|
|
||
Tyranny of One, Tyranny of AllDemocracyWritten by Darrell Anderson. Read many anti-statist writings and invariably a reader will form a picture that most anti-statists are against democracy. Generally, this is true. The straightforward reason is democracy is a tool through which people are deprived of possessions — under the color of law. Generally, people trade their bullets for ballots and begin plundering other people. Democracy often is defined as majority rule, tyranny of the majority or, two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for supper. There is one only way in which democracy can succeed and that is to provide mechanisms where people are not forcibly deprived of property titles. That can happen only when each individual provides full affirmative consent to participate and thereby be bound by majority consensus decisions. Outside the mechanisms of statism, democracy functions well. Many associations and clubs operate using some form of democracy. The difference is that every individual participating in those voluntary associations has provided explicit consent to be bound. More importantly, with such organizations property titles rarely are at stake as with the democracy practiced through statism. Yes, without the coercive powers of statism, finding consensus for some community decisions might take more effort. However, when people know they do not have to fear the loss of property, they likely are to be willing to participate, contribute, and seek reciprocating beneficial solutions. One more thing. All votes always must be public. There never can be secret ballots. That is the only way to encourage full and honest participation because nobody hides. Because nobody need fear loss of property without explicit consent, no individual need fear being public about opinions and votes. For democracy to succeed, self-interest must not be allowed to be perverted into greed. This is best constrained through an open and honest process, not a secret one. I am not against trying the experiment. Just stop threatening under the color of law to take from me that which does not belong to you. I am not against the idea of voluntary and cooperative democracy, I am against the idea of legal plunder and acting under the color of law. I oppose the illusion of fiat legislation. Likewise, I am not necessarily against parchment barriers otherwise known as constitutions, but unless severe restrictions are implemented against public servants and unless property rights are held inviolate, then such barriers are meaningless. Because etymologically anarchy means “no rulers,” many people mistakenly believe that anarchy also means no organization or no hierarchy. Not so. No group of people, whether free enterprise or a communal social system, can coordinate efforts without some form of organization. What must remain absent is political power and the ability to abuse positions of organization. Political power opens the door to pervert self-interest — to covet. Property rights must be inviolate. No community of people, no matter how small or how great, can survive without some form of democracy. There must be an allowance for some forms of majority consensus, but not majority rule. Voting to create consensus opinion is one thing, voting to redistribute power and wealth is another. Stop the madness of eminent domain, property taxes, debt financing through property taxes, etc., and democracy might have a chance to succeed. Perhaps. Finis. Next: That Damnable Number |
||