Democracy Will Fail You

Yes, Politics is Interesting – believe me, I get it. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being a political junkie. After all, some men like fishing; others like fowling. Some men just like to hear the voice off the teleprompter roaring.

And I’m just as bad as the worst of them.

But as captivating as it might be – watching their deft manipulation of the public, trying to spot the strings of the special interest groups, gambling on whom the Average Bear will choose – I know not to take it seriously.

Not that it isn’t serious, mind you – it’s deadly serious. The upcoming American Federal Election (which Obama is going to win) is going to send the world into an Evil Time. While it certainly won’t be the end of us (they couldn’t even kill off the dinosaurs on Jurassic Park, fer’ Christ’s sake!), the present Civlizational Nose Dive is arguably on par with the Burning of the Alexandrian Library.

Fascinating, ain’t it? It’s like watching Game of Thrones, with slightly less incest… and just as much influence over the plot.

“But- but- but-“ I hear you gasp, “We need to do something- Vote for the least bad- Form coalitions- Use their tactics against them-“

Please, calm down, and listen for a second. I feel your pain, Brother, but I’m not being pessimistic – I’ve simply studied this Beast’s habits. And I’ve seen far too much sweat spilled over whether Romney or Santorum will hold us back from the edge – sweat spilled by Men who could have been working.

So: let explain why Democracy will fail (cribbing from my favourite Anti-Statist, Fringe Elements); the reasons can be summarized in four basic points.

1. Rational Ignorance. Because you only have one vote and won’t influence an election, it is rational for most people to not spend time researching the issues. Attempts to curb this problem could be to require a poll test, but that is full of obvious problems. Democracy depends on voters being informed on issues that they cannot have an impact on, which is to say democracy depends on voters being irrational.

Now I am going to presume that you, Dear Reader, are one of the most well-informed people you know when it comes to the subject of Politics (that you read This Site says mountains about your character). Furthermore, I’m also going to presume that you think importing a large numbers of illegal ailens is a Bad Idea for the Future of America.

With me so far?

Now imagine two hypothetical candidates; one argues that we must step-up border patrols, enforce Arizona-style ID checks, punish businesses for hiring illegals, and so forth. The other argues that we should end the drug war and thereby eliminate the corrupting influence of the cartels, thus allowing Mexico to return to a Civil state. This would remove the Incentives which drive Pablo to risk Theft, Rape, and Murder in his bid to reach the Land of the Free.

Now, I ask you: how long are you going to study these problems? Which plan are you going to choose? What probability do you assign to its success? Because, quite frankly, I have no clue.

Do you still think you’re well-informed enough to vote?

2. Package deals. When you buy things from a store, you get to be a la carte to a great degree. You don’t have to buy a complete kitchen set, you can buy the refrigerator and the microwave separately. The specificity depends on demand – few care to buy each component of a refrigerator separately, and so that stuff is harder to find.

With democracy, your only choice is between platforms that have a shot at winning, and this is usually only two or three and encompasses too many issues. Maybe you want school spending to be cut, and want unemployment insurance to be cut, but each candidate or party is only willing to cut one or the other, so you don’t get to truly vote your preference.

This point really stands on its own, but I ask you to consider the Republican Primary whom you hate the most. Can you really say that all of their policies disgust you? Or do you prefer them because the Net Difference tips them in your favour? Again, remember your own ignorance in this matter – what is your probability of being wrong?

Or maybe you’re choosing a particular candidate because you believe he has a shot against Obama. So let’s say your guy wins, and we have a President who is Slightly Less Evil.

Slightly Less Evil.

I trust you see the problem here.

3. Voting wars. Group A votes itself the resources of group B. Simple enough. Elections aren’t really a competition of ideas, because trying to get group A to vote for not getting free stuff from group B is not a contest, it’s begging a thief. Humans are moral animals, and so theft-rationalization industries develop, which rationalize the theft with marxoid economic theories, appeals to racial identity and collective intergenerational debt, and various other obtuse and roundabout justifications.

Here’s our problem; we aren’t interested in stealing from others. It’s certainly easy enough, nowadays – half the work and twice the pay as a Real Job – but even the MRAs, for all their talk Domestic Violence Shelters for Men, for removing Men’s Military Burden, and whatnot, at the end of the day all they really want is Just execution of the law, and accurate, non-politically-motivated Facts to be used in court.

I guess it’s just something about the Red Blood flowing through our veins; stay off our lawns, and we won’t shoot you. We ain’t interested in Thievery – we can get richer through Hard Work.

But try explaining that to someone in the Ghetto; that voting along racial lines won’t end up helping them in the long run. If they’ll even listen. They’re busy waiting in line for that Sweet, Sweet, Government Cheese.

4. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. When you cut unemployment insurance, you are no longer giving a concentrated group of people the money they need to survive, and many of them will die. This makes them extremely motivated in opposing cuts. Whereas the people paying for unemployment benefits won’t die from paying a little bit more.

The other day I saw an argument in a comment thread between two Men’s Rights supporters. The point of it was that if all of the MRAs banded together and voted Republican, then the Republicans would take up our cause.

No they wouldn’t.

Even assuming you could organize enough people, at best they’d just issue us our own flavour of Government Cheese.

We aren’t seeking our own special place within the State – we’re trying to get its corrupting influence Out Of Our Lives. We aren’t trying to make an income as Full Time Advocates on the public purse – we’re trying to eliminate the Advocates all together. There aren’t enough of us with the free time to do anything about this – and that is why the Left will always win.

If your goal is a civilized, peaceful society, free of huge power conglomerations (be they corporations or interest groups), Democracy is the Wrong Tool to Use. Sure, for a couple hundred years it seemed to work okay; so did Socialism in the EU.

They worked despite their flaws. Having a strong culture and an ethnically homogenous population will allow pretty much any system to pull off Civilization. Democracy didn’t make us Civilized – We made it Civilized – it was a system designed by the most Savage of the European races, and it should have been abandonded when their Empires imploded 2000 years ago.

History did not End in 1885, and you can’t turn back the clock. Democracy is our past, not our future.

But this doesn’t mean things are hopeless. Next time: Inter-Subjective Consensus.

Crossposted at InMalaFide.  Comment on it over there.

1. Rational Ignorance. Because you only have one vote and won’t influence an election, it is rational for most people to not spend time researching the issues. Attempts to curb this problem could be to require a poll test, but that is full of obvious problems. Democracy depends on voters being informed on issues that they cannot have an impact on, which is to say democracy depends on voters being irrational.