Democracy leading to tyranny

I'm no longer sure that tyranny is an eventuality. In 2009 I despaired it was inevitable. It isn't. There are real reasons that the danger exists, as Academy of Ideas points out:

But ultimately, there are cycles that tyranny begets liberty which in turn begets liberty. Everything is cyclical. Tyranny is certainly part of that list of cyclical things. But when I say tyranny is not inevitable, I mean specifically a few things.

• tyranny is not inevitable at this point in history
• tyranny is not an inescapable end state for all
• tyranny is not universal in the sense that it will exist in all places at all times
• tyranny cannot ultimately overcome our God given, inalienable rights

Tyranny as is argued in the video exists in many forms.  The video is not wrong. But there are degrees of tyranny and different locus points for tyranny; for example woke culture's attempted tyranny is as much tyranny as government's impositions. But the spirit of freedom is a flame that cannot be snuffed. And so long as that's true, tyranny cannot only not be absolute, but it can be held at bay for long periods of time, It can be pushed back. It can be fought and defeated withe every successive generation, if they choose to do so. That is an encouraging thought. 

The pitfalls of capitalism

I am an avowed believer in and supporter of capitalism. I wholeheartedly support the concept of the free market. My initial foray into the political sphere, as a young teenager mind you, was from that trajectory.  I was first a fiscal conservative before discovering my social conservatism a decade later.  The benefits of capitalism over socialism, communism, fascism, monarchies, dictatorships or any other form of governance are spectacular and incontrovertible.  Capitalism supports the Biblical principle of the work ethic. Capitalism supports the notion of individual liberty as well as individual responsibility.  Capitalism supports the idea of a meritocracy.  The other forms of government do not. In many regards they even reject or overtly oppose much of those ideas.

The pitfalls of capitalism I am about to discuss are not meant as an indictment of it, rather a warning that we cannot allow it's few but obvious weaknesses to derail it from succeeding.  To appropriate some William Shakespeare's Mark Anthony, I come to praise capitalism, not to bury it. Nevertheless, I come to gird capitalism by pointing out where it has failed.  Or rather, more aptly, those who profess to practice it, have failed.

Let me preface the below by saying that while I am talking about capitalism, which is an economic system, it is inherently entwined with democracy.  You cannot have a free market without a free people.  Other economic systems are more often than not a political and economic model combined. My commentary below reflects this mix of the economic side of freedom (capitalism) with the political side of freedom (democracy, a representative republic or similar means of governance).  My critiques of capitalism stem primarily from the shortcomings of governance rather than capitalism itself.

Capitalism has never existed in an unfettered state.  If it were so it would be seen to be more brutal than how we observe it. If indeed we existed in a truly laissez faire capitalist society, taxation would be for the creation of roads, the common defense and provide laws that protect commerce and individuals from unjustness (theft, fraud, murder for example).  But capitalism is managed by humans, and where it is practiced, it does more.  

There is a social safety net to help the most unfortunate and weakest among us in every capitalist nation.  When done properly this is a boon to individuals as well as to the system.  When done improperly it can result in bloat (too many recipients, including those not truly in need), or shortfall (not supportive enough or corruption leaching funds from those in need by government bureaucrats).  It should be pointed out that these are not pitfalls of capitalism, they are the pitfalls of improperly executed capitalism, or warping of it by those who seek to gain from unwarranted opportunity. 

But there are pitfalls nonetheless.  Perhaps the most egregious of these is the advent of a kleptocracy by both government and the techo-industrial elite.

In a kleptocracy, corrupt politicians enrich themselves secretly outside the rule of law, through kickbacks, bribes, and special favors from lobbyists and corporations, or they simply direct state funds to themselves and their associates.

This is not a the flaw of capitalism, this is a distortion of capitalism.  Capitalism's flaw, is to lend itself to such distortion.  A free market system, with insufficient guard rails put in place can easily be corrupted by those with the money and power to do so.  Therein lies capitalism's greatest weakness; the inability to sufficiently protect itself from deliberate disruption by the lazy-greedy.  This extends to deliberate disruption by the unwise. Government in seeking to prevent disruption of the economy often inadvertently distorts the economy it creates bubbles.  The proper way to handle a recession is to endure it, not print money and artificially avoid it until the next election cycle.  This creates bubbles, and it creates incentive to expand the bubble and avoid the pain.  This makes the inevitable bubble-burst far worse.  Capitalism does not provide a way to prevent that.

