We're so used to the way society is currently organized that we rarely think of alternatives, and when we do think of alternatives we tend to do so in order to defend the current system. For example, when we criticize dictatorships, we tend to compare them to democracy, and we tend to find democracy the superior system. However, democracy can hardly be described as perfect. Two years of insanity, especially in the democratic West, has made it clear that democracy is flawed.
All sorts of abuses have been made by people in power, ranging from censorship of scientific thought to mandated injections of experimental medicines and concentration camps for the unvaccinated. Defenders of democracy must therefore fall back to the old argument that democracy isn't perfect, but its the best there is, and there's therefore no need for any change. But is this really true? Is there no system better than democracy?
To answer these questions, we first have to identify the weakness in the current system. Why didn't it stop the abusers dead in their tracks? Why was it that Africa, of all places, ended up as a shining example of good governance in the face of hysteria? For two years straight, people in poorly run democracies enjoyed more freedom than people in highly efficient democracies. People in typical African countries weren't fined for going outside, and health workers weren't forced to take an experimental injection in order to stay employed.
Defenders of democracy must therefore concede that inefficiencies in government are sometimes a good thing. They'll have to admit that highly efficient governments are dangerous. The clever ones will then go on to say that dictatorships are dangerous precisely because they are efficient, and that one of democracy's big virtues is inefficiency. They'll stick with the assumption that the only alternative to democracy is dictatorship. The perfect system remains a democracy, and all they'll concede is that democracy mustn't be too efficient. But that's hardly a strong argument in its support. If the system is a good thing, why shouldn't we want it to be efficient?
What's avoided in all ramblings about the virtues of democracy is some fundamental thinking about the nature of government. The argument is always limited to various types of government. Government itself isn't questioned, and herein lies the key to the problem we're not to supposed to think too deeply about. Maybe, government in the form of a state apparatus is the problem, and democracy is preferable to alternatives only because it's the system that makes the state apparatus the least efficient.
Let us therefore define the state apparatus in simple terms, without concern for how this apparatus is managed:
The key feature of the state is that it sets some people above others. Some people can define laws and regulations, and they are allowed to include coercion in their law-making. In short, the state lets some people rule over other people.
To avoid the sort of abuses of power that such a system invites, most states have a constitution that sets limits to what kind of laws can be made. There's also an elaborate system of courts and governing bodies that are supposed to prevent any one group of people to set the agenda unhindered. However, all this layering of power doesn't change the fact that some people are given the power to rule, and others are forced to comply.
Such a system will inevitably draw towards it the worst of mankind. Psychopaths and useless querulants are drawn to power likes flies to a turd, and they will push decent people to the side. They will inevitably find ways around the elaborate system put up to stop them, and they will in the end produce all sorts of arbitrary laws and regulations for no other reason than the kick they get from doing so. The more insane the law and regulation, the greater the kick of getting it implemented.
Psychopaths get a big kick out of seeing people acting against their own self interest simply because they told them to do so, and it's this desire for power that has been on full display over the past few years. We have seen with our own eyes how hollowed out our system is, how totally corrupt it has become, and how dangerous it now is as it pushes its way towards total destruction and war. Only the wilfully ignorant would claim that the state apparatus has our best interest at heart.
Some will say that this can be fixed with democracy. We elect new rulers who will sweep aside the rot and corruption and restore the rule of law. But the state apparatus is so entrenched that this is unlikely to succeed, and even if we get a few years of respite, the psychopaths and querulants will be back.
The only way to fix the rot is to dismantle the system entirely. This can be done from the inside as well as from the outside, but it must ultimately be done by the complete rejection of the state as a legitimate legal entity.
Some may say that we have to stick with a state because there's no alternative. But this is simply not true. Stateless societies have existed throughout history, and the institutions required for its functioning exist inside all democracies. If the state was to disappear tomorrow, these institutions would take over.
We have private security organizations. We have private arbitration and law. We have private health and education. Everything we need for a peaceful society exists in a private form. No coercion is needed.
The state only exists because a lot of people believe it to be more just and efficient than the private alternatives that we would otherwise use. However, the state is revealing itself as a danger, and we are going to suffer immensely if we don't soon get rid of it. Armed with nuclear weapons, the psychopaths in charge are in a position to kill us all, and anyone who doubt that this could actually happen needs only to be reminded of what our rulers subjected us to over the past two years to have their illusion shattered. Dr. Strangelove is in charge.
This may seem overly pessimistic, but there's plenty of things to be optimistic about. The events of the past few years, together with our rulers' obvious desire for conflict and war, isn't going unnoticed. A lot of people are waking up to the fact that something drastic has to be done, and many are correctly identifying the problem at hand. We can no longer allow a system to exist in which some people are set to rule over others. It's simply too dangerous, and there are ready alternatives that we can use. We don't need a violent revolution or uprising.
The current system can be dismantled bit by bit in the way outlined in this previous post. If this happens in parallel with a general move towards private alternatives to what the state provides in terms of law, security and other services, the transition may end up seamless and undramatic.
 |
| The social contract |
No comments:
Post a Comment