Democracy – the Illusion of Liberty

[sunny225]

internationalman.com/articles/democracy-the-illusion-of-liberty/

Democracy – the Illusion of Liberty

In the run-up to an election in any westernised country, candidates are forever reminding us that the opposing political party and its candidates intend to take away our democracy. Far less time is spent warning us that the accused party will tax us heavily, destroy the economy, or take away our liberty.



Whether or not democracy should be the most important issue to the voter, the political parties unquestionably want it to be uppermost in the minds of voters… and they want voters to be in fear of losing it.



So, let’s step back a bit and have a look at this sacred cow. Consider the system it replaced and why it figures so prominently in today’s political rhetoric.



Democracy has been around in one form or another for millennia, but it really came to prominence following the Middle Ages. It replaced the feudal system – a system that’s looked upon today as having been quite primitive.



Back then, many people owned small plots of land, which they generally farmed. Those who owned no land often approached a nobleman who owned large tracts of land. He would provide the landless with a section of land to be farmed. In return, the standard payment was “One day’s labour in ten.” In essence, this meant that the nobleman would receive 10% of your crop, whatever it might be. The nobleman’s henchmen would serve as collectors in good times, and as an army, if invasion occurred.



Chances are, the serf would remain on the property for life, as might subsequent generations.



So, what happened to this deal? Why did it fall out of favour?



Well, not surprisingly, anyone who was beholden to a nobleman was likely to resent the fact that he was dependent upon him. The rich man in the castle was the perfect demon – easy to focus on as the sole cause of all that was ill.



Eventually, towns sprang up, and anybody who could cover the expense of building a shop could use it to ply his trade, becoming independent from the noblemen. Not surprisingly, this newfound freedom appealed to many, and towns grew, some expanding into cities. Along the way, castles fell into disrepair, and noblemen no longer had the economic clout they once had.



So, it would seem that that would spell the end of privileged rulers who lived off the poor vassals. But that’s not what happened. There will always be those who seek to live off the hoi polloi like ticks. Such people soon set themselves up as mayors, and on higher levels, members of parliament, etc.



So, instead of resenting a single nobleman, the average man had a host of people to resent. And, after all, who were these leaders? What right did they have to rule over others?



This problem was solved brilliantly with the adoption of democracy.



On the surface, democracy represents liberty – free choice. The average man, no matter how poor and insignificant, has an “equal right” to vote. In his eyes, he has taken part in choosing whether he wants Candidate A or Candidate B to rule over him.



The voter is so pleased with the appearance of choice that it rarely occurs to him that neither Candidate A nor Candidate B has any intention of representing his needs. Quite the opposite: both candidates fully intend to represent themselves and the system that made their rise possible.



And herein lies the beauty of democracy to the would-be ruler: Once the voter has accepted the democratic system, he can be enslaved to a far greater degree than he could have been under a lone nobleman. At best, the voter gets to switch oppressors every few years at election time. As Thomas Jefferson said,


more at link

[joebill]

Well, obviously, democracy means you can do anything you want to anybody you want as long as you can get a majority to go along with you.

In the small city of my birth, decades ago, the mayor was dining with friends at a local popular club and a few tables away, a lone diner felt the need to clear his sinuses before cutting into his "Villa Nova ribeye special", and the sound offended both the mayor and certain of his friends, and the mayor pledged to put a stop to such behavior at the first opportunity.

At the next council meeting, a law was drafted and passed allowing for a hefty fine for anyone who blew his nose at a public eatery.

I never did discover how the law faired in court, because shortly after I was "west bound and down", but I imagine it is like a host of other laws from the midwest, still on the books but the subject of public ridicule.

The even smaller town where I grew up had it's own "special interest laws", whereby there was a cast iron bench set into the front of one of the town's oldest buildings, put there specifically over 100 years hence to allow for the men who were too old to work any more to gather and enjoy themselves harmlessly. At the time, that activity included sitting on the low bench and looking at the newly exposed legs of the ladies on the street, since prior to that time those legs had been safely tucked away from the general view.

While the ladies seemed to enjoy exposing their legs almost to the very top, they see4med to resent just anybody seeing and commenting on them. Had the bench contained only teenage boys there would have no doubt been very little trouble, but those oldsters were offensive, and needed to be culled out.

Right away, a solution was proposed and adopted. Sitting on the bench was always paired with another constant activity of old men, which was chewing tobacco and spitting the cud on the sidewalk, so a law was bulled through making it against the law to spit on the sidewalk in Neoga Illinois ......

Before long, the loafers had put in a lot of practice and could now clear the sidewalk and land the cud beyond the curb onto Route 45, a state highway that would not entertain any restrictive laws regarding spitting.

All of which seems to have not much real meaning except that when you give a man the power to make or break a law, he seems to all of a sudden think he is a god.... and at that point he needs to be either drummed out of office or put down like a rabid dog.


Of course, I cannot be accused of favoring either solution over the other, right? It is the people's choice, this being a democarcy...right?


NO, not right. and anybody who does not know the difference between a democracy and a republic should refrain from public comment on either until and unless he has educated himself.....Joe