The solution, good government, is not mandated by capitalism.  The smarter way to prepare for inevitable occasional economic weakness is to provide a sufficient safety net in those times and even more critically, provide the incentive and enable the populace the opportunity to prepare for it themselves. Does anyone save for a rainy day anymore?  Why bother when the government does not set the example and instead is willing to throw trillions of dollars they don't really have at the problem?  This is what is often referred to as generational theft.  The government borrows money that following generations will have to pay back. Lazy-greedy in a different way.

In defense of capitalism, no other form of government protects from this any better.  In fact they all serve a concentration of power that enables fewer and fewer to decide more and more and ultimately that power not only serves their corruption and enables it, it encourages it.  The imperfection of capitalism in this regard is far worse in other forms of system but capitalism is nonetheless not excused.

Capitalism requires a higher bar of protection against these weaknesses.  Not just legal protections are needed, as those can be rewritten or avoided through loopholes government has proven itself all-too-willing to use.   It requires a belief, strongly-held among the people, that government is a servant of the people and must be held to account for every action and decision.  This is a lot to ask of a population in terms of time and effort and even awareness.  The problem is that the awareness has been deliberately eroded over generations and even good intentions fail when awareness prevents their use. 

Coupled with the lazy-greedy issue, is the developed sense of entitlement.  Modern Caligulas across government and the wealthy elite and even the famous, feel entitled to their wealth and do not concern themselves that it comes at the expense of the middle class and poorer classes.  They are entitled after all.  They have lived it and been told it all their lives. They Marie Antoinette their way through life unconcerned that the price of eggs has dramatically increased and life has become significantly more straining on everyone else.

This oligopoly of wealth and power make decisions on governance outside of the purview of everyday citizens but in a way that affects everyday citizens (most often negatively).  Think COVID mask mandates "for thee but not for me" as one example. Think Jeffery Epstein's private island for a more direct and dramatic use of people as objects for another example.  All the while they tell you what you observe isn't real.  Inflation isn't bad, it's just you.  

This concentration of power and wealth builds upon itself.  Those inside the inner circle grow bigger and bigger feeding of the rest of society, and make rules to ensure competition to their aristocracy is fettered and hobbled and can never truly get to the top.  Again this is not capitalism, it is a distortion of capitalism.  But capitalism here is not snow-white and sin free.

Capitalism's inherent risk here, comes from it's strength.  one of the underpinning concepts of capitalism is competition. If there is a need going unfilled, capitalism rewards those who seek to fill that need by providing them with a growth in their wealth.  But competition inevitably means there will be more than one person or business entity that tries to fill that need with a solution.   Not all will do equally well and the best (based quality, price and other factors) will slowly grow market share at the expense of the less ideal solutions.  In a truly free market there is a potential that the one best idea ends up becoming the only idea, obtaining 100% market share (or perhaps 90% say). The competition has destroyed itself.  Capitalism has led to a market monopoly.  Perhaps this is inevitable in efficient capitalism.  But the strength of the best winning out, doing the best for consumers in the end, sews the seeds for its own demise.  Monopolies are not healthy in capitalism.  Maybe in the short term they are fine, but extended monopolies become like government.  They seek to exist for their own existence.  They serve themselves and only themselves. People be damned. This is a further recipe for corruption and perhaps collusion with government; you protect my market from other players and I donate to your election campaign. It doesn't matter if a newer and better option has been devised, it must be destroyed before it can grow and replace my monopoly.

It's a sick twisting of capitalism but capitalism itself has done nothing to prevent this twisting from occurring.  Or rather we have not done anything to prevent capitalism from being perverted. Again, laws exist to prevent these distortions but they happen anyway, because people are corrupt. Not just the elite, people in general look out for their own interests.  It's human nature, or in fact, just nature. What capitalism requires is an institutional way of preventing the corruption.  It requires it at a foundational level and it does not have it. More important than laws are two things; awareness and transparency.

