Larken Rose

More About: Voting and Elections

Democracy: The Joke's on You!

Despite all the lovey-dovey rhetoric about the supposed greatness of "democracy," there's only one thing its proponents want it for: to get moral permission to force their preferences, opinions and ideas on other people. People vote, hoping "their guy" will win. Why? So their own interests and agenda, and not the interests and agenda of the people who voted for "the other guy," will be served by the machine of "government." And everything "government" does, it does by threat of force. (It doesn't just ask nicely; it commands, and inflicts harm on any who don't obey.)

I realize that's not the flowery explanation that democracy-worshipers prefer, but it happens to be the truth. The left-wing statists want to win elections so the right-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund welfare programs, wealth redistribution, more government control (a.k.a. "regulation") of commerce, etc. Meanwhile, right-wing statists want to win so the left-wing statists (and everyone else) will be forced to fund a huge military, a bigger police force, more border patrols, a "war on drugs," etc.

In short, democracy is gang warfare for cowards. The voters, being too chicken-poop to do it themselves, desperately try to get "government" to rob and control all of their neighbors (while accepting no responsibility for having advocated that). If your gang of voters outnumbers the other gang, you can get the mercenaries of the state to boss them around. Yippee! Ain't democracy great?

Well, to all you voters, the joke's on you. While you've been whining for other people to be taxed and regulated (robbed and controlled), the tyrants have always been one step ahead of you, using your own envy, cowardice, and irresponsibility against you. In case you haven't noticed, win or lose, both gangs of voters always get robbed and controlled.

Did you really think the politicians and their mercenaries would be on your side, if you were in the majority? (If so, you pretty much deserve the mess you're in right now.) The tyrants have several nifty tricks for getting the shackles on all of the peasants, regardless of how anyone votes. One of those tricks relies on this dirty little secret:

EVERYONE IS A MINORITY

Sound strange? Well, it all depends upon how people are categorized. Maybe you're in the majority when it comes to race. Maybe you're in the majority when it comes to religion. But there will always be some criteria that the tyrants can use to divide the people which will have you landing on the minority side. And then it's you the majority will be stomping on, via the thugs in "government." Then your boneheaded faith in democracy (mob rule) will bite you right in the rear end.

Are you in the top 49% of income earners? If so, you're a minority, and the tyrants know they can rely on the bottom 51% to cheer for you to be robbed blind. Are you younger than 30? I'm sure everyone above 40 would love to raise your taxes, to pay for goodies for them. Or maybe you're above 40, in which case you're still in the minority, and the younger people might vote to tax the heck out of whatever wealth you've accumulated so far. It all depends where the politicians decide to draw the dividing line. The possibilities are nearly endless.

Is marijuana your drug of choice? If so, the beer-drinking majority will be happy to advocate that draconian government violence be used against you if you're caught with an "unapproved" plant. Are you male? Well, you're a minority. And if the women ever figure out that they can vote away your suffrage "rights," you're poop out of luck. Do you own a gun? If so, you're a minority, and one of these days the politicians might just scare the majority into voting for you to be disarmed.

Depending upon how you slice up the "pie" of human society, there is some way in which you are in the minority. Ergo, there is some way that "democracy" can be used to oppress you, no matter how "normal" or "average" you think you might be. There is always some way to divide up society so you are on the losing end, in terms of numbers. And the tyrants are constantly looking for such divisions, to keep one group of people advocating the oppression of another.

Maybe most people in a particular town own dryers, so they vote to outlaw the use of clotheslines (which they think look too "low class"). Or maybe people over 21 vote to prohibit younger people from drinking or smoking. Or maybe a conservative majority votes to ban music or videos the majority finds offensive. Or maybe the people decide to ban the "environmentally unfriendly" gas-guzzlers driven by a quarter of the population. Maybe most of your neighbors, at the coaxing of the politicians, will decide they don't like your barbeque grill, or your dog, or the canoe you keep in your back yard, or your political yard sign, or your bumper-sticker. Maybe they don't like what you're teaching your kids. One way or another, the tyrants will find a way to control you, and, by using clever divide-and-conquer tactics, they will be able to do it in the name of "the people."

