Tag: republic

The Case Against Democracy in a Free Society

Jack Parkos | United States

“We must do (X)!” says the politician. “We must do it to save democracy!” To the democratic politician, democracy is like its child; they ignore or rebuke all who critique it. But in reality, democracy deserves much criticism for its failures.

Indeed, many people grow up thinking democracy is the last step in political theory. Democratic republicanism is the only way and it must spread throughout the world, say the many. It may seem we live under a great system where everyone has a say in the government. However, all that this means is that everyone else has a say over your life.

From Republic to Democracy

In the United States, we are a republic. However, it has become more democratic throughout the years. For example, one no longer must own property to vote. As a result, those without property may vote to implement or increase property taxes, involving themselves in a matter that does not affect them. Furthermore, criminals and the uneducated have as much power as you. They can vote your rights away with ease. The democratic politician relies on the lower class to gain power.

Without a doubt, democracy can economically incentivize unsuccessful behavior. Under our democracy, antidiscrimination laws often protect those who do not succeed by virtue of alleged equality. For example, schools may no longer choose how they fund their athletics because of gender “equality”.

A Restriction of Rights

Democracy is simply a violation of private property. It is a way for some to receive free stuff at the expense of others. Universal suffrage allows for the uninformed groups to decide what the informed must do.

If the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds … its policies would most definitely reflect the ‘legitimate concerns’ of children to have ‘adequate’ and ‘equal’ access to ‘free’ french fries, lemonade and videos. – Hans-Hermann Hoppe 

Moreover, after democracy came to be, communism and Nazism were able to rise through a democratic process. Democracy can just as easily lead to tyranny as any other form of government.

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. – Plato

In a democracy, a tyrant needs only 51% of the people to support him and his tyrannical actions are legitimate. 51% can never truly constitute the will of the people, and neither can any other figure less than 100%. Majority support does not make an action morally right. A popular vote does not decide ethics.

Poor Democratic Leaders

Under a free society, the best leaders would naturally rise and be chosen voluntarily. Under democratic rule, the worst leaders are generally going to be in charge. Deceptive people have an edge over honest people due to the fact that they don’t have to play by the rules; not doing so makes it a lot easier to garner votes.

Democracy is not based on the common good of the community but rather on irrational voter decisions. Plato uses an example of the doctor and a candyman. The doctor offers you the painful truth that ultimately will benefit you. He may do unpleasant procedures on you, but ultimately, you will see the gains. Meanwhile, the candyman offers you a lollipop. This, of course, is a lot more attractive.

Voters are historically unable to look at longterm consequences of actions, and as a result, many may pick the candyman. This is an excellent analogy. In truth, many democratic voters are like children wanting free goodies. “Free” healthcare and welfare are a lot more attractive to some than long-term and sustainable success that doesn’t come from someone else’s paycheck.

Better Alternatives

In a libertarian society, leaders would rise by protecting their people without stealing from others. It would all be voluntary, unlike democracy. A majority of others agreeing on something does not mean that everyone consents. For example, we can take Ben Franklin’s classical analogy of democracy:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

According to the democratic politician’s logic, the lamb consented to be eaten because the majority of the wolves decided it was okay. Does this sound absurd? My neighbor deciding to steal my income is not freedom in any meaningful way.

Short-term Solutions

Unfortunately, a pure libertarian society is not around the corner. In spite of this, what is a good way to better safeguard rights? The best, most pragmatic short term solution is to “undemocratize” our country. The Founders required that one own land to vote, as they feared that those without land would attempt to steal the land of property owners (they were right; this has happened). It is fair that one should own property to vote, at least on issues regarding private property.

It is also worth debating whether prisoners and the uneducated should vote. Perhaps these are good ideas, perhaps not. But like all ideas, they should see a full and proper debate before reaching a verdict. Many may claim that such a notion is entirely unfair, from the start. How else, though, is it feasible to reduce the size and scope of government?

