Democratic Dictatorships

Democratic Dictatorships

The political-state is not a living entity, it is merely a system of procedures, a collection of ideas, of customs and traditions that form institutions that individuals use to gain power over other people to achieve the goals of the special interest groups that they form in the process. The political system itself can be anything the people who control it wanted to be, if the people who participate in the political system are good and their intentions are noble, then they would produce just government, but if the people themselves are corrupt and evil minded, then they will produce tyranny, dependency, and will be obsessed with stealing from one another to build a powerful cartel to exploit those who are weaker, which is what political-states have become everywhere they have existed. Why has this happened? Why are political-states universally tyrannical in proportion to their centralized power?
   Lord Acton said: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
   The experiment in democracy was an attempt to protect individual rights against the accretion of central power that produced the tyranny of monarchy and dictatorship. In theory, democracy would spread out power to all of the people, with each individual citizen having an equal share of power in the system. Of course, this can never be attained, in a republic, powerful political parties and their special interests, composed of the richest citizens and largest corporations as well as a few aggressive social activists, become the ruling class. Even in a pure democracy, individuals will never have an equal share of power, because the rulers will be those who control system, the corporate owned media and the special interests who influence the education system and the media, as well as aggressive political strategists who frame and manipulate the voting to produce the outcome they desire. By strategically positioning their voting blocs, they can build a bureaucratic system that grows in power while resisting control by the voting public. The result is the growth of a huge un-elected bureaucracy that is accountable to no one and that no election ever changes. The system then becomes a battle to create perceptions and manipulate opinions which are largely irrelevant to the functioning of the authoritarian bureaucracy which, like a juggernaut, roles on.
   Thus, through social experimentation, history has proved that democracy does not produce freedom, it produces the same centralized power it was designed to eliminate. It's true, that there are more people participating in the political system in democracy as opposed to aristocracy, but the result is the same, tyranny over the individual. In fact, in some ways democracy is more comprehensively corrupt because it corrupts the hearts and minds of all of the people who are drawn into the political system to pursue what they covet. Such a system is, like a cancer, more deeply entrenched in society and is harder to resist than a mere man wearing the raiments of a king.
   Democracy has failed as a system of government, it has failed to protect the natural rights of the individual, it has failed to maintain a free enterprise system and it has failed to provide rule of law based upon objective justice. Democratic systems have become dominated by cartels formed between political parties, corporations and special interests that corrupt the system and turn the "law" into a weapon of exploitation and petty tyranny. Because democracy always leads to mob rule, no one's rights are safe, in its purest form, direct democracy leads to the passions of the mob overwhelming the rights of minorities, while the Republican system of representative democracy results in powerful special interests seizing power and running roughshod over the rights of individuals. The most corrupting effect of this system is the institutionalization of crimes against natural human rights, a system where the "law" is used as an instrument of theft, oppression and murder against those who exercise their rights in ways counter to the interests of those in power. Under the cult of democracy, any legislation, any program, any action which has the stamp of approval from the voters is seen as sacrosanct. This leads to an almost complete suppression of any meaningful public debate that questions the foundations of the democratic system itself. The public debate then becomes, how to go about plundering the world to serve the interests of those who compete for power.
   The obligation to vote in any and all elections, regardless of the choices, is considered good citizenship. The prestidigitation used to fool the people into surrendering their rights is the illusion of self rule, the idea that the minority consented to subjugation because they participated in the political system by voting, but in reality, voting changes nothing since the entrenched bureaucratic class are the rulers who make the choices. First of all, if individuals decide to use the political system in an attempt to defend their rights, by voting against tyranny, then in no way does the act of voting self-defensively constitute permission to violate human rights. African-Americans were allowed to vote during the decades of Jim Crow subjugation, but this should not be interpreted as African-Americans choosing segregation or self inflicted police brutality. The arguments for pursuing social change through the democratic process are advocated to avoid using violence for political reasons, but this argument itself is slight of hand, because the democratic system itself is, through its enforcement, the use of political violence by the majority against the minority. The choice then becomes, should you use violence that you control and that is directed against specific enemies or should you surrender your right to defend yourself with violence by giving permission to the majority to use violence against you for any reason that serves their interests, while the politically disenfranchised are disarmed, disempowered and left immolated for disposal at the rulers' pleasure? When people lived under the tyranny of monarchs they knew that they weren't the state, that the state was the monarch. They knew that when the king took their hard earned money through taxation that they were being robbed by the king, they were not robbing themselves, the king's tax collectors came to their house and demanded a portion of their earnings at the point of a gun or sword. When the subjects were thrown into prison for exercising their rights in ways that the king disapproved, they knew that their imprisonment was not their own doing nor was it society's justice. They knew who their enemy was and they knew how to get rid of him. Since the aristocratic system that supported the king was composed of the minority of society, they realized that to maintain their rule they must keep the lower classes ignorant, disempowered and disarmed, while exploiting their labor to build the wealth and power of the upper class. When the divine right of kings theory collapsed, the new power brokers had to find a different way to subjugate the masses. To do this, they simply substituted the divine right of kings with the divine right of the mob -- democracy. If the rulers allow their subjects to voice their opposition to their subjugation and have a say in choosing which power players will be their rulers, then they can fool the people into believing that those who exploit them are their representatives, that because each individual has the opportunity to share in participating in the crimes committed by the state, then the individual will be like a tiny king who has the power to oppress, persecute and rob every other person in society, by some tiny measure. This Faustian bargain requires only one thing, the total surrender of one's individual rights that results in the individual immolating oneself as a fatted calf offered up to society for consumption.
   Therefore, when your neighbors pass zoning restrictions that prevent you from building the kind of house that you prefer, it is considered your own choice to not have a choice over your own home. When your neighbors, the people who are supposed to be friends and co-workers, deny your ailing grandfather the drugs he needs to survive, it is considered your choice to kill your grandfather. When your fellow citizens hire thugs to shoot kids in the back, you are considered to be an accomplice in pulling the trigger. When your hired mercenary terrorists drop bombs on innocent men, women and children in other countries, the atrocities are committed in your name, though when the resources of those conquered countries are plundered they go mostly to benefit the political cronies who prosecuted the war. Every crime the state and its hired thugs commit against individual human rights is considered to be an act of the "public will", an expression of your choice, so when the thugs breakdown your door and make you another statistic it was your choice to support the tyranny in the first place.