Then, of course, there is the supposed right that politicians have to steal ("taxation"). Whatever a majority wants, it will vote to force everyone--including the people who don't want it--to pay for it. Pacifists are forced to pay for war. Pot smokers are forced to pay for the "war on drugs." People who think government "welfare" rewards laziness are forced to pay for it anyway. Young people are forced to pay for old people to get "benefits" from the state. People who homeschool are forced to pay for schools they don't like and don't use.

The tyrants are well aware that if they chop up the "pie" of society in enough ways, every piece of it is a minority, in one way or another. And whatever criteria is needed to put you into a category which includes 49% or less of the people, you can bet that, sooner or later, the tyrants will be urging the people on the other side of that line to demand "laws" to control and rob you. Need proof? Consider this:

Is there anyone who approves of everything "government" does with his money? No. (Never mind that no one even knows what all "government" does with his money.) Therefore, everyone is being forced, via the "democracy" scam, to fund things he doesn't want to fund. The myth of "majority rule" (which is a lousy ideal anyway) is constantly used to force 100% of the population to fund things they oppose!

The bottom line is, through the cult of "democracy," tyrants can oppress and enslave everyone, while in every case claiming it was the "will of the people," condoned by a majority. So the control freaks stomp on you, all your friends, all your neighbors, and everyone in your family, while at the same time tricking you into thinking it was your idea, and pretending that "the people" consented to all of it. Ain't "democracy" wonderful?

There is only one way to avoid this. Dismiss the evil that calls itself "democracy." Stop partaking in the self-enslaving and neighbor-enslaving ritual of voting. Stop trying to get the Uber Nanny that is "government" to try to make other people into what you wish they were. Mind your own damn business. Spend your own damn money. Start thinking, for a change, until you grasp the bleeding obvious principle of "self-ownership," where every individual belongs to himself, and no one else.

If the people did that, the best the tyrants could hope for is that a few dolts might, on an individual basis, advocate their own enslavement. And the rest of us--of all races, religions, ages, income levels, etc.--could start living like free human beings.

 

5 Comments in Response to

Comment by Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Entered on:

Not checking back at this location until today, Darren, is the reason for my delayed response to you. How I am (and Paul too) is public record - just check http://morelife.org/personal/  Very good, in 2 words - but we'd be far better if progress were actually being made towards a truly free and optimal society.

As for your comments....
"At this point the advocates of liberty are so few that trying to ostracize the statists will backfire."

Well, simply "engaging" the Statists hasn't moved society any closer to a truly free and optimal society, so I have no concerns about a "backfire". But please keep in mind what I *actually* wrote earlier here and elsewhere on this subject of negative Social Preferencing.
"[T]hose who want to see an end to the State, would best openly and strongly negatively social preference towards those government enforcers who choose to remain in that position after having been shown "the error of their ways" - how the State is not in their wide view, long range best interest. Having *nothing* voluntarily to do with an enforcer - and making it clear to hir and others why that is being done - can, when practiced by a large number of individuals, have a strong motivating influence towards that person changing hir choice of work (finding something truly productive to do)."
Note that I am referring to **government enforcers** - those who, as agents of any of numerous state/provincial/local and federal agencies, carry the guns (and other weapons) and threaten and actually initiate physical force to get the occupants of (and visitors to) a particular geographical area to obey some law/directive/regulation/mandate/etc, and *without whom* the rest of the Statists, specifically the legislators, executives (President included) and judges, would be totally impotent!
----

"We will only succeed at isolating ourselves."
I don't think so since the number of actual government *enforcers* at all levels of government is far smaller than the remaining portion of the population - even smaller than the number of "advocates of liberty". It is the entrenched enforcers at whom the strong negative Social Preferencing - ostracism - is recommended. And while much of the population is Statist in a great deal of their thinking, many of them are not fond of many of the measures taken by and even the purposes of numerous law enforcement agencies.
----

 "Maybe at this stage it would be better to engage them more patiently."
The strong negative Social Preferencing (ostracism) is urged only *after* these government enforcers have refused to positively respond to idea "engagements". In addition, I think that many of the Statists-in-thinking (different from the government enforcers) can be engaged in discussion to show how negative Social Preferencing can be a very strong influential tool for persuading those whose actions (or even ideas) are not in either the persuader's *or* the enforcer's long range wide viewed best interest. Think back - or do some research - on Ghandi and also Gene Sharp's writings on actual uses in the past of social ostracism, as well as other non-violent protest methods.
----

