Down With Democracy

As I write this, the headline at Drudge Report is about another “voterless victory” for Ted Cruz in the 2016 Republican Primary against Donald Trump. This comes on the heels of him winning the state of Colorado in a similar fashion. On the other side of the spectrum, Hillary Clinton leads Bernie Sanders in delegates to the Democratic convention, in no small part thanks to “Super Delegates” from states where Senator Sanders actually won.

Down With Democracy

Down With Democracy

There are mixed opinions about these matters in the public. Some say “those are the rules” and others say it is a perversion of the Democratic process. I say to hell with them both.

The nomination process is rigged, and to the same extent one can say a nominating process should exist, one can also say it should be rigged. The public is unfit to choose rulers for one another. Most Americans have little to no savings, they are heavily in debt, and a growing number of them are increasingly dependent upon the State for their very sustenance. It should come as no surprise then, that a democratically elected government finds itself in an almost identical predicament.

In fact, the government, unhinged from the economic barriers we mere mortals face, is in a far worse position. One which threatens the safety and well being of even its responsible subjects. When those irresponsible voters run up debts in their own lives, their creditors cut them off. When they provoke violent conflicts in their own neighborhood, they wind up dead or in prison. When they do this in the polling place, the fit and capable pick up the tab instead. The honorable fight the battles of the belligerent. The successful pay the debts of the irresponsible. That is a pattern which cannot continue, yet nearly all voters insist that it can and should, in one manner or another.

So yes. The democratic process is rigged, as it should be. The problem, as it were, is those doing the rigging. The Republican and Democratic parties enjoy occupancy in a very unique grey area between public and private institutions. With the benefits of both and the obligations of neither. They occupy power in the exclusively public domain, and when an exclusively private institution is better suited to the task at hand they simply create one on paper, or pay an existing private institution for whatever favor needs doing, often at public expense. When the public is fooled by their lies, they are quite democratic, and when the public gets wise to their tricks, we’re suddenly living in a nation of “laws” once more. Quite convenient, isn’t it? Long live the republic.

As this existential threat becomes more obvious and imminent, various “solutions” abound.

I sympathize strongly with those who say it should all be scrapped and replaced with nothing. The fact of the matter is, we don’t “need” this at all in any real sense. Absent the “services” of the omnipotent State, market forces would surely fill the worthwhile gaps and do away with the bloat.

Sadly, few are familiar with the works of Rothbard and Hoppe. Even those who purport to be libertarians are rarely more than left liberal communist degenerates who fantasize about responsibility free living in some Utopian conflict free paradise. The moment private entities tell them to take their pot smoke and tranny sex shows to their own property (of which there is none) they will be right back to demanding their votes be counted.

That is to say nothing of the teaming masses of enthusiastic voters and taxpayers who expect nothing other than wide open public spaces, government roads, and public security and defense. Let’s not even waste our time talking about the parasitic lower classes who consider the leech lifestyle their birthright as Americans.

So as much as I would like to imagine a world where this were not the case, it is terribly unlikely that Rothbard’s vision of an anarcho-capitalist society will be coming to fruition within the next few election cycles.

To the left of this we see demands for campaign finance reform on the notion that money is what corrodes our political process. Money certainly influences politics and that’s a fine thing to notice, but the notion that this will ever cease to be the case is almost too stupid to even discuss. No human activity will ever escape the phenomenon of incentive, and money is nothing more than a unit of account for that phenomenon.

He who pays the fiddler, gets to pick the tune, as the saying goes. Certainly there are reasons to be concerned about democratically elected officials being paid by certain interest groups. Invariably those interest groups will influence the politician to put their group interests ahead of other groups, even when the other groups are in the majority or ethically superior position.

But then, it is not as if elections are bought and sold in a direct quid pro quo. What is being bought is advertising, travel, and talent – all things which are bought and sold for all manner of reasons outside of the political sphere. What these activists are actually complaining about is not so much the influence the money has over the politician, as the influence it has over the minds of the public. They know as well as any anarchist or monarchist that people are incapable of making decisions on their own. They know all too well that the masses are doing as their televisions instruct them to do, and so the advocate of “campaign finance reform” is simply demanding that the television give a different set of instructions.

