Liberty Lost: A Case Against Democracy
Bearing no characteristic of freedom for the sovereign citizen, the notion of a democratic society is one of deception, dilution, and sinister intent.
The misinterpretation regarding the etymology of democracy is that the word derives from the Greek demos, meaning the common people, and kratos, meaning rule. Despite society’s cultivation of the democratic illusion, thus moulding our collective understanding of the term, the translation masks its true definition and sinister mechanism.
Rather than referring to the commoner, demos originally referred to Attica, the region that constituted the sovereign city-state of Athens. Ancient Attica was divided into municipalities called demos. To participate politically within a demos, each Atticean required local registration. Ultimately, the word demos became associated with individuals from varying regions of Attica. The English word demographic (the measurement of characteristics relating to a specific population) suggests that this is the true etymology of demo, and exposes a history of altered definition. Perhaps intuitively, the colloquial term used in Ancient Greece when referring to the common man was idiotes, meaning unskilled person.
Incorrectly perceived to mean strength or rule, the term cracy (derived from kratos) is more closely associated with violence terminology rather than governance—the implication suggests that the original sentiment of cracy stemmed from the notion of government by force. As today’s leaders continue to impose their will through accelerated threats and violence, the question of democracy has never seemed more pertinent.
GOVERNMENT BY FORCE
To first make a case against democracy, one must initially critique the supportive stance. On the surface, the pros are abundant:
Religious freedom
Educational rights
Empowerment of people
Power decentralisation
Better Investment Opportunity
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM:
In a convenient society, freedom of religion is the lynchpin to a successful democracy. A democratic system of governance guarantees citizenry rights to such, allowing the practice of ancient theism, and the manifestation of contemporary doctrine. Upholding this mantra is paramount, yet impossible to achieve.
The constitutional puzzle surrounding a democratic government is its inherent need for regulatory power under the guise of justifiable law. What constitutes justifiable law hinges on a variety of factors, predominantly the economic and political landscape of the nation in question. Once society becomes inconvenient, regulation is tightened, and the assumption of religious freedom is lost, to the detriment of said lynchpin. Striking a balance between the two competing rights is redundant, as the doomed prophecy fulfils itself on a loop.
EDUCATIONAL RIGHTS:
State mandate of institutional education has created a cultural amnesia where the consensus that school is the only legitimate path to adulthood prevails. In truth, the act of committing a malleable child to a government indoctrination facility is as detrimental to individual will as it is constructive to a lifetime of compliance.
Bearing no characteristic of freedom, the misnomer of educational rights acts as democracy’s greatest illusion—rarely has one possessed the right to an autonomous curriculum. As with the separation of church and state, a free society requires protection from enforced learning. Representative government administers the opposite, mandating education universally, and banking on the universal to be governed culturally.
EMPOWERMENT OF PEOPLE:
Definitively, an empowered individual possesses the ability to exert control over his environment. However, once an environment is populated, sovereignty is diminished due to the dilution of resources. Democracy alleges to minimise reduced personal jurisdiction by distributing power evenly among the citizenry. This philosophy is tantamount to specific aspects of socialism, and in turn, conflicts with human desire.
Regarding the democratic voting system, a solitary vote proffers the illusion of choice amid an anti-choice model. Once a plurality of votes is cast, singular choice is cancelled, proving the once-sovereign being powerless within an election process. Assuming a fellow voter enjoys equal empowerment, in a population of two, individual power is halved. Socioeconomically, minorities are most beleaguered under this nefarious arrangement.
POWER DECENTRALISATION:
The theory of decentralised power is to act as a check against the abuse of authority. In principle, decentralisation is critical to a free society, however, within a democracy, it only serves to increase the bureaucratic entanglement of an administrative organisation. Inherently, this fragmentation of leadership creates a labyrinth of interconnected policies impossible to decipher, and often defying common sense.
The burden imposed upon the citizenry of a decentralised democratic nation is extreme, as the octopus of red tape leeches wealth from the lower classes to benefit the elite. Thus, the common good that democracy professes to uphold is slighted, and the misguided notion of representative politics fails to advocate for the individual, preferring to beget an oligarchy. At best, this system fluctuates between authoritarianism and tyranny.
BETTER INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY:
To remain well-oiled, a democratic machine requires the malfeasance of a Keynesian economic policy. Developed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s, this macroeconomic model disguises itself as fair, while depleting currency of intrinsic value through total spending. Thus, purchasing power is eradicated. Taxation is the cornerstone of the Keynesian system, and ensures perpetual operation to the satisfaction of the spendthrift politician, to the downfall of singular wealth.
Investing within a Keynesian model is a double-edged sword. As politicians refuse to match the deficits of recession with the surpluses of boom, economic instability is guaranteed on a cyclical basis. Amid fiscal turbulence, government intervention becomes a moral imperative, bringing excessive regulation, frivolous spending, and an uptake in the printing of currency. The investor is forced to confront a scenario where his profits are diminished via soaring taxes, enforced wage increases, and hyperinflation.
SOCRATIC REASONING
Ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates, understood how those seeking election could exploit human desire for rapid solution. His salient warnings against democracy stemmed from scrutinising the beliefs of Athenian figures of power, highlighting the contradictory nature of their ideas. Aiming to shape the moral landscape of the city through philosophy rather than electoral procedure, the self-proclaimed political artist proved a polarising figure in attempting to reveal the system’s obvious flaws.
Posing a hypothetical to fellow philosopher Xenophon, Socrates requested he imagine a debate between two candidates—a doctor and a sweet-shop owner:
”Look, this doctor here has worked many evils on you. He hurts you, gives you bitter potions and tells you not to eat and drink whatever you like. He’ll never serve you feasts of many and varied pleasant things like I will.”
Socrates asks Xenophon to consider the audience:
“Do you think the doctor would be able to reply effectively? The true answer, ‘I cause you trouble, and go against your desires in order to help you’, would cause an uproar among the voters, don’t you think?”
According to Socrates, allowing the citizenry to vote without comprehensive knowledge of philosophy, psychology, logistics, economics, and demographics, is irresponsible. “Voting in an election is a skill, and must not fall into the hands of random intuition.” In a conversation with pupil Adeimantus, Socrates points out the pitfalls of democracy by comparing society to a ship:
“If you were heading out on a journey by sea, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone, or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring?”
“The latter of course”, replies Adeimantus.
“So, why then”, responds Socrates, “do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country?”
“I believe that I’m the only one among our contemporaries to take up the true political craft and practice the true politics. This is because the speeches I make on each occasion do not aim at gratification, but at what is best.”
The Socratic thesis long ago submitted to a modern mindset upholding democracy as an unambiguous good. Reality dictates that this vein of groupthink is ill-informed. Hinging on the whim of the pandering politician, individual prosperity is rendered an afterthought, as predatory, opportunistic behaviour reigns supreme. The junket of illegitimate inquiry on the taxpayer dime, the conflict of interest due to excessive lobbying, and corporate donation to influence outcome, all portray an elitist selfishness, while the common man is commanded to comply altruistically.
The polarisation of race and class is a democratic society’s lifeblood. This, in conjunction with the media-driven left/right paradigm, preserves the slave state in a ceaseless operandi of mass mediocrity serving to advance its masters. This duplicitous scam, derived from an era of enlightenment to propel an agenda of gaslightenment, is akin to a participation trophy awarded to the challenged child for simply attending. Democracy refuses to nurture prosperity, nor does it motivate rugged individualism; any leeway afforded to the commonalty, and the facade crumbles like the Parthenon it was founded in.
© Chuck Hagen