What Can We Do?

It is unlikely these exact policies will exist. However, those who seek to shrink the state should support any policy that makes us less democratic and prevents a tyranny of the majority. There should be requirements to vote that are worth discussing. These policies will make our country less democratic and more republican (in political theory terms, not the parties).

Naturally, nobody has the right to vote about what someone else does with their private property. But the less property the government steals, the better. Democracy is not liberty; it is an illusion of freedom that politicians can use to gain power.

The Founding Fathers warned us many times of what would happen. The pure libertarian society will not come anytime soon, but any action that supports liberty must be pursued. Naturally, less democracy is more freedom: true freedom.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Does the Two Party System Make Any Sense?

Nate Galt | United States

Many Americans of different backgrounds have been disillusioned by the current political system. There are only two major parties—the Democratic and Republican. All other parties have no means of competing with either and will not be able to break their congressional duopoly in the near future. A significant portion of American voters believes that there are fundamental differences between the two parties. Some view the Democrats as extreme leftists and the Republicans as ultra-capitalists. Others view Democrats as “left” while saying that Republicans are “right-leaning.”

The two parties do disagree on several key stances such as abortion rights and gun control. However, there is one common trend between all major parties’ and their elected officials’ stances: authoritarianism. Despite their mildly differing stances, Republicans and Democrats still agree on the very things that are ruining America’s economy, limiting freedom, and wasting taxpayer dollars. For almost two centuries, both parties have backed the United States’s intervention into foreign conflicts, revolutions, and affairs. Since the country’s founding, it has been at war almost 94 percent of the time that it has existed. Both sides have accepted the Monroe Doctrine as a justification for their involvement in scores of foreign conflicts, such as in the Philippines, the Russian Revolution, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and the Iranian Revolution. The US has also intervened in numerous Latin and South American wars.

Both sides almost unanimously backed the USA PATRIOT Act and unconstitutional spying by the National Security Agency. Several prominent figures in the Republican Party, namely President Donald J. Trump, have called for the criminalization of flag burning and for banning protests during the National Anthem. These figures claim to stand for “liberty,” yet wish to outlaw protest, contrary to the First Amendment. Those positions are not synonymous with supporting maximum personal freedom. Conservative Supreme Court justice Samuel Alito believed that police should have the right to search automobiles on private property without a warrant. According to some people, Justice Alito is a “constitutionalist.” A constitutionalist cannot support a clear and evident violation of your right against warrantless searches guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

Many Republican voters believe that by voting for all the candidates with the letter “R” next to their name on the ballot, they are advancing personal freedom. They point to several Democrats’ anti-gun stances, saying that their positions are the reason that they vote Republican. The president who suggested that he “take the guns first and go through due process second” is not a Democrat. Wanting to strip citizens of their gun rights is approved by both parties.

The War on Drugs is still backed by both the Republicans and the Democrats. It has ruined hundreds of thousands of lives and has thrown many thousands more behind bars for decades-long sentences. The parties may seem to have their differences, but they are trivial. They all agree with policies that will line the pockets of the corrupt Washington elite and measures that will limit Americans’ personal freedom.

A party that supports gun control is not synonymous with liberty; neither is its rival party, which seeks to keep marijuana possession and use illegal and wants to prevent people from protesting a flag.

Neither party will advance individual freedom for the average American. The one thing that they will promote, however, is their own interest.


Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!

Featured Image Source

A New Dawn for Cuba?

By Indri Schaelicke | United States

The communist island nation of Cuba is currently undergoing a significant and historic process, which is sure to shape the future of the country. Cuban lawmakers have been working since early summer to create a new constitution, which seeks to modernize the government. The last constitution was created in 1976, meaning the document is due for an update. Former President Raul Castro and his commission proposed a draft version on July 14th. It includes 87 new articles. Several reforms listed have caught the eye of those hoping the nation will begin guarding individual liberties.

