Democracy: a Libertarian Viewpoint

"Politicians prefer to be oligarchs with all the power, prestige, and pelf this personally gives them"

democracy  There are no democracies anywhere on Earth, and so the popular confused view that there are many requires some explanation.

In a purely ^*epistemological sense, words do not matter: as long as what is meant is understood, then it is irrelevant which particular words are used to express it. But in a ^*propaganda sense, words can matter extremely: we should not allow people to twist the meanings of words into persuasive or confused definitions that obscure the truth. There are few words about which there is more ^*common-sense confusion and ^*political ^*hypocrisy than “democracy” (^*“liberty” is a rival in this). Etymologically, “democracy” comes from “dēmos” (common people) plus “kratos” (^*rule, strength). The original democracies in ancient Greek city-states ruled using voting on important matters by all ^*citizens; which at that time excluded women, slaves, and metics (guest workers). (Majority voting in a purely ^*civil context is not literally democratic as it is not ^*political, i.e., about ^*state rule.)

By contrast, a “delegational democracy” would be people being elected to implement the actual majority wills of their electors. This might still be a form of democracy. But it is a mystery how the delegates are supposed to know what the electors want beyond a few issues. And if the delegates are going to do regular surveys and adhere to the results, then why would they be needed as delegates? Real democracy, with regular referenda and people directly voting on any number of issues, would appear to be practicable.

Most Western ^*nation-states today are claimed to be “representative democracies”, which are asserted to be a kind of “indirect democracy”. But the people manifestly do not rule. In fact, their known majority opinions are often ignored and intentionally flouted. Therefore, this is as absurd as describing ^*slavery as “representative self-ownership” or “indirect self-ownership” (especially if the slaves could to some degree collectively choose among possible masters). It is true that most adults have a vote that collectively decides who are elected to be the ^*oligarchs: this being a rare and fleeting moment that a glimmer of democracy might accurately be asserted to exist (but on the almost complete worthlessness of an individual ^*subject’s political vote in this system, see ^*voting). Then the elected oligarchs do whatever they want, if they have a majority, until the next election possibly changes the majority party or coalition: thus, this does not even amount to involuntary ^*collectivism with respect to the electorate. However, most such would-be oligarchs are themselves, in effect, political eunuchs (or “lobby fodder”) unless they are also elected among themselves, or appointed to high office, or (threaten to) collectively rebel by voting against the ^*government.

So why do elected oligarchies exist but pose as democracies? For two obvious reasons. 1) Politicians prefer to be oligarchs with all the ^*power, prestige, and pelf this personally gives them (but they call this “public service”). And, 2) because of the ^*legitimisation that is afforded by the false propaganda that “the people are ruling themselves” in this way and so are somehow still free and ^*consent to the system.

All forms of democracy would also be the continuation of ^*“civil war” by other means (see ^*cold war): one side ^*initiates an imposition on the other by threat of force but without actual bloodshed. Consequently, democracy is also an enemy of liberty and ^*welfare; not least as it flouts the efficient ^*economic calculation of the ^*market. A so-called ^*“liberal democracy” is more or less a contradiction in terms, at least insofar as “liberal” refers to liberty. The more it is liberal; the less it is democratic. A completely liberal system would be a ^*libertarian ^*anarchy. (But many ^*left-wing statists appear to use “liberal” to mean something more like “the political policies that I think are kind and right”.)

Therefore, none of this is intended to argue for real democracy. Democracy as such is inherently a form of ^*majoritarianism. Any serious form of it might be more dangerously ^*authoritarian, even ^*totalitarian, than elected oligarchy: there is no democratic principle that limits what democracy can interfere with. That said, more democracy in the form of binding referenda on important public issues (e.g., ^*immigration control) could hardly produce worse results than current oligarchical rule.  But any attempt at full democracy would probably soon collapse into some form of oligarchy following Robert Michels’s (1876-1936) “iron law of oligarchy”; as career politicians come to dominate the ^*“rationally” ^*apathetic majority.

No, we do not “live in a democracy” with its alleged respect for individual liberty. Rather, we live under a popularly ^*elected ^*oligarchy that is legitimised by false propaganda and enforced by an ^*aggressive ^*police state.

(This is an entry from A Libertarian Dictionary: Explaining a Philosophical Theory [draft currently being revised]. Asterisks indicate other entries.)