All states are basically the same, they all commit more or less the same crimes against human rights, they are all at war against individual freedom, any difference between them is only a matter of procedure and degree practiced under different names and customs.
   Most all states claim to be democracies -- that all encompassing label for various types of political criminal organizations. The democratic imperialists fight wars to make the world "safe for democracy", what they're making it safe for is tyranny and imperialism. Making the World "safe for democracy" means to destroying all other types of political movements, including those for self government and desire for individual freedom, to clear the way so that a monopoly of democratic tyranny can be imposed on everyone, with no challengers or competition, to subjugate the people, exploit them and get away with any crime with impunity -- democratic tyranny enforced on all, with freedom tolerated for no one.
   Authoritarian regimes have exploited democracy and use it to give themselves presumed legitimacy. The promotion of democracy or any other statist political rackets or lending any legitimacy to such a system is to support all of the crimes committed by all of the world's system of states. Democracy has become synonymous with socialism, the two are interchangeable in ideals and practice -- if you support democracy, you support socialism.
   If you want examples of democracy carried to its ultimate conclusion just look at Nazi Germany, the national-socialists. Hitler was democratically elected to office and then reelected several times. Nazi rule in Germany represented the democratic-national-socialist majority and represented the endemic anti-Semitism in Germany.
   Slobodan Milosevic was democratically elected. So were many of the eventual dictators in Latin America, Africa and other parts of the world.
   Pure democracy is majority rule. What clearer example of democracy in America is there than white majority rule in the Old South. There, slavery, segregation, the Jim Crow laws were all the result of democracy in America. The society of the Old South accurately reflected the majority's will, its values and culture. You want democracy -- majority rule? Well there it is.
   Other examples of democracy can be found in Israel where Jewish rulers democratically vote to ethnically cleanse Arabs from occupied territories and steal their land while disenfranchising Arabs within Israeli controlled territory from equal justice.
   In Guatemala, the Hispanic majority voted last year to deny equal rights to the native Amerindians. That is the common pattern throughout Latin America with European Hispanic majorities oppressing indigenous Amerindian peoples.
   At one point during the Bosnian war, the Bosnian-Serb assembly democratically voted to continue waging its war against Bosnian Muslims.
   In Indonesia, the Moslem majority voted to deny the people of East Timor, who are predominately Christian, the right to independence, even though the people of East Timor democratically voted for independence. Which one was the most democratic? It you believe in democracy above all else, then, since the idea of democracy is majority rule, the larger the majority the more legitimate its rule. Therefore wouldn't the larger majority trump the smaller?
   If the ethnic majority doesn't have the right to deny minority ethnic groups their independence in East Timor, then why can't the Kurds be independent of Turkey? Why does the world not demand that Russia stop its aggressive war of subjugation against Chechnya? Why can't the Basque be independent of France and Spain? What gives the right to Mexico to hold the Amerindian majority of Chiapas? What gives the right to the United States to deny Amerindian nations secession and independence?
   You say those are examples of extremes of democracy and that democracy must be moderated and include respect for minority rights? Such an idea is a fraud and an impossibility. You can't have majority rule and minority rights at the same time. Democracy is by definition the rule of the majority imposing its will on the minority. It is the systematic tyranny of the majority over the minority. The only way you can have minority rights is if the vote of the majority is not binding on the minority. Otherwise the minority will always be subject to the majority and the minority's rights will always be violated by that majority. The only difference between democracies is in degrees, it is the degree to which the majority takes power and the degree to which the minority's rights are violated.
   The United States, and their allies, have fought wars, committed acts of terrorism and supplied weapons to others to fight wars to impose democracy. They presume to justify this by saying it's all in the cause of democracy, as though it were some magic word that immediately absolves themselves of all sin. The end does not justify the means, especially when the end is the evil of democracy, mob tyranny. They claim that the atrocities they have committed or supported are not the same thing as the very same atrocities committed by fascists and communists because its all in the cause of democracy. How foolish do they think the world to be, first of all, democracy is an evil, immoral, political system just like fascism and communism, the fact that the mob rules makes it even more of a comprehensive tyranny and often harder to change. Theft, terrorism and political tyranny is immoral no matter what motivates it. Is being persecuted, enslaved or murdered less wrong because it's for the cause of democracy? Horribly, I really believed there are some deranged people who actually believe this, those who do are the moral equivalent of fascists and communists. These wars for democracy are just democratic imperialism, to impose their own illegitimate and immoral system on others.