Those unfortunately require complete openness about financial transactions at those levels (and in the interest of fairness the, at every level), and media coverage of anything that has been flagged as suspicious transactions. Yikes. While we are probably at a point where that may be technically possible, there are three things that are wrong with that solution.

1. The obvious one we rail over already as conservatives; the media is large enough and corrupt enough to become part of the problem already.  They will have no interest in exposing the problems.
2. There is no appetite to create a financially fully open society; not at the top level, not at any level.  Do you want everyone having the option to know or see everywhere you spend your money? Probably not. Very probably not.
3. This does not cover every possible transaction because not all transactions are financial. "Write a negative story about x, and I will make sure you have free access to y." That will still go undetected.

Capitalism also demands equality of opportunity (NOT outcome - I will never play basketball well enough to deserve an NBA level salary at the job. I do not have the physical traits such as height, to compete at that level).  Democracy as it has existed so far, does not ensure this is the case.  This requires equality of education, equality of access to opportunities, and a removal of unjust barriers to entry.

All is not lost for capitalism.  These problems also exist in every other form of government in some form or another, despite what utopian socialists or communist would have you believe. The strength of capitalism is invention and reinvention.  If those who believe in capitalism can come to grips with it's pitfalls, they can work more diligently to expunge them.  That can not be said to be true of most other systems of governance. Capitalism is redeemable but it requires constant vigilance and it does not have that, which is our own fault. 

Woke media is killing America

Batya Ungar-Sargon, Deputy Opinion Editor of Newsweek, and definitely liberal, argues that woke media has undermined democracy, undermined America and will continue to do so if it remains unchecked. I disagree with much of her premise around systemic racism, but if a left-leaning liberal who beliefs are like that sees issues with woke-ism, then it's a real problem.

How to Red Pill someone; a step by step guide

The one thing even leftists tend to support is democracy.  Of course their twisted definition of democracy equates to mob rule.  I don't know if they still teach that the Constitution was established in the way that it was to prevent majority tyranny.  The separation of powers between Executive, Legislative and Judicial was designed to prevent a concentration of power. The extremely high hurdle required to create Constitutional amendments was designed to prevent mob rule.  The structure of the Congress and Senate was designed to slow legislation.  The Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) was designed to limit government power.  All of these things were designed to ensure liberty and individual freedom.

But freedom is not what leftists want.  They want a democracy, and specifically a democracy in which everyone thinks the same way they do - no diversity of thought allowed. So freedom is actually anathema to their twisted version of democracy.

Set aside their twisted perceptions.  Set aside to that the United States is technically a representative republic and no a democracy per se, in fact no country is truly a pure democracy. If you even disregard those things, there are some undeniable deductive reasoning results that may be able to persuade leftists to reconsider their positions.

Here's an approach to having a red pill conversation with a progressive socialist.  It begins with a series of questions and answers.  These are designed to draw out the thought processes of a person from within, rather than lecturing to them.  Self-realized thoughts are going to resonate far better than a lecture.

1.  Do you think freedom is important? The typical answer to this is yes, or yes - within reason.  Those are acceptable answers.  If someone says no to this, that's a different, and probably impossible conversation.  Nevertheless, it is still important to ask why because perhaps that view can still be altered.  That's a conversation for another time, for now let's assume they agree that at least some level of freedom is important.

2.  How is freedom achieved? Typically democracy is part of the answer because it means you get to have a say in how society works. Some might reply with answers like revolution but then you must probe further and ask how it is maintained. This makes the conversation easier to steer towards democracy. No one would reasonably argue that dictatorships or monarchies or similarly structured governments can provide freedom because they are structured to centralize power.  If you do that you strip away individual choice. Removal of choice is removal of freedom.

