I suspect everyone reading this post is familiar with representative democracy, and lives under some form of government which is based on that system. Voting is widely seen as an inherent right of the citizenry, ensuring they have a voice in government and protecting them from naked usurpation. Representative assemblies are presumed to serve the general public and act in the public interest. I believe this is wrong.

Don't misunderstand me here. Consensus is a good thing, and voting can be a good solution to a lot of problems. We use it here on Hive to indicate which posts deserve a portion of the daily reward pool, and I encourage everyone to use that vote power wisely. However, systems like Hive are voluntary. That distinction matters. We were free to secede when Justin Sun turned Steemit into his personal fiefdom and used his weight to install puppet witnesses.

There is a widespread belief that democracy is a virtue in and of itself, and confers legitimacy upon almost anything politicians enact. Even North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, claiming democracy and a republican form of government to serve the people in its very name. Few outside that country believe their propaganda, but most believe their own country is free because of the blessings of constitutional republics with democratic representation. What if the differences between your country and North Korea are not in kind so much as merely in degree?

Winston Churchill is often quoted as saying, "Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time..." Does this mean democracy is immune to criticism? Certainly not. Just before that more famous line, Churchill said, "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise."

In this post, I intend to shine a spotlight on the inherent flaws of democracy, challenge some common presumptions, and suggest the system it is used to legitimize is itself the problem.

Majority Rule

Whatever the title—senator, member of parliament, congresscritter, etc.—the legislator is assumed to represent all members of their state, county, parish, district, department, or other subdivision of the nation. In some countries, voting is mandatory, while in others, it is optional. In either case, how is someone who wins by a 50%+1 majority of voters a representative of the 50%-1 minority? If there are multiple candidates, how is the winner of a plurality a representative of the majority who voted for someone else? If a plurality, or even a majority, does not vote at all, can anyone be said to really represent the populace as a whole?

I contend that democracy is at best the political manifestation of the bandwagon fallacy. While there is often a sort of wisdom of the crowd, popularity does not guarantee truth or rationality. Popularity often means something appeals to the lowest common denominator. Urban legends and old wives' tales are often widely thought true despite being demonstrably false. What people think is "common sense" is often a misunderstanding about counterintuitive reality. In short, neither might nor mass makes right.

Ranked choice ballots try to achieve some form of consensus where even if no one gets their first choice, the winner is presumed to be a compromise candidate widely accepted by most, but this still does not really address the fundamental question of representation, and there will be at least some who preferred every other option above the winner. How does this confer authority over that dissenter to anyone?

Usurped Authority

Speaking of conferring authority, I have a fundamental question about that process. I know the following statement could be its own long essay about the nature of rights and their scope, but for the sake of brevity, I ask you just accept it as stated for now.

You and I are individuals. We reason, choose, and act. Our respective spheres of authority are defined by life, liberty and property. I do not have the authority to violate your life, liberty, or property. You have a reciprocal obligation to refrain from committing the same violations against me. This is the foundation for a peaceful society, and crime is best defined by someone committing a trespass against these equal and reciprocal rights of someone else.

In short, neither of us has a right to rule the other, and neither of us can represent the other without their consent, whether we are next-door neighbors or on opposite sides of the planet. How then can I give some third party authority over you if I do not have that authority in the first place? How are our rights secured by a system designed to allow a gullible majority to be swayed by politically-motivated yellow journalism and dishonest politicians?

Lies, Damned Lies, and...

Politicians are notorious for corruption. They lie on the campaign trail, bribe voters with promises of largesse from the public coffers, boast about bringing progress in vague terms like "hope and change" or "make America great again." We know it's all smoke and mirrors, but many still shackle themselves to one candidate or another based purely on their rhetorical appeal while ignoring all substantive realities.