   The only political system that can ever be justified is Libertocracy which cannot be forced on people, nor can it be created or supported by committing crimes against the human rights that it serves. Just the track record of the many evils of democracy compared to the ideals of Libertocracy stands as the best example to all people which is right and which is wrong.
   Ironically, the United States and their allies are not even democracies, they are republics, their claiming to be democracies is fraudulent. They commit or support crimes against people in other countries to impose democracy when they don't even have it in their own country. Still even more ironic is that while the United States supports fighting wars to impose democracy, they have a track record, since the end World War II, of undermining democracy and supporting right wing military dictatorships. The propaganda of fighting for democracy is just a lie used to promote their own brand of imperialism.
   The United States and other countries who are not democracies themselves say they have an interest in promoting democracy, because, 'it's the right thing to do', that the people are better served by it, they're better off for it and they have a national interest to do so because it's consistent with their values and promotes American interests. This is a clear declaration of political imperialism, they fight wars, perpetrate acts of terrorism, oppress individual rights, attack freedom, commit crimes against humanity all to impose their own corrupt and illegitimate political system on others -- and, its not even a democracy . They impose economic sanctions which harm innocent people, cause famine and cause people die by denying them access to medicine all to impose their own political cartel which is just another form of political tyranny, it's only a difference of degree, a style of political policy between democracy, oligarchy, dictatorship, communism, fascism, they all commit more or less the same crimes with the only difference being their degrees and procedures, they are all illegitimate, they are all wrong, they are all evil, and their adherents are filled with a self righteousness (that disregards rights and what is right) that makes what they do even more dangerous to more people throughout the world.
   One arrogant propagandist once said that, when democracy is dead, liberty will be dead. That comes from a typical schizophrenic mind that says that rule by a violent mob of grasping parasites who are obsessed with denying individuals freedom, is the embodiment of freedom. They claim a country is free because it enslaves its own people, commits crimes against its citizens and foreigners with impunity. What freedom means to them is the power to do whatever they want and get away with it, they are free because the political mobsters have a license backed by the ruling mob to do whatever they want. Where there is democracy, there is no liberty, however, because democracy is artificial and merely the use of mob violence it can never truly destroy freedom since freedom is the living exercise of the free will of individuals. Liberty dead? Fool! Liberty is always alive it the human mind, not only is democracy the enemy of freedom and by design intolerant of it, democracy doesn't even exist in the United States or in other country, with the closest imitation being Switzerland. Liberty will prevail and destroy mob tyranny, it is your phony democracy that is dead, in fact it has never even lived. Democracy has already died the same death of divine rule monarchy, fascism, communism and other superstitious tyrannies that are completely unworkable in practice, and because rational, freedom loving people will not long stand for their imposition.
   Representatives of the U.S. sometimes express worry about undemocratic forces winning elections in what they label as "emerging democracies" when they themselves are not a democracy and don't believe in democracy, and have no intention of becoming a democracy. The U.S. is among the least democratic of all of the western-style industrialized republics, because, unlike most of the others which have proportional representation, the U.S. is controlled by a factional duopoly with the ultimate rule in the hands of robed dictators (The Supreme Court). They use their two party system as a cartel to prevent challenges by minority parties. They hypocritically condemn other countries for denying minority parties access to the ballot and creating a system of unfairness among the parties when the U.S. is the most extremely unfair of all of the Western-style republics, they are themselves the worst practitioner of this form of republican tyranny.
   Alexis de Tocqueville called democracy the "tyranny of the majority", de Jouvenel labeled it as "totalitarian democracy."