Limiting the availability of political speech to favored groups, limiting the amount of political speech an individual or group may buy, or granting the government itself a monopoly over political speech is all this “reform” can hope to bring about. That might sound good to one side or the other when they are the favored group, or when they control the government, but this is certainly not some kind of moral principle that can be universalized. The same people who rail against “Citizens United” – a court case where a private company produced a film critical of a presidential candidate, and were sued by said candidate – are the same people who think shadow funded “activist” groups like Black Lives Matter are the future of democracy. They will talk themselves blue in the face about the Koch brothers, while being paid by Soros and the Clintons. They promise young and inexperienced voters vast benefits from the public treasury in exchange for votes, while decrying the purchase of advertisements with private funds.

In the end, all this “reform” can hope to do is suppress the opposition of the people who impose it. If this benefited me, I might well enjoy it. If it benefits you, then you might well enjoy it. But somebody is going to get screwed and any notion that this will make the process more fair is only bait on a hook. Money will influence politics just as politics will influence money, there is no way around this.

So with democracy exposed as suicidal communism, anarchy out of reach, and repair out of the question, what are a people to do?

It might seem counterintuitive coming from one who made a name for himself trying to restrain and abolish government power wherever possible, but I strongly suggest an iron fisted dictator. Democratic quasi-communism has rendered us weak. We’ve had a welfare state and immigration policy diluting our people on a genetic level to some of the most pathetic specimens in mankind’s history. Not only are we physically weak, lazy, and obese collectively, but we increasingly see dangerous emotional frailty as well. The “Social Justice Warriors” who insist Halloween costumes are racist, that rainbow room “safe spaces” with blankets and stuffed animals are required on the campuses of once prestigious universities, and that the mere mention of scientific facts of race and gender are cause for riots.

Certainly there is a level of cultural and attitudinal degradation responsible for all of this, but when it happens for generations it has very real impacts on breeding patterns and that develops into a genetic cancer that must be excised. “The people” democrats are so fond of, have been bred for decades like domesticated animals to be fleeced, milked, and slaughtered with unquestioning obedience. Like domesticated ferrets, they are no longer fit for survival outside of their cages. If those of us with some fortitude left in us from the old days are to survive, they will have to be culled from the herd.

Their superior numbers cannot be allowed to vanquish from the planet our superior strength and intelligence, and as cruel as this plan may sound, it is in their best interests as well. The parasites survive only so long as there are productive hosts for them to suck life out of. In our absence they would not only die, but they would die in the most horrific of ways. Starvation and savagery will precede their ultimate doom if they are left to their own devices. It would be far more humane to bulldoze them off of cliffs, line them up before firing squads, or gas them to death.

In their absence, the productive and capable can get back to work rebuilding the economy. Those suited to the affairs of State could manage them without the concerns of popular opinion. In the absence of crushing tax burdens, families could breed, and grow, and flourish, repopulating our civilization with quality genetic specimens. Without left wing gibberish polluting the information pool, perhaps we can at last have a serious discussion about the abolition of the State in its entirety, and a more cooperative world where value replaces votes as the social capital of the society.


This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon, or other affiliate links. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

Subscribe to “Christopher Cantwell Essays” Audio Podcast on iTunesStitcher, RSS, or Roku

  • paendragon

    Re: ” Money certainly influences politics and that’s a fine thing to notice, but the notion that this will ever cease to be the case is almost too stupid to even discuss.”

    Nonsense! Just ban and criminalize all political advertising entirely.

    It’s the idolatrous political “party” system itself which permits our otherwise public SERVANTS to indulge them selves in interest-conflicted divided loyalties, and so to metaphorically slip from the tethers of oversite we should be keeping them on.

    Unless we eliminate political parties, the salesmen in government will destroy the country.

    Politicians don’t represent the people – they only represent their parties. And their parties only represent those who pay them – who happen to be the exact same people for each party.

    So ALL politicians are only treasonous sales-puppets, foisted on us by their corporazi sales-masters. Their real job is to sell us all out by selling off our country to the highest bidders – usually by buying our enemies’ money to fund their own pet projects. The faster the turnover (more sales per minute) the more quick profits, even at low-low fire-sales prices. It’s a race to the bottom.

