Skip (logiphage) wrote in libertarianism,

The Ring of Democracy

(This was a speech I gave at an OWS vs Tea Party debate/discussion last year. I decided to attack the root conceptual basis for the problems we face. Oddly it was well received, although some few were absolutely livid, realizing what I was saying was a direct attack on their lust for power. It was written on short notice so I don't think it's my best work. Still I thought some might enjoy)

poverty rate: in steady decline until the war on poverty
terrorism: rare until the war on terror
drug related violence: nonexistent until the war on drugs
income diversity: steadily increasing since the war on poverty
illiteracy rate: increasing since the war on illiteracy
single parent rate: declining until the great society, now increasing

WAR: literal and figurative, on people, or on ideas: endless

This is not accidental. The reason for this is the government class needs these problems to be perpetual.

When the government can't convince you to bomb overseas, it invents problems domestically.
When the government can't convince you to allow it to grow your childrens' debt for welfare programs, it creates foreign 'threats'.

These problems must never be solved or else the armies, literal and figurative, of tax consumers would be forced to get productive jobs.

  1. The government is a gun

  2. Corporations, unions, and old money hold the gun

  3. The gun is pointed at the people

The problem is: Most OWS people think the solution is a bigger gun.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master" - George Washington

The Rule of Law is the principle that all people must be treated equally by the law, unless they have violated the law. The law may not treat them differently merely because they are a member of some arbitrary group.

Democracy is the opposite of the Rule of Law. Democracy thrives by treating people differently according to groups. rich/poor, black/white, male/female, Christian/Jewish, gay/straight, or mere statistical superiority: 51% vs 49%, or 99% vs 1%.

"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose--that it may violate property instead of protecting it--then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder." - Frédéric Bastiat

Once you have accepted that people may be treated differently by the law, taxed or subsidized, jailed or left alone, regulated or bailed out, then the only game in town is deciding who owns the law.

It will always be the corporations, unions, and old money.*

It always has been.

When the right says they need more government power to prosecute the war on terror or drugs, it will be the rich that use that power to protect their privilege. When the left says the government needs more power to prosecute the war on poverty it will be the rich who use that power to protect their privilege. The agents of their privilege will be the armies of bureaucrats and soldiers whose livelihoods depend on their real job, protecting government power and enforcing privilege.

Once you have accepted that some people may be treated differently by the law, the system not only tends towards corruption, it inevitably must become ever more corrupt.

"All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely." - Lord Acton

There aren't three branches by accident. The reason was to create and preserve the Rule of Law.

The people that create the law must not be the same as the people that enforce the law, or adjudicate it. Ideally this is so the people that create the law would be subject to the law.

We've gone far astray of this.

The more we do go astray, the more the people see the game is rigged, the less they abide the law. The more immoral they become. Indeed, why should people obey the law if the government does not? Thus the more laws and police the government needs to keep the people subservient.

Under the Rule of Law, you need very few police and very few laws.

Without the Rule of Law, the government requires, and is creating, ever more laws, and ever more police to enforce them. This trend will continue until we address the cause of the problem.

The solution is simple. Reject the inherently immoral idea that the law may treat people differently.

Reject democracy.

Embrace the idea that all men and women are created equal, and all laws must respect that. Embrace the Rule of Law. Embrace the law that governs the government, the Constitution.

Reject any power the Federal government arrogates to itself in violation of the Constitution. For example: we know the war on drugs in unconstitutional no matter the supreme court says otherwise. How do we know? Because it took an amendment to outlaw alcohol at the federal level. No amendment has been passed for pot. Therefore the federal government is acting lawlessly when they put anyone in jail for pot.

We must stop accepting this.

There is a reason new democracies turn out bad in every nation in the Mideast, in Africa, in South America.

The reason is they are democracies.

Democracy is the problem.

"This is what democracy looks like" - OWS

Indeed. And you have it. Why do you want to perpetuate it?

The reason it took the States United so long to go bad is because we were not a democracy.

We were a Republic that had the Rule of Law, as embodied in a Constitution.

These new nations are founded on democratic principles and people have been programmed to think democracy is somehow going to produce a golden age of freedom and prosperity. Democracies cannot produce these things. It is trying to grow the flower of freedom in a pot of industrial waste. Only when the rights of the people are absolutely protected, which rights cannot (logically) usurp the rights others, and the government has absolute constraints, can freedom, prosperity, and happiness be maximized. A true right is unalienable and universal. If someone tells you a right entitles you to the life, liberty, or property of another, that cannot be a right, because you cannot both have it.

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

What we have in the States United, what almost the entire world has, is fascism. The merger of government and corporate power. Only a few places have anything like socialism, and those are living hells. But Obama doesn't govern as a socialist. He governs like Bush. Like a good fascist.

The reason everywhere is fascist is because we have everywhere accepted democracy. We accept that the Law may treat us differently, and so corporations and unions and old money inevitably seize that power to their own ends.

Their ends do not involve your well being.

So long as we accept that government power may be used to any end those in power want, indeed, why should the powerful allow the hoi polloi to have any real power?

We, the hoi polloi, have conceded our only argument.
We want the power to exist to make government into a ring of wishes, but we expect moral and good people to be the ones who end up with the ring.

In the history of humanity good people have never had the ring, except for very short time frames before they were killed. You can tell who may have been a genuinely good president, they were shot. The ones who were not shot used their magic ring of government power to make sure history books made them look good.

Destroy the magic ring of wishes.

That power is too great for any man or woman. In the States United, the ring of magic government wishes should have 18 well defined powers, as enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

It should not be the One Ring of absolute power as decreed by the Nine Evil Black Robed Nazgul Wraithlords on the Supreme Court.

What can you do? Stop expecting the government to be your wish machine. Reduce your government footprint.

Recognize that when you vote for some benefit for yourself, you are sending men with guns to take it from someone else. The ring doesn't create, it takes.

If you do not have the right to take your gun and tell your neighbor to stop smoking pot, or else you will put him in a cage or shoot him, the Ring of Democracy does not make it okay to send men with guns to do it for you. If you do not have the right to pick up a gun and take 30% of your neighbor's income, or put him in a cage, the Ring of Democracy does not make it moral to send other men with guns to do it.

The Ring of Democracy is not a magic ring of moral action. It is incapable of creating morality in theory or practice. It is a Ring of Power.

I know everyone thinks it would be great to have the Ring of Power. Maybe you could be the one that would not be corrupted. But you will never have the ring.

Evil men are drawn to it; they will not let you have it. But if you managed, somehow, you would become just as evil. It is only a matter of time. How many bright reformers have gone to Washington, only to take up permanent residence? No human returns from Mordor.

We have given the Federal government the One Ring of Democracy, the One Ring of Fascism, the One Ring of pure Power. There is no Frodo on the way to destroy it for us. It is up to us, now, to do that, before it is too late.

It has not, will not, cannot, be used for good in the long run, and any apparent good in the short term is poison. If you obtained the ring, and managed to do some small good while you had it, instead of destroy it, you will have perpetuated evil because the ring still exists.

Shall we continue to embrace democracy? Shall we continue to fight for control of the One Ring of Democracy?

Or shall we accept what the founders of this nation knew. What the founders knew when they wrote the Constitution.

That power is too great for anyone.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded