will prosper.

Some would argue what alternatives do we have and I would respond with no Government. People don't need a centralised command committee we have just been conditioned to believe that we need such an entity. Laws, Schools, Hospitals, Transport, Money - all aspects of society should be privatised. What do I mean by privatised? "Public ownership" has a name that conveys something is run by us all but if we break it down what it means in reality it takes on a different meaning. In reality there is always a single provider. There is no choice. No one has the freedom to compete fairly as the rules, regulations and the monopoly privileged is dictated by a central entity. If we don't agree with management we can only do something every 4-5 years. Even then its not competition as its only ever have a single provider. Some will say we have private schools, I would respond, do we? The curriculum is dictated by the state, the school times, the age ranges, the exam process and so forth. In America they have an issue with University education costs rising too much - due to the state run inefficiencies. Private providers are providing a similar education for a fraction of the cost. Yet all that happens is the state tries to close down such endeavors as it has done with money, medical care, transport and so on. When we view privatisation a word that has been dragged through the mud what does this mean? Choice. Freedom to choose. Freedom to own shares in a company - so you actually have a opinion in how its run. If you don't like it you can sell your stake at any given time and move on. If no company does what you want you are free to create one of your own and offer a service. Private Companies are in fact true public run services. They are created and run by people. They are subservient to societies demands. If they fail to meet such demands they die away. People are free to own them, to run them, to pick and choose goods between them. "Public Services" do not take this form. They persist eternally no matter how badly they are run.

How would we run the legal system, the money system, the schools and so on without Government. Its coming and its going to happen whether the State allows it or not. Our legal system is a product of centuries of competition, money was invented by private companies to overcome barter and schools during the 19th Century in England went from educating 5-10% of the population at the beginning of the century to over 90% at the end, bringing about mass education before the state became involved.

Democracy amounts to nothing more than mob rule. The majority have dictatorial power over the minority. I like fast food, I don't eat it in spades but I do occasionally eat it. What happens if the majority decides to tax it, or worse ban it for the "good" of everyone? Suddenly my opinion doesn't matter, my liberties have been taken away, I can't enjoy a food source I once took pleasure in. What happens if I want to school my Children through some other means, get medical treatment on my own accord free from the majorities stiffing regulatory bodies. If I want to give my kids ketchup, which was banned in French Primary schools, Eat Haggis which is banned in America, Drink Raw Milk or use encryption? Many of which at some point or other may have been banned by a majority or worse a select few who obtained power from the majority decided to do as they pleased.

Life after democracy may seem like a bold statement. It may even seem to most who read this as a step backwards. It is my opinion it is only a matter of time until we shake away from the shackles of this institution and eventually allowing individuals autonomy over their lives and bodies. Democracy is not a form or freedom but it seeks to centralise power to a select few. Over the course of the 21st Century it will become less relevant as more people select other choices over the state current monopolies.


  1. You can't have a "representative government" if the elected sociopaths can borrow money.

  2. I share a lot of your concerns about the lack of freedom and personal choice, but I don't blame democracy. There are democracies that value personal liberty more than others. I do however blame big government, who have created a big enough government class and dependency class to be able to jointly out-vote the productive class. Its an unsustainable arrangement though, as Greece has proved.

    State monopolies like education and health have become so large and self-protecting, that even if a semi-responsible party gets elected and attempts to reform them, they just obstruct and resist, creating a permanent unelected authoritarian socialism, irrespective of who is in power.

    I think the solution lies not in an absence of government but a with a small government, and a constitution that limits the power of the government over the individual, in the same vein as Magna Carta or the American Constitution. I do think there are cases, such as external invasion, of the rule of law, where a government is necessary. For all its faults, democracy is preferable to the alternatives. Its like a marriage, its full of compromises.