    There’s a simple solution to all this: simply make it illegal to fund political parties’ ad campaigns. After all, it’s supposedly already illegal to bribe or otherwise influence any politician with money – which is exactly what these loyalty-dividing, interest-conflicting parties them selves do, isn’t it? We’ve got the Internet – each candidate applicant can simply put their platform proposals up online, for free – so why do they need ad money? Who needs debates? Debates only let the most gliberal salesmen talk over each other for heckling points! Just get them to comment on each others’ platforms on their (government-owned-and-monitored) websites. That would force them to co-operate and put it all down in writing, too!

    So, let’s just FIX DEMOCRACY! And here’s how: If we just hold 2 quick, back-to-back elections each time (the first, as usual, to hire the worker’s pool of our Public SERVANTS from our districts, and the second where WE ALL appoint them DIRECTLY to their cabinet portfolio positions) then we eliminate their self-interested conflicts of loyalty-dividing political “parties,” (which always only “party” at our direct expense, anyway,) forever!


  • Interesting argument, but the fact remains, any system of goverment can only exist on the basis of the ideas of it’s supporters. In America we have two major conflicting popular views, unlimited democracy versus limited government, otherwise known as a constitutional republic. Every nation state on Earth uses these two conflicting concepts, democratic republicanism, to justify it’s existence, with the notable exception of the Islamocrazy monarchies and their murderous rape crazy spawn known as the Islamic State, or Daesh. They are modern day Dark Ages savages, while the whole rest of the world is organized on the basis of a democratic republic with at least the pretense of a constitutional system. The American system has, at least on the surface, taken the world with a strong dose of democratic communist idiocy under the UN, a New Deal abortion of the Council on Foreign Relations from WWII. The only practical way to achieve what Christopher Cantwell suggests is to elect a President who would act as a constitutional dictator for the purpose of restoring limited government. If Trump chose to play the role, there would certainly be a civil war. That is a glorious fantasy. Glory is a word polite people use when a bunch of people die violently.

  • Guy From V

    I’m afraid because /r/anarcho_capitalism has cleverly outed you as a predatory statist I’m going to have to pay much closer attention to you.

  • MOB

    Chris, congrats on having the balls to put your name and face behind such, let’s say, controversial positions. Here in Europe you would end up in jail for far less, so you Americans should take a moment to appreciate the freedom you still enjoy, even by “Western” standards. That said, I’d like to introduce a more possitive note.

    Regarding the future of the welfare leeches in a true libertarian society, I wouldn’t paint it quite as bleak. It’s all about incentives. Right now, they have no good reason to get off their asses and do something productive, use birth control or take responsibility in any other way. The moment they have to work for their KFC and smartphones, most of them will either change their habits or leave the country as “refugees”.

    The hollowing out of the American middle class is also a huge problem. Yes, running into debt is irresponsible, but that’s what happens when the tax code, the government and the “experts” are basically sending the message that saving is for chumps. And then when the fat cats run into trouble, they have to be bailed out because they are “too big to fail”. Just because we are right-wing libertarians, doesn’t mean we must leave the financial elites off the hook so easily. Yes, a libertarian society would produce a growing inequality, but only because some would get richer at a faster rate than others. The immiseration of the working class should raise a red flag as a likely product of government intervention, in the forms of excessive taxation, credit expansion and cronyism. For instance, the massive growth of medical bills can be traced back to the AMA cartel and “bad deals” the government does with big pharma. Let’s not forget restrictions in housing construction licenses and the fact that the federal government owns 28% of the land.

    Bashing democracy and praising ruthless authoritarian government is fun, but it’s also a red herring of sorts, a distraction from the real issues, like “do we have a demos (ie a people) to begin with, or is it a ballot battle between mutually hostile populations?”, or “what kind of demos is this? what kind of values and convictions do we have? are we smart and hardworking? do we love freedom?” .All forms of government known to man are, in practice, “democratic” to some extent, because their stability is largely based on widespread consent of the governed. This is true even in places like North Korea. Tyrants don’t tell the people they can’t pick another leader, they tell them they don’t need to. Right-libertarianism and even anarcho-capitalism are subject to this rule, that is, they need widespread consent inside their jurisdiction and not too strong foreign enemies.

