Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Which form of tyranny is most acceptable?
There are many -isms, ideologies and religious ideas based on autocracy. Every form of government, even our experiment with Democracy, is oppressive. There is a reason for it; government is by definition oppressive and people are, in general, highly stupid and when they are not stupid they are selfish. This combination of a pre-determined oppressive upper management and large groups of highly stupid and/or highly self-centred people means that a democratic country will automatically head in a totalitarian direction.
People have tried to circumvent this, usually by law. For example the republican form of government is an attempt to build a country of and by law instead that of a country ruled by sovereign decrees or ruled by the vim of many. This too has always failed – from the Romans to contemporary USA. Sooner or later the country/empire crumbles from inflation, outside threats and a population increasingly succumbed by “free lunches”.
Communists/socialists have tried to build a form of government were everyone is supposed to be involved and take part in every decision that affects them. Locally and nationally the worker/inhabitant should be able to vote on and effect decisions and in doing so the communist/socialist believes that people will be happier, become more involved and that the end result will be better. This too has always failed in the most horrific of ways with hundreds of millions of dead as a consequence.
Monarchies, empires, sultanates and many others have come and gone with various results and various degree of oppression. We also have had, and still do have, religious types telling us to heed the words of God(s) and let those guide us.
Democracy seems to be, so far, the least objectionable form of government. But democracy too have failed on numerous occasions - from early city states in Greece, Germany and Italy to the Weimar republic there seem to be a built-in mechanism that can propel a democracy into totalitarianism. Looking around today it is easy to see a lot of problem with the democratic form of government. Democracy in itself is also, at least in some ways, oppressive.
We do not need to resort to bringing up the classical “black-haired majority VS the light-haired minority” –argument, in order to understand why or how a democracy is tyrannical – it is enough to listen to our neighbours and relatives to realize there are a lot of unresolved and overbearing issues.
Consequently if we push most of above ideas aside for a moment and instead focus on the most favourable and arguably most successful form of government; that of Democracy, we can conclude that although this form of government is, in part, a success story, it too comes with a lot of problems –especially in the long run.
Tyranny does not only come from above via of a small minority or from a king or Pharaoh, it can also come from the majority. Especially when the majority is; A) Tricked/Fooled/bamboozled into thinking/voting in a weird and soon to be totalitarian way. B) The politically correct road becomes the only road and all unbelievers are bullied to vote in a specific way. C) Government becomes too large and unmanageable so that each part of it is so anonymous that no-one really knows who decides what – there is no accountability.
We know from history that a smug salesperson can convince people and get them to vote for things they actually do not want. Adolf Hitler’s road to power is the most obvious example, but almost every general election works in the same way. We have a lot of political parties that want power, but few want power to do good and better humanity. A scarce number of politicians may both say good things and have good intentions, but they always get gobbled up by the system.
And if we´re really honest with ourselves; living under the scrutiny of moral busybodies wielding close to omnipotent power in a hard-to-grasp-democracy while they try to guide us to, what they perceive to be; moral path, which is religiously or politically correct, is not far from the same tyranny as that of a almighty sole sovereign. It is in another form and with the illusion that we can later vote for something else, but in the end; does it really matter if one person or the majority tells us what to do? Furthermore; isn’t it better to know who to blame? A king may be horrific, but at least we know, if something goes wrong, who to blame. Also any changes made by a king is immediate, in a democracy it is always slower or may not happen at all.
I have always seen those that torment and chaperon us with moral superiority as just as bad as any dictator. Not directly the same of course, but morally and at its core; is there a difference? A dictators lust for power and control over people’s lives sort of end with his control and decision power. Although there are exceptions the dictator does not need to proclaim moral dominance, he only wants obedience. This “obey or else” paradigm, however horrific it may be, is only slightly more objectionable then the “We know best what is best for you so obey or we will tell everyone you are a fascistRascistBiggotedMoron” paradigm. In both systems you may go to jail for not complying, in both you are obliged to follow rules, laws and sometimes you are even forced to vote.
The difference, you might argue, is that in a democracy we can still object and voice our opinion – which is partly true. But what if a democracy slowly, but surely, impose more and more laws and regulations aimed to push you into the politically correct folder with public flogging (not literally… yet...) as the alternative? Is that really so much better? And in order for us to be able to object and voice our opinion we need to know what is wrong and where the problem is, and we need to have a forum or an outlet to be heard. Especially with today’s surveillance society and todays situation whereas mainstream media and those deemed better control everything for normal folk, can you really argue your voice is being heard? In what way is that different from that of a dictatorship?
Yes, Democracy is better than dictatorship, at least in the short run, but morally and as a long-term consequence it is hard to see the difference.
To me the republican idea is probably best, at least in theory - as consequence it too seem to end up in the same bin as democracy, but isn’t there a way around that?
My thinking has always been to combine several ideologies and forms of governments to get the best result. For example combining a constitutional monarchy with republican ideas in a mixture with lots of governmental control functions easy to view, read and understand for any commoner. This also means that any form of socialism or stateism automatically goes out the window since such ideas also comes with big government – and the bigger the government is the harder it is to understand, grasp and see what the problem is and how to fix it. This coincidently is one of the main reasons why I usually title myself as libertarian since the libertarian ideology favours limited government and consequently we can in a libertarian society easily determine what is wrong with any existing government and fix it. In this sense libertarianism is the truest form of democracy.
I am not completely convinced that a libertarian utopia is the best form of government and I have too many conservative traits to completely throw out all government functions. The oxymoron of a republican monarchy with a limited government and plenty of control functions does appeal to me, and even if a few of the socialist- and social conservative worries about libertarianism would come to pass, I still see this form of government (and potential oppression) as the most favourable.
And the beauty of the libertarianism is that underneath the umbrella of free choice and individualism there is an option to have socialist- syndicalist or anarchist communities. As long as people join, for example a communist enclave, out of free will and have the option to, whenever they so pleases, to leave such a society, it is okay – you can do so.
However this beauty is also what I object to when I say I have conservative traits. Basically I do not think such a society would work very well and it is probably easily corrupted or taken over by unscrupulous types. Also I believe that people need structure, that they need a (very) small degree of overlordship. To take an extreme and today popular example; it is possible for paedophiles within the libertarian model to create their own country within the country and since (very young) children cannot fend for themselves, how can they cope? And what about the mentally challenged?
I know the arguments against such objections and I suppose that in a free and honest society based on free choice and individuality any such extreme example would fail since no one would trade with or protect the paedophiles from outside threats, and the social pressure coupled with direct coercion would stop them, but I can still not completely ignore the risk.
Also, as a quasi-conservative, I do like things like Monarchy, school uniforms, tradition and history. I believe that we cannot go forward without knowing what happen before and that sometimes when moving forward we should do so step-by-step and not rush.
The libertarian idea of a perfect society is the best I know of; at least it is the least tyrannical. Not sure if we can ever get to a point where there is no oppression, perhaps in a distant future, but until then I will continue to argue for a conservative republican monarchy version of the libertarian society.
Upplagd av Anonymous kl. 9:17 AM