This started from posts by Libertus, but with expansion and commentary.
Tyrannical nature of democracy
Democracy is a self-destructive political system for several reasons.
Democracy formalizes political competition between interest groups, which leads to deep divisions within the society. It also produces artificial divisions, as politicians seek to gain votes at the expense of one another. Democracy is “a battle over who will acquire the power to force the other side to bend to its will”, and thus it turns people within a nation, within a society, into enemies. This leads to anger and hatred, as it is natural tendency of people to see those without the group as evil: progressives see traditionalists as worse than Nazis; not as group to have a dialogue with, but as an enemy to be exterminated by any means necessary. Result is nation where people despise one another.
This division into herds is absolutely devastating for the society. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn notes, “The true “herdist” will carefully avoid acting or thinking originally, in order not to destroy the uniformity which is so dear to him, and he is also ready to rise immediately against anybody who dares to act independently and thus destroy the sacred unity of the uniform group to which he belongs. The loyal herdist will not rise alone against the sacrilegious offender; he will have the support of the rest of the circumscribed society and thus a mass action of collective protest will take place, forcing the “lonely individual” to conform or to withdraw.”. Examples can be seen everywhere, especially from progressives. The end result however is that democracy – ironically – destroys political action and plurality of political opinion alike. Greater formal democracy leads to reduced freedom.
Democracy seeks equality. But human beings are different by their nature: different through genetically-inherited abilities, through education, life experiences, personality, choices. Thus equality is only possible within an authoritharian, totalitarian society which sees individuals as non-entities (for all zeros are equal). In democracies, government offers to steal from people to give to other people so as to gain votes and/or influence. The result is social devastation: rich can always avoid taxes (even – and perhaps especially – in a democratic society) and poor need to be bought. Thus all the burden of this policy falls onto the middle class, one class which is absolutely crucial for well-being of the society. Eventually, middle class is destroyed as incentive to produce is lost.
Since anyone can gain power by joining a gang – that is, a political party – there is less resistance to government abuse in a democratic system. In a monarchical society – especially feudal one – people gained membership of a certain social circle through birth (or elevation). As a result, different circles (King – magnates – minor nobility – Church in a feudal society; Emperor – nobility of capital – nobility of provinces – thematic armies – Church in Byzantine Empire) kept each other in check; the exact system of “checks and balances” which is so often posited as an advantage of a democratic political system. These circles were also kept in check from the outside. Because likelyhood of joining the abusers was so low, there was less willingness to tolerate abuses from those outside any given circle. Further, these social circles had genuinely different interests due to their differing social positions. In a democracy, all “political parties” are members of the same class / caste and thus have, in effect, same social interests; differences in political programmes are nothing but lies told to gain votes, and they disappear as soon as government is formed. The only actual differences which may exist reflect interests of parties’ sponsors; most specifically, whether they are sponsored by national or international capital. In a feudal or similar system, differences are genuine.
In a democracy, tyranny is hidden by anonymity and numbers. Anyone can point to anyone – or everyone – else. A tyrannical monarch however would be personally guilty, and easy to point to. This has wider social implications (as saying in Croatia goes, “fish stinks from the head”). Monarchical ideal promotes personal responsibility. In a democracy, responsibility has left the individual and become “social” responsibility of people as a whole. Result of this was expansion of crime, moral decay, and destruction of the family. Instead of primates, humans are becoming insects.
As a result, crime rate has gone up. Crime rates in modern democracies are higher than in premodern societies. This is partly a consequence of multiculturalism, but multiculturalism itself is based in democratic ideals. The breakdown in family unit caused by welfare dependency, state intrusion into upbringing and education as well as materialistic exploitation of individuals has destroyed family. In US, blacks have it the worst – 70% of children are born outside marriage (compared to 10% in 1950s). As a result, unemployment, drug usage and gang membership all went up.
Democracy as such is a much greater danger to liberty than is monarchy. As soon as child is born, it becomes property of the state. Everything, every aspect of life, eventually becomes regulated. Mass voting inevitably moves towards totalitarianism. This can be seen from today’s progressives. Voting means competition between ideas, which means that ideas other than one’s own are seen automatically as dangerous. This means that any differing ideas need to be eliminated – today, political correctness, social justice, “hate speech” laws and similar serve the same purpose as “verbal delict” did in Communist states.
Because humans are primarily emotional beings, who require time and peace to consider things, large groups of humans are easy to scare into stupid behaviour. Emotional problems are posed to cause mass emotional reaction leading to demand for governmental solution – any solution. Thus people vote away their own freedom believing that government will solve their problems – like sheep voting for wolves. But government never solves these problems – in fact, it is in elected politicans’ interest to create more and more problems, so that people clamor for more and more restrictions. This is what is happening in the West nowadays: politicians promote mass immigration > mass immigration leads to increased violence > people get scared of violence and ask for security > government provides “security” at price of freedom (more police, more surveillance cameras, larger and more intrusive governmental apparatus in general). And problems are never addressed at their source: drug wars are fought instead of dealing with cause of increased drug usage (breakdown of traditional family, overworked and overexploited parents etc.).
Compared to today’s “democracy”, royal absolutism of 17th century was very mild and non-intrusive. Today, girl scouts are getting fined 500 USD for selling lemonade in wrong areas, one cannot raise his own livestock without government’s approval, laws and regulations are designed to benefit large corporations while pushing small producers out of business. Christians are forced to make homosexual wedding cakes, and conservatives have to pay taxes so that their children can be indoctrinated in progressive egregore / groupthink. State authorizes what people can believe, learn, eat, use for medicine. State brainwashes people, and once majority is brainwashed, anything can be legalized – be it murder (e.g. abortion), rape, genocide etc. Even without it, things are legalized by trumpeting “international treaties”, “human rights” etc., while at the same time basic human rights are being taken away: such as right for self-defense. Democracies always seek to disarm the populace to avoid resistance to their rule, no different from dictatorships – which they in truth are. In monarchies of 1900s, only 3% of populace worked for the crown. Today’s democracies in Europe have the proportion of 10% of populace working for the government at minimum, with maximum of 29% and average on level of EU of 16%. In democracy, government has achieved autonomy from society. Serf gave 10% of income to lord and 10% to Church; in modern democracy, half the salary goes to various insurances (see here), and total tax is 35% (just value-added tax is 25% in Croatia). In addition, quarter of wage may go to landlord if person does not own his own home. Serfs themselves were often poor city people who moved to the country. They had no lands, and could choose which lord to follow. In exchange lord would swear to protect them – and this was generally done. Further, since lord was interested in profitability, he usually allowed towns on his lands to self-govern.