18. Democracy 101
Democracy is claimed (by our rulers and their intellectual, media sycophants) to be the ultimate and only possible evolution of social organization and civilization, a method to capture the intent and will of the people by choosing leaders who then create laws in the public interest which are then enforced by impartial courts directing armies of police, bureaucrats and military, enforcing their (claimed to be our) will on the population at large.
Hopefully, the reader knows that the basic intent and will of the people (as expressed by ALL people, throughout ALL of recorded history, including now) does not require polls. ALL People want to survive which equals ability to choose, freedom and property rights. The reader should also be aware that our rulers know this and rationalize virtually all of their actions in terms of "necessity" to achieve these basic goals and consistently fail to achieve any positive results except profit for themselves, at our expense.
It should also be noted that the fall of the Soviet Union completely discredited socialism (promises freedom from personal responsibility, at the expense of enslaving others) as a viable method of social/economic organization. The values of socialism did achieve the result of completely destroying any residual property or economic rights in law, which still stands. We are slaves and have been for some time. The current problem for rulers is that the last pretext (socialism, making people dependent) for our slavery has been totally discredited. Our rulers lost a primary excuse (helping the unfortunate) for people tolerating being slaves. All rational people, worldwide know for a fact that socialism creates dependency, destroys civilization and profits only those who gain a commission and jobs by claiming to help the unfortunate. For US citizens, the 1991 implosion of the USSR also cost their belligerent war economy an enemy. Military budgets were being slashed, worldwide. The world breathed a sigh of relief, expecting a " peace dividend".
What we got instead of the " peace dividend" was the "war on terrorism", another excuse which translates into our rulers claiming we must trade all of our rights, freedoms and property in order to be secure. Since western civilization is defined by the "rule of law" and freedom (to be productive, among others things), our rulers are really claiming we must give up civilization and the values required for survival for security. This situation is completely Orwellian: "Freedom is slavery", "Peace is war".
I make the bold assertion that this current state of affairs is not "the will of the people" and a factual explanation must exist explaining exactly how the chain of accountability between the people and those who claim to be acting on our behalf has been destroyed, placing the survival of every person on the planet (including our rulers) at risk.
18.1 Are States Legitimate?
The true definition of state is a collection of institutions operating over a geographical area which are restricted to common interest, treating all equally, with no discrimination allowed except against those who are criminals, defined as those who initiate harm against others. Note that treating all equally DOES NOT mean forcing all to be equal (such as wealth re-distribution). It is the function of law to insure this. When a state fails to abide by this definition, aided by corrupt law, it becomes illegitimate, a tool of manipulative elites to fleece and enslave people. In this case, the question of democratic legitimacy becomes moot. There is nothing, including democracy that can legitimize a criminal enterprise. No people would willingly vote for their own non-survival. Ask any reformed Nazi or Socialist. There no longer appears to be a state on the planet which meets the above definition. Virtually all states rely on some mystical "X Factor" to claim powers that are different and greater than what individuals are lawfully allowed to exercise.
Consider the options that states have when ALL citizens except members of the apparatus of state withdraw their consent, support and tolerance. Under these conditions, states have no option except to initiate force (criminal by definition) against the entire population, as opposed to whatever portion of the population dissents at any other time.
18.2 The Mystical "X Factor"
Virtually all citizens of western democracies would not hesitate to call the police if some individual or group stole your property, invaded your home, interfered with your right to be left alone or did anything to interfere with your life and freedoms. Virtually all people in western democracies believe that they have certain rights. Where they disagree is whether OTHER people have equal rights, by virtue of some claimed inferiority making them less than human.
If you are honest, you know, that if you as an individual or member of a group interfere with the equal rights and freedoms of others, then you are acting in a criminal manner. Thus, in western civilization, no individual or private group has the right to commit crimes against or interfere with the freedoms of any other citizen. This freedom to be left alone is really your ability to use your time and energy (life) to survive by honest trade with your fellow citizens and to keep the fruits of your labors.
When politicians ask you to vote for them, to represent your interests in the apparatus of state, they are really asking you to delegate a portion of your choice and powers to them. When a politician wins, he becomes your proxy, using your choice and powers, hopefully, to achieve goals to which you agree. Otherwise, you have been defrauded (consequences of trade misrepresented) and can withdraw your consent.