Cuba’s Economic Potential

Cuba has a self-proclaimed goal of establishing a communist society. Despite this, the proposed constitution has recognized the right of citizens to own private property. Cuba must embrace freer markets if it seeks real economic growth.  To do so, they must protect the ability of one to own their means of production and use it as they see fit.

A booming Cuban economy will attract foreign investors, which stimulates the economy further. However, Cuban officials insist that the removal of the clause, is not a shift away from the current socialist system.

Shifting Towards Social Tolerance

Another significant change in the draft constitution is a ban on discrimination based on gender, ethnic origin, or disability. Many western countries already have such discrimination codified into law, and doing this will help Cuba progress towards becoming more socially tolerant.

The country has a history of persecuting LGBT citizens. Thus, making clear that such persecution is unacceptable opens the door for them to become more like the West. Doing so also opens the door to same-sex marriage in the future.

Individual Freedom for All

In the US, those on trial are “innocent until proven guilty”. However, this presumption simply does not extend to the island nation to our south. The proposed Cuban constitution creates a presumption of innocence in the justice system for those on trial. This presumption will do wonders to reducing corruption. Hopefully, it will also begin to protect people from false convictions.

The draft constitution also includes articles which will decentralize government power. The constitution will reestablish the office of Prime Minister of Cuba, who will share power with the President of Cuba and create governor positions in each province. Cuba is furthermore taking preliminary steps towards the creation of a democracy, mandating that the final constitution must be approved by the public via a national referendum in late fall.

It is an exciting time for Cuba, as the communist island nation looks to turn a corner and embrace greater personal and economic liberty for all. The rights recognized in the final draft will have a great impact on how citizens lead their lives for generations to come.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

The Case for Libertarian Monarchism, Part One

By Daniel Szewc | Poland

To many, the sheer idea of any government form that isn’t reduced to nothingness is incompatible with liberty. Yet, to see the full picture, we must look at it from all angles possible. In the case of government systems, the placement of power is the most important. In democracy, the power of the state is absolute, yet the state is a public entity, run by majority rule.

This is precisely presented by the fact that Adolf Hitler came to power democratically. “Democracy is the road to socialism”, as the founder of communism, Karl Marx, once said. What many forget, is that the second power in the Bundestag during the 1930’s was the Communist Party. Thus, totalitarianism in Germany was simply not possible to avoid.

In fact, any system that uses democratic measures of picking leaders is bound to fall into an étatiste (Fr. for “statist”, a term corrupted by modern English speaking anarchists) spiral, over a longer period of time. Whenever democratization occurs, in the long run, so does the expansion of the state apparatus. In Europe, on the other hand, monarchism often has lasted over a thousand years.

A democratic-like system in the USA is failing already, before it’s 300 year mark. This failing state has not faced threats from its usually peaceful neighbors in 200 years. We can see the fall of the system in the USA, by viewing it’s support for socialists like Bernie Sanders within its youth, as well as populists and career politicians for it’s older generation.
Why does this happen? The answer is simple. Whenever elections of any sort occur, conflicts of interest begin to appear. Then, the losing side lobbies to give voting rights to those who support their ideas. The more voters, the more conflicts, and so the snowball effect goes. In the end, people with no meritocratic basis get the right to vote, and strong, monarchism eventually may take over from within or from outside.

Some consider the Republican model as the best idea to preserve liberty, yet in all its forms, it assumes an elective body, and/or a constitution, which is insentient as the sovereign. In this case, since ownership of the state cannot be considered a part of the Constitution’s role, it is viewed as a passive manager of the morals (…of policies passed by sentient beings, able to manipulate words and context).

All of the above disproves two main forms of government- ones in which the sovereign is a person chosen by the majority, and one in which the sovereign can be edited and interpreted by the irrational mob that holds sovereignty. Clearly, monarchism, to be detailed more in part two, is a more secure system to protect liberty.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.