3. If they do mention democracy, then ask if democracy is granted by government or by corporations, as if they were monarchs, or whether governments are only put in place (via democracy) to establish and maintain a societal structure that protects freedom. If they argue that governments grant democracy, ask (i) why governments and not corporations and  (ii) if they are granting it to you is it not a privilege rather than a right? (iii) if it is granted cannot it not also be taken away (iv) if it can be taken away, are you truly free?

4. If you have gotten this far you have effectively established that the person you are talking with values freedom, which requires some level of democracy, and that democracy is not granted by a government.  Next comes the red pill portion. Ask this: If a government creates a law that restricts your rights, does that reduce your freedom?  This is a tough one, because some laws make sense - do not murder, do not steal for example.  If they answer yes, move on, but if they hesitate or hedge, grant that laws such as those that disallow murder or theft are necessary. You do not want to delve to far into a side conversation about reasonable restrictions, or 'your rights end where mine begin'.  That is tangential. Instead provide an example; if the government or corporation restricts your ability to state your opinion openly, have they reduced your rights and therefore freedom?  There is no way to argue out of that. Ultimately most reasonable people will agree.  And remember, many people who support socialists and big government are reasonable people, they are simply misinformed.  These people are the low hanging fruit of red pilling. These are the people who are less difficult to red pill, and when you need numbers desperately, that's who you need to go after.

5. Therefore if a government is too empowered to do whatever it wants on a whim, are your freedoms at greater risk? Put another way, if government, even in a democracy can reduce your freedom, and corporations can do so too, how do you ensure that a democracy does not, over time, decay into a totalitarian dictatorship?   Is it reasonable to put restrictions on government the way we do on business?  This may devolve into a side conversation. You may need to point out that government can be corrupted just like businesses can be, because ultimately they consist of people, and people can become greedy for money or power. That is not to say most will, but it is possible.  They only way to ensure it does not happen is to put in safeguards to protect us from government, so that government will continue to protect us from rule breakers fairly and impartially.

6. If you want to put limits on how the government can limit you then you need to demand adherence to the original intent of the Constitution, which was designed to put limits on government power and to enable and empower individuals.  It was not meant to empower groups, just individuals.  Why? Because groups are just another way that individual liberty can be reduced. That's not to say groups are bad, just as corporations or governments are not inherently bad, as long as they do not have too much power.

That's it, if someone comes away from a conversation agreeing with the above points, you have red-pilled them. But that is the fundamental minimum threshold for a red pill awakening. It's just the beginning.  But you want to go further though, don't you?  If so, try this as an add-on to the conversation:

7. What does freedom give us? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness means something.  What?  It means you can pursue your own goals.  It means you have opportunities open to you.  The key word is opportunities.  Freedom means opportunities. Without freedom, opportunity cannot exist.

8.  Opportunity unleashes creativity that can lead to invention and innovation.  Invention and innovation benefit all of society because invention is driven by societal needs. But this can only happen if there is incentive to do so. That incentive can be personal fulfilment or it can be economic in nature (personal wealth).  Wealth is a primary incentive for a large portion of the population, therefore to maximize wealth, shouldn't we make it possible for people to benefit from their invention and innovation?  The only route to doing so is capitalism. But fair capitalism, not one where the most powerful (big business and government) manipulate the rules so that only they can benefit and prevent others from having the same opportunity.

Try it on someone you know who you think you might be able to awaken.  Let me know in the comments if you have any success.

Hong Kong pro-democracy voter turnout in context

An explainer on how dramatically the pro-democracy movement changed the election results from the previous election:

"Democracy" in Canada in action

Faith Goldy is a staunchly conservative candidate who is being elbowed out the race for Toronto's mayor by elitist leftists and Canadian media conglomerates. I am not familiar with all of her platforms but would be open to at least hearing them.  The problem is that so many are trying to make sure that I can't.

Leftists around the world claim they love democracy but don't you dare have a different opinion than them. This is shameful and as a Canadian I would find it wholly embarrassing if it were not for the fact that we are not alone in this problem.

Everyone should see the awful video

Awful production, great message. America, is a Republic, and not a Democracy. There's a good reason for that.

This should be mandatory education, once it's fixed up of course.