The state is theoretically controlled by these proxy decision makers, who have been entrusted with a portion of your choice and powers. When they make choices contrary to your survival interests, it is certain that they have lost your consent and all legitimacy. The state is thus an organization vested with some of the powers of the citizenry, completely dependent on the citizens for everything, including legitimacy. There is no such thing as state money, property or interests, it all belongs to the people who have provided it.
The power of democratic states is equal to the sum of the powers of the individual citizens who voted for the winner. Those who supported the loser consented to nothing. Any power exercised by states outside of the sum of the individual powers delegated by supporting citizens is illegitimate, with no factual, lawful or moral basis. Similarly, citizens who support their rulers, by voting or paying taxes are responsible and morally culpable for the actions of their rulers. Terrorists are thus factually and morally correct in targeting those who are complicit in crimes against themselves and peoples. When you allow your rulers to prey on and harm others, the action and thus the consequence, including defensive retaliation of victims has been chosen by you.
Since no individual citizen has the lawful right to engage in criminal acts against other individuals, where do states get this right from? By what chain of accountability do states gain the right to declare that they can (and must) engage in criminal acts, for the "common good" and an infinity of other false rationalizations? I call these excuses the "X Factor", a false rationalization that somehow grants states powers that are not derived from the powers or consent of the governed. This is why states have tried so hard and, to a very large extent destroyed the legal and moral value of accountability (personal responsibility), for themselves, their cronies and the population at large. This denial of the immutable relationship between action and consequence, by the physical laws of nature is the sole reason that our species is plunging to doom and extinction threatening total war, as the chickens of suppressed freedom, ecological destruction and rape of civilization by parasites comes home to roost.
Similarly, when states (the gang in control) claim sovereignty, and the United Nations claims that unprovoked aggression against states is the highest crime against humanity, the question is begged: Since states have absolutely no power, money, legitimacy, rights or anything else except what is derived from their people, where does this sovereignty (right to be left alone, unmolested, to live in peace) come from? Is the sovereignty of states actually the people´s collective sovereignty or is this another mystical "X Factor" with no basis in reality? In the former case, interfering with the lives of peaceful individuals, under any pretext is the highest crime against humanity. In the latter case, we have a group of people (the state) claiming rights that are denied to the people, a divine "right to rule", which was soundly refuted by our ancestors during the Renaissance.
The previous section on power explores the nature of this power.
18.3 Are Election Results Legitimate?
I define democratic legitimacy as the apparatus of state ending up with leaders whom a fully informed population are willingly supporting on an ongoing basis, restricted to the area of common interest (all benefit/pay equally), exercising no powers except the collective sum of those that lawfully belong to every individual citizen. After all, a state is but the sum of its people and, by definition has zero power except that provided by citizens who pay tribute to meet the needs of government.
The following cases refer to the dominant factions being honest or dishonest. A situation of total honesty or dishonesty in any large group is very improbable.
18.4 Is it Possible To Survive As An Honest Politician?
It is claimed that the true nature of the state is that all public servants, including politicians are trying their best to serve the peoples interests. When evidence to the contrary comes out, it is claimed that a few bad apples are inevitable, but don´t worry, a very expensive commission will be formed to study the problem for as long as it takes for the public to be distracted by other outrages and other commissions. Inevitably, since commissions are investigating their cronies (and their criminal income sources), the results are inevitably false and misleading. This has been the normal state of affairs in every democracy throughout history.
For all of recorded history, no state has ever come close to the ideal of public servants, honestly pursuing common interest. The basic fact that states demand and claim it is "necessary" to use illegal powers, for the "good of the people" opens the door to corruption, encouraging and rewarding criminals. The consequence is that those now deemed "terrorist" (victims of state predations) must defensively fight for their very survival. To King George III of England, the founding fathers of the US were terrorists, as has been every group demanding freedom and to be left alone throughout history.