In a democracy, the majority is supposed to rule, but as it often turns out off, a minority of aggressive, special interest groups ends up exploiting the system and seizing power. Representation within a republic leaves the voters with little power or representation. In some countries only a minority of the eligible population votes, those who choose not to vote, which is their right, are victims of minority rule, in some cases, only 20% to 30% of the population is voting to rule over everyone else. The statists like to proclaim that voting is your right, it is only right to vote or use any other weapon in self defense, so too do you have the right not to vote and the right not to be ruled over by those who do vote to violate your rights, however, this fundamental right to be left in peace and freedom is not respected.
   In the U.S., only a minority of eligible voters actually vote, in many elections the numbers may range from 20 something percent to under 50 percent with only some elections drawing a majority of voters. The message of this is clear, the majority of Americans don't care about the political system and many of them don't support it. If the majority is supposed to rule in democracy, then the voice of the people is clear, the majority of Americans choose not to support the current political system, that should mean that the system should be dismantled out of lack of support. The minority who votes for candidates have no right to impose their system on the majority who choose not to participate in it.
   In the large majority of elections in the U.S., the winning candidate only has the support of a minority of the people, even if the majority of eligible voters vote, those who vote for the winning candidate are almost always the minority of the eligible population. That means that, in almost all cases, the minority rules the majority, in some cases the percentage of eligible voters supporting the winning candidate may only be 20 something percent or less. Most unfair of all is the reality that in some states, localities, and congressional districts, one party dominates the area, leaving minority parties with little chance of gaining any representation. In some areas, all local offices as well as state and congressional officeholders may be exclusively of one party, which completely denies other people any representation at all in their area. What's more, there are places where one party has held all offices for decades, some people who live in such areas may have never in their entire lives voted for a winning candidate or ever been represented. All of this results in the majority of Americans being left without even a voice in directing political policy. Is that any semblance of democracy?
   In some countries, called democratic, one party takes all of the power, like PRI in Mexico, or the two party cartel in power in the United States, at which point any resemblance to a democracy is gone, they go through the sham of voting, but because the one or two parties operate a cartel which prevents any dissenting parties from realistically being able to challenge their power, they are not even representative democracies.
   Most politicians who represent people are just representing the idea of representative government, they are just sojourners playing a role and fooling the public, because the real power resides with the special interest groups, and there is little that the representatives can do to change this which is entrenched within the system, if they go against these special interests they will be thrown out of office before they can even begin to make any real changes.

