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.
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.
Subscribe via email and never miss another post!