    Don’t get me wrong, I love your rants about ovens and helicopter rides and I hope you keep it up, but I take it as comedic hyperbole. We, nationalist libertarians in Western countries, have powerful arguments to convince the vast majority of middle class citizens that our system is better, not just morallly but also in terms of long-term, sustainable prosperity for all. We should remember that while we troll the normies with our dank maymays.

  • i always knew capitalists were fascists

  • Richard Chiu

    That’s some pretty loopy reasoning. For the moment leaving aside the question of whether a quasi-genocidal purging of the weak is really the only option, I didn’t see anything whatsoever to convince me that appealing to a centralized authority was the only or best way to accomplish this. Yes, I know that you said it would be kinder than their fate should such a purge not occur at all. But that doesn’t speak to whether a decentralized action might be both kinder and more efficient still.

    Efficiency is a real concern for me, if it comes to a purge, kindness far less so (though I believe that more efficient action is likely to be kinder in the aggregate). And I believe in the power of the free-market to find more efficient solutions than any central authority is capable of discerning. But far and above efficiency is judgment. If there is going to be a purge or whatever, I want to be very sure that we’re not rounding up and eliminating the very people who would be the most essential to the survival of civilization. I wouldn’t trust that decision to any human government whatsoever, let alone one deluded enough to believe itself qualified and justified in such an undertaking.

    I think that, faced with some real central governmental authority engaged in such a program, you’d have your own reservations about its merits. So I won’t claim to be sure that you aren’t joking or engaging in a bit of hyperbole. But let us not resort to dismissing arguments as “unreasonable” without examining their relative merits in comparison to others.

    Killing people is a messy business, even when it’s just one or two at a time. It gets messier as you increase the numbers, no matter the method. You can shoot one person in the head, you can’t easily shoot a dozen in the head because after the first shots all of them start moving. This same principle applies in different degrees to almost any feasible means of killing people that isn’t completely indiscriminate (and the nature of the proposal is after all to kill some of the unfit to save the fit, which essentially requires discrimination between fit and unfit). So small groups or even individual armed executors of this plan would have a great efficiency advantage in carrying out targeted killings, in addition to the other natural efficiency advantages of distributed systems, such as localization of resources and less organizational overhead. Such distributed action also has a massive intelligence and counterintelligence advantage over a large centralized organization, it would be much harder for any of the unfit being eliminated to hide their disqualifications from continued existence from observers organically embedded in the local community and much harder to unveil the membership of such groups.

    This means that, in the event that large-scale killings of those inimical to civilization were undertaken as a real necessity, distributed action would be less unkind to those killed, less likely to kill unnecessarily or mistakenly, less likely to result in massive reaction against the fit, and far better adapted to the actual local situation in any area.

    Which brings us back to the (previously suspended) question of whether such a purge is necessary. I would submit that it is likely not necessary absolutely everywhere, there is probably a geographically significant sum of local areas where the reassertion of civilized values of individual freedom and personal responsibility would not require a purge of the populations currently residing within them, only defense of the property interests of the current residents against barbaric invasion from without. There are, on the other hand, clearly areas of the world so dominated by uncivilized persons as to make open warfare against them the only practical way to make local civilization possible, and I do not discount the probability that some such locations may be found in the borders of the territory currently claimed by the national regime in America. But deciding where the local situation warrants such drastic action is another thing I trust to a distributed system far more than to any centralized government authority.

    Then again, if a central government committed to purging the ‘uncivilized’ were to be established and commence such an operation, it might be very convenient for me personally, since I would certainly end up on their list of ‘undesirable’ elements and thus could freely kill everyone identifiable as an agent of said government without the need for so much careful examination. The current constraints on my use of lethal force which arise from a lack of absolute clarity about the degree of informed accountability of individuals who don’t believe they work for a government willing to engaged in genocide against anyone they’ll ever meet are…irritating.