While in totalitarian regimes the people are in a much worse condition, democracy is more corrupting of the people. Democracy forces the individual into the indignity of have to choose their masters and put their rights up for a vote -- and it coerces people into participating in the organization of tyranny to rob their neighbors and use the power they gain in an internecine war where different groups battle to impose their will on each other.
When statists speak of democracy they mean manipulating public opinion to give themselves the illusion of legitimacy while denying the people freedom and legitimate self-government -- Libertocracy.
When statists speak of sovereignty they mean the supremacy of the state to enslave the people.
When statists speak of freedom they mean the power and license to get away with anything they want without being held accountable.
Where there is democracy there is no freedom, the two are mutually exclusive, either an individual is free or an individual is subject to others, in a dictatorship the individual is subject to one man, in an oligarchy the individual is subject to a committee and in a democracy the individual is subject to everyone. A sovereign individual is subject to no one.

Our government, Libertocracy, is based on everyone governing themselves in mutual consent and living by their agreements to each other. Its not what a few people think ought to be done, its everyone governing themselves in sovereign self government and then working together through voluntary contractual agreements by mutual consent to govern interactions between sovereigns, this alone is legitimate government based on the free will, dignity and rights of the sovereign individual.

by Libercratus

Quotes

"I think, then, that the species of oppression by which democratic nations are menaced is unlike anything which ever before existed in the world: our contemporaries will find no prototype of it in their memories. I seek in vain for an expression which will accurately convey the whole of the idea I have formed of it; the old words despotism and tyranny are inappropriate: the thing itself is new, and since I cannot name, I must define it." - (pages 302-3) Alexis de Tocqueville; Democracy in America

"I passionately love liberty, legality, the respect for rights, but not democracy.... Liberty is my foremost passion." - Alexis de Tocqueville

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." - John Adams (1814)

"There is no such thing as a majority right. Only those who understand and act according to this principle can promote true freedom" - Harry H. Hoiles

"There is one, however, which is in a sense peculiar to the republican State. Republicanism permits the individual to persuade himself that the State is his creation, that State action is his action, that when it expresses itself it expresses him, and when it is glorified he is glorified. The republican State encourages this persuasion with all its power, aware that it is the most efficient instrument for enhancing its own prestige. Lincoln's phrase, "of the people, by the people, for the people" was probably the most effective single stroke of propaganda ever made in behalf of republican State prestige." - Albert Jay Nock

"the civilization of our age has perfected despotism itself ... Monarchs had, so to speak, materialized oppression; the democratic republics of the present day have rendered it as entirely an affair of the mind as the will which it is intended to coerce. Under the absolute sway of [a monarch] the body was attacked in order to subdue the soul; but the soul escaped the blows which were directed against it and rose proudly superior. Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Thomas Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia, stated: "One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one....An elective despotism was not the government we fought for."

James Madison, in Federalist No.10, wrote: "Hence, it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and they have been violent in their deaths."

"To offer democracy or a republic as the best form of central control, authority and bureaucracy is like saying arsenic is a better poison than cyanide, because it tastes better and acts slower. The best of several evils, is still evil." - stormy MON

"distribution...decided by voting--by the voice of the people... [thousands] of howling voices, trying to decide without yardstick, rhyme or reason, when there are no rules to the game and each can demand anything, but has a right to nothing, when everybody holds power over everybody's life except his own--then it turns out, as it did, that the voice of the people is [whoever is holds the power]" - Ayn Rand; Atlas Shrugged: p. 615

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." - James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10.

"Unrestricted democracy must result in dictatorship." - Plato