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.