"When there are more of us then we'll cut them off."
There is no good reason for continuing to treat someone as a "friend" whose job it is to threaten to and actually initiate physical force to ensure that individuals adhere to some law/directive/regulation/mandate after you have made concerted attempts to persuade hir of hir errors. It is actually philosophical contradictory to demonstrate in actions that such a person is a value - a friend - to you. It tells everyone else that you do not actually mean what you say - that you will be friends with anyone, no matter how horrendous are their ideas and actions.

So do not wait. Be consistent in your Social Preferencing, both positive and negative, with all those with whom you come in contact - giving each person the benefit of the doubt the first time as you engage them in a positive manner.

**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

 

Comment by Eric -
Entered on:

So well written - best article I've read in some time. 

Democracy, indeed. "The god that failed."

 

Comment by Darren Wolfe
Entered on:

Larken,

You da man!

Kitty,

Long time no hear, I hope all is going well for you.

Here's a thought about your comment. At this point the advocates of liberty are so few that trying to ostracize the statists will backfire. We will only succeed at isolating ourselves. Maybe at this stage it would be better to engage them more patiently. When there are more of us then we'll cut them off.


Comment by Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Entered on:

Quite right, Larken, the smallest minority is the individual and *everyone* is one - a fact of reality that those people who vote (and otherwise take part in the trappings of the State) fail to keep in mind. Plus, as you have pointed out, there is a categorization in which any person is in the majority (even vast majority) and another one in which that same person is in the minority (even vast minority).

At some point (very often immediately) everyone in a democracy finds (him/her) hirself doing something that s/he does not assess to be in hir own best interest, *only* as a result of actual or threat of legalized physical force by government enforcers. While politicians and bureaucrats create and administer the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc, it is those enforcers who make them more than just words on paper (or other recorded medium). Without the enforcers, none of the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc, whether approved by the majority or not, would proceed past the government archives. Very few if any elected or appointed legislators, executives (President included) and judges would actually get out in the field and enforce any of the laws/rules/directives/edicts/mandates/etc that they brought into being. They depend on the enforcers - aka thugs - to do the "dirty work" or, as you put it, do the "enslaving".

So in addition to not voting, those who want to see an end to the State, would best openly and strongly negatively social preference towards those government enforcers who choose to remain in that position after having been shown "the error of their ways" - how the State is not in their wide view, long range best interest. Having *nothing* voluntarily to do with an enforcer - and making it clear to hir and others why that is being done - can, when practiced by a large number of individuals, have a strong motivating influence towards that person changing hir choice of work (finding something truly productive to do). And with this same practice in place by large numbers in a geographical area, replacements for former enforcers will be few, thereby beginning the withering away of the State.

While many (if not actually most) individuals in current society think that an orderly society requires the existence of government and its enforcers, there is nothing in the nature of human beings that automatically leads to the conclusion that individuals must be ruled by others in order that there be orderly interactions between them. Society, just like any other natural system can be naturally self-regulating by means of interactions between its members, if only humans seek to discover and are allowed to implement the methods by which such self-regulation can be effective, rather than continuing to embrace social systems that need to be constantly held in an unnatural (and very unoptimal) state of balance by the operations of their rulers and other influencers. Individual self-order without rule by others is the social system whose members are fully adult (particularly meaning self-responsible) humans. Just as people can become physical adults, so can they become psychological and social adults - if only they are allowed (and even required in the sense that they will not achieve their desires unless they do) to socially mature sufficiently.

Once they understand and agree with these points (as a start), those who denounce government tyranny in this or any other part of the world will be doing far more than merely crying out to their fellows in the dark.


**Kitty Antonik Wakfer

MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting

 

Comment by Morpheus Titania
Entered on:

As usual you knocked it out of the park man!  I put your banner on my site http://www.offthegridguy.com and http://www.musicians4freedom.com


Join us on our Social Networks:

 

Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Free Talk Live