Democracy is garbage

The freedom to rule your own life is far more important than being able to cast a vote to decide how we shall force everyone to live theirs.

Democracy: Mob Rule with Better PR

Democracy isn't some enlightened system of governance — it's simply mob rule dressed up in respectable language. The core mechanism remains unchanged: the majority gets to impose its will on the minority through institutionalized force. No amount of constitutional "guardrails" or procedural window-dressing changes this fundamental reality.

The "Guardrails" Myth

When Democracy Works as Intended

Democracy defenders claim that constitutions, bills of rights, and institutional checks prevent the worst outcomes of majority rule. But what happens when we look at actual democracies?

Examples of Democratic Outcomes:

The Pattern: In each case, the majority voted for policies that destroyed prosperity and freedom. The "guardrails" either didn't exist, were circumvented, or were modified by the very democratic process they were supposed to constrain.

The Judge Problem

Who enforces these supposed guardrails? The democratic government itself. If the majority votes to change the rules, who stops them? The courts? They're appointed by the democratic government. The military? They're controlled by the democratic government.

Example: If 51% of people vote that the other 49% should forfeit their property, and the democratically elected representatives pass this law, what mechanism prevents it? The constitution? It can be amended democratically. The supreme court? Their interpretation changes with democratic pressure.

Democracy contains no mechanism to prevent mob rule because democracy IS mob rule.

The Absurdity of "Equal Say"

The Thoughtful vs. The Mob

Consider this scenario:

A is outnumbered 2-1. His thoughtful analysis is worthless. Democracy says the mob's uninformed emotional response should override the individual's reasoned decision.

The Store Analogy

Imagine this same logic applied to commerce:

The outrage would be immediate. The store would face customer boycotts, reputation damage, and business failure. Why? Because we instinctively recognize that strangers have no right to dictate your personal choices.

Yet somehow, when we call it "democracy," this same tyranny becomes virtuous.

The Expert Problem

In every other aspect of life, we defer to expertise:

But when it comes to the most complex challenge of all — organizing society and economic systems — suddenly we think the average person's opinion should count equally with someone who has spent decades studying economics, history, and political theory.

The Reality: The majority of people can't successfully manage their own finances, careers, or personal relationships. Why would we want them managing everyone else's lives?

The Normal Distribution Problem

Most people, by definition, are average. That's what average means. Yet most people's life goal is to be above average — more successful, wealthier, happier than the norm.

The Democratic Contradiction: Why would we design a system where the average people (who most individuals are trying to escape being) get to dictate how the above-average people (who most individuals aspire to become) should live?

Example: If you're working 80-hour weeks to build a business and become financially independent, why should people working 40-hour weeks and living paycheck-to-paycheck get equal say in how much of your success you're allowed to keep?

Democracy as Popularity Contest

The Crude Solution

Democracy is the most primitive method of decision-making: raw numbers. No consideration of:

It's literally: "Count heads, impose will."

Market vs. Democracy

In markets: Businesses must satisfy customers individually or lose them. A shoe store tries to stock multiple colors because losing customers hurts profits.

In democracy: Politicians only need to satisfy 51% to impose on 100%. The minority has no recourse — they can't "shop elsewhere" for governance.

Result: Markets create win-win outcomes (voluntary exchange), while democracy creates win-lose outcomes (forced compliance).

The Fundamental Injustice

Canceling Out Individual Votes

Your carefully considered vote can be canceled by someone who:

Example: A productive person votes against wealth redistribution. His vote is canceled by two people who want "free" stuff from the government. The result? The productive person is forced to subsidize people who voted to rob him.

Funding Your Enemies

Here's the real-world absurdity: Most people actively avoid living near or associating with people who make consistently bad life decisions — criminals, chronic welfare recipients, people from broken communities. Why? Because these people's choices create undesirable outcomes that everyone else recognizes.

The Democratic Perversity: These same people you wouldn't want as neighbors get to outvote you on how your money should be spent.

Example: A suburban family man works 50+ hours a week, saves for his children's education, maintains his property, and contributes to his community. He's outnumbered by:

The Result: His vote for fiscal responsibility gets canceled. He's forced to fund the very lifestyle choices he's spent his life avoiding. His tax dollars go to:

The Charity vs. Coercion Distinction

If this family man wanted to help struggling people, he could choose which causes align with his values. He might donate to:

But democracy eliminates choice. He's forced to fund programs that directly contradict his values and support behaviors he finds destructive.

Zero Optionality

Unlike any other system, democracy gives you exactly what you voted against.

In the market: If 51% of people want Product X and 49% want Product Y, both products get made. Everyone gets what they want.

In democracy: If 51% vote for Policy X and 49% vote against it, everyone gets Policy X — including the 49% who opposed it.

Back to the Store Analogy: Imagine you go to buy white sneakers, but other customers vote that you should get blue ones instead. You're forced to take the blue shoes and pay for them. You can't shop elsewhere, you can't refuse the purchase, and you can't get your money back.

That's democracy: You get what you explicitly voted against, you're forced to pay for it, and you have no recourse.

The Ultimate Insanity: You're not just getting something you don't want — you're funding people whose life philosophies are diametrically opposed to yours, whose decisions you've spent your life avoiding, and whose outcomes you would never choose for yourself or your family.

The Core Question

What moral principle justifies allowing strangers to dictate:

Simply because they outnumber you?

There is no such principle. Democracy is simply institutionalized aggression — the mob using the state to impose its will on individuals who never consented to be ruled.

Conclusion

Democracy isn't the "least bad" system — it's simply socialism by committee. Instead of one dictator, you have millions of would-be dictators voting on how to control everyone else's life.

The only legitimate "vote" is the one you make with your own life, property, and voluntary associations. Everything else is just a sophisticated form of mob rule.

True freedom means you get to decide how to live your life — not your neighbors, not the majority, and certainly not strangers who vote to use government force against you simply because they outnumber you.