Once in office, even assuming a candidate ran a clean campaign with simple promises they could realistically achieve, the lobbyists and special interests descend. Wars are started on the basis of lies and half-truths. Laws are enacted based on hysterical exaggerations and fearmongering rather than a realistic assessment of risk and reward, to say nothing of individual liberty.

We know that politicians lie. They know we that know that they lie. We know they that know that we know that they lie. And so on. Dishonesty and deception are de rigueur, yet each time the truth comes to light after a long campaign of lies, people seem surprised, and even in denial about the lies. Why do we pretend any of this makes sense?

Ignorance and Power

Politicians may not be idiots, but they remain human with limited knowledge and inherent biases. How often have you seen some government official making solemn speeches about something you understand well, and realize they have no clue whatsoever on that topic themselves? Perhaps they are blatantly lying on behalf of their own agenda. Then again, sometimes they just have no clue.

The nature of government is to expand its power, and each time it does, the Politician's syllogism comes into play.

1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.

But legislators gotta legislate, so ignorance leads to misguided action. Further, there are the knowledge problem and economic calculation problem of central planning and bureaucracy. These all but guarantee even the most virtuous and knowledgeable authorities will necessarily err in their plans and decision.

How then are voters supposed to know who to elect to make these myriad choices and decisions on their behalf?

Guilt by Participation

Ah, the old chestnut, "if you don't vote, you can't complain." Here in the US with two major parties, a first-past-the-post process, and no mandatory voting, we are in a somewhat unique situation, but this issue still likely arises elsewhere.

Those who believe in the democratic process condemn those of us who question it. Those disappointed with an election result often blame not only those who voted for the winner, but also those who did not participate. We are told we must "vote your conscience," yet we are also told we must sometimes shrug and choose the lesser evil while those who vote for minor parties as a matter of principle when they have no chance to win are also often condemned for "throwing the election" to the winner.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't? Not quite.

If politicians lie, cheat, and steal to win, how do they represent the majority or plurality who elected them? Yet you voted for that politician despite knowing politicians are likely dishonest authoritarian sociopaths. You voted for them, so can you really complain?

If people explicitly voted against the winner, how does the elected politician represent them? Yet you voted for another politician despite knowing politicians are likely dishonest authoritarian sociopaths. You actively participated in the process, so how can you really complain about the outcome?

If people refuse to participate, whether through "voter apathy" or principled opposition to the process, not only do I ask how they are represented, but also, how are they not in a position to complain? They didn't usurp authority to rule their neighbors, yet they suffer usurpation and the impositions of arbitrary and ignorant rulers voters elected.

Conclusion?

Democracy limits voters to a narrow false choice based on the aforementioned bandwagon fallacy to give ignorant and dishonest candidates an illegitimate authority over their neighbors which they have usurped. Those who do not vote are not responsible for the outcome of an election, and also in the best position to complain about governmental overreach. No one is represented unless they can afford to buy a politician. Democracy as a political system to govern society is irredeemable.

Further reading

Lysander Spooner: A Letter to Grover Cleveland, on his false Inaugural Address, the Usurpations and Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the consequent Poverty, Ignorance, and Servitude of the People [1886] (They don't write titles like that anymore!) and No Treason volumes I, II, & VI (volumes II, IV, & V are unpublished and presumed lost). The man's economics are shaky, but his political theory in general is backed by solid arguments. Read more Spooner!

Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy: the God that Failed gets a tentative recommendation. I'm not the biggest fan of many of Hoppe's conclusions, but his challenges to the assumptions in democracy are still worth considering. He is sometimes represented as a monarchist by his critics because of how he frames the incentives of electoral politics in contrast to those of a dynastic kingdom in one of his arguments, but I think this is a misunderstanding of his point.

Murray Rothbard: Anatomy of the State is a brilliant (but reasonably short) essay on the nature of governments and the people who seek political power regardless of the form their scheme assumes to claim legitimacy for themselves. Whether you agree with me or not, you owe it to yourself to read this.

Cover image created in Canva