The Rationale for America is Quickly Disappearing

I recall telling a fellow Canadian something a couple of years ago when they had wondered aloud why Americans were so adamant about their guns and why they were so up in arms over government health care.  I explained to him that both issues stem from the same national sensibility and that America, as a nation was born of a distrust of government.  The English crown was the problem back then, but the DNA today remains the same - at least for many Americans - government cannot be trusted.

 

A light bulb went off for the Canadian in question.  It did not change his opinion on health care I am sure, but it did clarify his understanding of why people would have certain opinions on certain issues. In fact, he was the type whom I'm sure could and would apply that reasoning to views on other political topics.

Of course the explanation was a gross over-simplification of the conservative viewpoint on a number of issues.  But the simplification had its benefits in that it crystalized quite quickly an understanding that had not existed before. Also, I got lucky.  The conversation could have taken an entirely different, and more argumentative course if I had added one word to my explanation: healthy.  If I had said America was born of a healthy distrust of government, I'm sure I would have made no progress in that discussion.

The reason for the back story is that it relates to another issue. The original rationale for America is quickly disappearing.  The idea that the United States was the child of a core human wish for freedom (not democracy, but rather liberty) has been subverted in two fundamental ways. 

Aristotle in action III

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. 

~Aristotle

Here's a current example of that process in action:

Need I say more?

Why Obama won re-election

No rational, thinking person would give Obama a second chance, but he won re-election.  How is that possible?

Well, people like this are allowed to vote.  It's both amusing and sad that people can be this clued out and still be part of the group responsible for electing the leader of the free world.  I bet if Peter Griffin were running most of these people would for him - even though he's a cartoon.

Another Peter - Peter Schiff explains the voters here.  He also comments (too briefly - see below) on why Democracy represents a tyranny.

Consistency on Honduras

In Honduras the military has overthrown the President of the country Manuel Zelaya, who was trying to get a non-binding referendum to change the Constitution of that country to allow him to run for President again beyond his four year term. The Congress, the judiciary and the army in that country.

Castro and Chavez have sided with Zelaya, Chavez going so far as to say he would not let it stand, saying "We cannot allow a return to the past. We will not permit it."

In an effort to remain consistent, one would expect that President Obama would, while not recognizing the coup, at least recognize that trying to thwart the will of the people as expressed by apparently everyone else in government, Zelaya should not be supported. Just like he is expressing a desire for democracy in Iran.

Furthermore, President Obama, obviously against interventionism (as is the case in Iran, and Iraq), should denounce the pronouncement by Hugo Chavez that caries an ominous air of interventionism.

So far though,the President only has only decided to not recognize the coup as democratic...the problem it appears, is that pretzel logic gets more difficult the more you use it.

Refuting Obama with Democrat quotes

Newsweek in a fawning article declared that We Are All Socialists Now. That Newsweek is a left-leaning magazine is no longer contestable. The article denigrated conservatives for getting their backs up at the idea of socialism in America. According to Newsweek, socialism is already flourishing in America and the right just needs to accept the reality and move on. Excuse me if I choose to disagree. Socialism is unhealthy. It is a cancer upon the liberties that Americans have embedded in their very Constitution. It raids those individual liberties under the guise of a collective good that it actually hinders by it's very nature.

Newsweek can go ahead and call me a twit for disagreeing with them. Firstly, I don't care what Newsweek thinks. I'd say more but I've already mentioned their Obama cheerleading magazine enough times to want to rinse out my mouth. But secondly and more importantly, I'm not the only one who questions whether or not America should be socialist or capitalist. And I'm not the only one who believes that democracy depends on capitalism. You'd expect those thoughts of conservatives, right? But what about a liberal Democrat proponent of capitalism and democracy? Would that get your attention Newsweek? Might that make you take off the cheerleader outfit, put down the pom poms and start questioning your illustrious leader?

In 2006, Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary under Bill Clinton, wrote an interesting little article on the CommonDreams.org website. In it, he argues that the world has answered the question about capitalism versus communism and capitalism has won, hands down. The real issue is that while democracy requires capitalism, it turns out capitalism doesn't require democracy.

