Sunday, 22 April 2007

Freedom and Democracy

Democracy is the idea that the opinion of two morons is worth more than the opinion of one genius, that robbing, killing and eating your neighbour is fine so long as 51% of people agree, and that sheep should be allowed to vote on which wolf gets to eat them.

I've never understood the repeated use of the term 'freedom and democracy'. How can you have freedom when 51% of the population can vote to take it away at any time? Sure, you can impose limits on the power of the mob to preserve freedom, but if the limits actually work and aren't ignored by elected psychopaths, they could equally well be imposed on any form of government. Surely the whole concept of limiting democracy is a clear admission that it doesn't work?

People often claim that democracy has lead to more freedom, but that's not because the free countries are democratic, it's precisely because their democracy was deliberately limited to prevent mob rule. America, for example, allowed the Federal government only a small number of powers and restricted the vote to a small fraction of the population. As the voting base increased and the government stole more powers than it was given, that freedom has been vanishing at an ever-increasing rate.

Think about it for a moment. 51% of the population are of average intelligence or lower, and 51% are of average income or lower. That means the stupid can always out-vote the intelligent, and the poor can always out-vote the rich. So even in the best case, democracy without voting restrictions becomes dumbocracy, rule by the poor and stupid.

The poor, of course, will generally vote to steal money from their richer neighbours. And since the very rich can always move to a lower-tax nation, that means that the middle class end up working to pay for welfare and services to the poor. Thus democracy sets out to destroy the very people who make a stable society possible. And this is 'freedom'?

Thanks to mass voting and mass media, democracy now selects for charismatic psychopaths who can lie well and look good while doing so. Other forms of government may raise such people to positions of power, but only in democracy is psychopathy almost a requirement. In addition, other forms of government often have methods of quickly eliminating such leaders; a psychopathic monarch, for example, is likely to be removed from power by his own family rather than risk the entire family being deposed by the people.

Monarchs also know that they will be handing the country to their descendants when they die, which gives them a strong incentive to preserve it as a viable nation so they have something worthwhile to hand over. Democratic leaders know they will only serve a short time and they will pass on nothing; this gives them a strong incentive to loot everything they can and leave only a shell to the party that replaces them. Why should they care what happens after they've moved abroad and are relegated to the lecture circuit?

Another of the problems of democracy is that any group can eventually take control by the simple expedient of out-breeding the competition. This is being demonstrated right now in many Western nations where the feminised native population is growing slowly or actually declining, while Muslim immigrants are breeding rapidly. The Labour party won a majority of seats in the British government at the last election with the votes of 22% of the population; so if a group chooses to vote on ethnic or religious lines, even a large minority can take power.

Similarly, democratic governments have a vested interest in increasing their voting base. If a government is losing voting share, it has a strong incentive to bring in large numbers of immigrants who will vote for it. If a government relies on the votes of the poor and deprived to gain power, then it has a strong incentive to increase the amount of poverty and deprivation, rather than to reduce it!

Now, this is not to say that democracy is all bad. Among small groups trying to make a decision that will have little negative impact on the losers, a simple vote may be the best option; but when one group can vote to steal the income of others, democracy rapidly degenerates into a war of all against all as every group tries to steal the most from the rest. Surely freedom should be more important than democracy?

Think about it for a moment. If you go on vacation and stay in a hotel, do you choose to stay in a hotel where the other guests can vote on how much you will pay for your room and what you can do during your stay, or do you choose to stay where the owner sets the rates and conditions and you either agree or go elsewhere?

If you wouldn't accept democracy for a hotel stay on vacation, why do you accept it every day in the country where you live? Why should countries be run less competently than hotels?

1 comment:

ChicagoMan said...

You know what, The Founding Fathers of the US didn't start a democracy, they started a Republic of independent states. They gave the power to the states and responsibility to the citizens. This is why the right to bear arms is so important. If the government would become too tyrannical then citizens have a responsibility to overthrow the government and install a new one.

Banking is by far the biggest swindle of our times. Banks borrow out more money than they can back and charge the citizens for it. They are responsible for inflation that we see. The federal reserve system was created to assure that the power would slowly be taken away from the people, it also makes a one world government easier to transition to. I mean when mostly foreign banks have the country indebted to them for trillions of dollars it is easy to see how taking power away from average citizens that could bar them from doing so is beneficial. And there is no better way to do that than to create more and more poor dumb people, indebted forever but not smart enough to realize what is going on.

I strongly URGE everyone that still cares to get a FOID card and at least a firearm or two and get some training. It won't be long in this country (US) before even more freedoms are taken away from you.

The civil war wasn't only about slavery, it was more about state rights and federal powers. I don't agree with slavery, nor do 99% of the people out there, but the slavery the middle class faces now is just as bad and farther reaching. You either have to be poor, an illegal immigrant or rich to get good healthcare, how does that makes sense? The founding fathers would be prouder with the confederate states than with the Union at the time of the civil war.