That states rely on force and fraud (powers that are denied to all others) to achieve their ends is a historically well known fact that is encouraged by entrenched interests such as bureaucracy, law, arms industries, financial interests, media and other conflict mongers who remain untouched while the public foolishly believes that changing puppet rulers (who must achieve their position by appeasing these very same interests) will have any positive effect at all. If a miracle happens and an honest, determined leader with the necessary public support achieves power, a lone, deranged assassin with no provable relationship to any other interests magically appears, to re-establish the master/slave relationship between state and individuals. States, when they stray outside the area of common interest, cease engaging in honest trade. This means that their survival requires prey and they cannot leave people alone, by their chosen method of survival.
To answer the question of the survival of honest politicians, we must know what honesty is and whether honesty has any survival advantages in the environmental niche that politicians occupy. The definition used here is that honest people are those who engage in mutually agreed trade of value for value. Honest people do not use force, coercion, deception or any other means except providing exactly what they promise in trade.
Since politicians rely on public support gained by truthfulness and earned trust, their supporters are by definition honest citizens, who also survive by honest trade which requires working and providing real value. The time and energy of honest people is mainly spent working. Force and fraud are more economically efficient (require less time and energy) than creating the value (something that people want) required for honest trade. Thus, honest people are at a disadvantage by having less time and energy both to participate in and pay attention to the political process.
Dishonest people live in an environment where meeting their goals depends on using force, contriving successful frauds, not getting caught or partnering with corrupt elements of the system for protection. Since crime is much more efficient in the short term, criminals (and dependents of the state) have more resources to pay attention to and influence the political process.
The answer to the question of whether honest politicians can exist depends on the environment in which they function. If the state is fully in accord with the "rule of law", restricting its activities to the area of common interest and the people are morally aware and educated regarding the personal cost of political corruption and crime and paying attention, with real power, then yes, honest politicians can survive and be effective in controlling the people´s power according to the people´s interests. Honestly controlling the state requires honesty by all parties. Failure of any one aspect such as education of the people, law, bureaucracy or politicians is sufficient to completely destroy all possibility of honest government.
In a corrupt environment, honest politicians cannot survive and face survival threatening risks, since to be honest requires destroying the ability of states to survive by criminal methods.
In a corrupt environment, no honest politician, bureaucrat, police officer or judge can do it alone. If the people lack the education, knowledge, responsibility or courage to assume risk and support honest state actors, it is impossible for our representatives to do it alone. All power comes from the people and if they fail to wield it to correct matters when public servants declare themselves master, the people have no one to blame but themselves.
It is comforting for some to claim that criminals corrupted education, media, law, government and most of our social and professional institutions. To fools, this may be adequate blame shifting (destroy accountability relationship between action and consequence), making it appear to be someone else´s doing. The fact is that we have been warned to be vigilant and intolerant of tyrants by freedom loving intellectuals and patriots throughout all of history. We chose not to act when the cost was small. Now, it appears the majority have been subverted to accept criminal values or apathy. The danger of dissent (rapidly becoming a crime) has become immediate and fatal.
An honest, determined person who publicly stands up to power today has as much chance as an accused witch in Salem Massachusetts, during a period of public mass hysteria in 1622. Then, problems such as crop failures were blamed on mystical powers wielded by accused witches. Today, problems such as terrorism are blamed on insufficiently patriotic citizens, lacking the required subservience to state demands.
18.5 Is it Possible To Survive As An Honest Bureaucrat?
Many honest people find the actions of the state and corruption of law to be a problem that requires personally addressing. Perhaps the majority of people who are attracted to politics start off being honest and determined to address whatever pet peeve pissed them off in the first place. These people are innocent lambs thrown into a den of wolves, an environment of compulsions, inducements and perks which makes it very difficult (sometimes dangerous) to go against the status quo with very large rewards for appeasing entrenched and special interests. In addition, the financial costs of being a political candidate inevitably require making promises to financial supporters, always at public expense. In summary, it is impossible to remain an honest politician, especially with corrupt media willing and able to misrepresent and twist your position. The only solution to this problem is to remove the ability of states to act contrary to the "rule of law". This removes all possibility of corruption and government acting outside the area of common interest (ALL benefit/pay equally).
Members of the bureaucracy have a different set of compulsions. At a minimum, their very employment and pensions (including judges) is dependent on following the party line, not making waves and participating in whatever illegal machinations are required to extract wealth from the population at large, for the simple reason that governments do not engage in any activity which the public would voluntarily choose to pay for. In other words, states do not exist by honest trade, the providing of value in exchange for cost.