China shows that when it comes to economics, the dividing line among the world’s nations is no longer between communism and capitalism. Capitalism has won hands down. The real dividing line is no longer economic. It’s political. And that divide is between democracy and authoritarianism. China is a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government.

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other. That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets. As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.

Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive. It’s true that democracy needs capitalism. Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy. For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government. Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and thereby provides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

But China shows that the reverse may not be true -- capitalism doesn’t need democracy. Capitalism’s wide diffusion of economic power offers enough incentive for investors to take risks with their money. But, as China shows, capitalism doesn’t necessarily provide enough protection for individuals to take risks with their opinions.

Contrast that with this from President Obama;

Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. Thinking only about yourself, fulfilling your immediate wants and needs, betrays a poverty of ambition.

And this;

My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

And lastly, this,

I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself, it's quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American.

The first two point out that maybe President Obama hasn't read Reich's writings on who won the clash between collectivism and capitalism. Clearly those quotes denote a socialistic philosophical bent.

The last quote shows that he may indeed understand the point that Reich makes about capitalism not needing Democracy. How does the last quote indicate anything other than a desire to help the country? It's about expanding government powers. It's about mandating government service - in essence, it's a draft. Much like the President has drafted GM and banks into the government. He's expanding the reach and power of the government to dictate to the people. What the President is talking about in the quote above, isn't really all that different from the Brown Shirts of Nazi Germany. Keep in mind that the Nazi's were the product of a radical left party - National Socialists. It may be too early to call it that way, but better too early than too late.

Perhaps the President sees a period of transitional capitalism whereby the government can intrude on capitalism, leveraging the current China model, that will eventually lead to a more centrally planned society, and the underpinnings of capitalism can slowly be removed and replaced with a socialist state.

Were that to come to fruition we could see a truly ironic world where China may eventually 'stray' towards democratic capitalism and the United States lurches towards becoming a socialist state. Frightening, and sad.

Perhaps a growing number of Americans don't care if they are in a socialist country. Or perhaps they even want it. They shouldn't.

Putin power grabbing again

According to a story in Reuters this morning, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is still moving to consolidate his power base and silence his critics. Speaking to the FSB (the successor to the KGB), Putin had angry words for his country's foes. He has frequently used Western security services (spies) as a rallying point for Russians. Now he's warning 'foes' against trying to destabilize Russia during a the broadening economic crisis facing Russia.

And in a classic look-what's-going-on-over-here-in-my-left-hand-so-you-miss-the-big-picture maneuver, Putin warned "Any attempts to weaken or destabilize Russia, harm the interests of the country will be toughly suppressed". With that statement Putin effectively also warned dissenters against opposing him, while possibly distracting Russians from the economic crisis that is happening under his watch. The crisis in Russia is potentially far more acute than in the United States, as the plunge in oil crisis impacts a Russian export and government revenue quite strongly. Russia is highly dependant on oil exports, and compounding the problem is the continued structural weakness of the Russian system. Russia does have substantial reserves but the spectre of foreign nationals infiltrating Russia always helped Putin's popularity during previous election cycles Putin was running in.

By distracting the country, Putin is hoping to open for himself another opportunity to consolidate his power. It's been speculated that the financial crisis would be leveraged in order to increase control over key strategic assets reversing the actions of the 1990s, when the state sold off major assets to wealth private sector citizens in exchange for loans. Whether this reversal is done via economic leverage or by force, it's clearly another step away from any pretense of democratization in Russia.

Putin seems intent on turning Russia into a police state with himself as the head. That Putin clearly longs for a return to the former Russian glory days of the Soviet Union is of no consequence. What Putin is desirous of most is absolute authority. Whether that comes in a communist state as some believe he longs to repair, or as a fascist style police state doesn't matter. Putin is working on consolidating power for himself in a country, that while diminished, still is a substantial international player, with nuclear warheads and empire ambitions. It's a dangerous situation for any international interest, and with the looming threat of the rise of China as an economic powerhouse, an unwelcome and potentially dangerous distraction for America.