Independence Day—Killing Humanity through Democracy!

‘Of the people, by the people, for the people’-- the basic structure of democracy, but look closely and you’ll find-- since the inception of this ideology nothing has been given to people except promises and beliefs.
Our folks lived under a system where compulsion and restraint were more straightforward, and now that it has gone up against a milder structure, we are required to acknowledge it from birth. Can any anyone explain why we will be a poorer generation than the past ones, without their having been a war in the middle? The blame lies with the hopeless transformations forced by the system.

The system argues to be founded on "free association," yet it is not free, from birth we are compelled to be a part of this administration and have no possibility of picking any other way of life. We don't "freely associate" with the educational institutions, since other ways of learning are prohibited. Furthermore, there's no "free association" required at work, since we don't control what we create, choose our own particular working hours, or have the liberated right to sort out with our collaborators.

It’s generally been said that the vote is free, yet in truth the decision is constrained, in light of the fact that consciousness is not free, but rather subject to the propaganda of the ruling regime and the mores promoted by the groups in power. It is likewise freedom-denying so far, seeing that it diminishes us to only giving our two pennies, yes or no, or saying which party we think ought to control us, which denies us the possibility of developing other possible ways of living together.

Regimes & Democracy

Roman citizens chose agents to head up a multifaceted bureaucracy. As the Roman domain extended and riches overwhelmed, small farmers lost their foothold and gigantic quantities of the seized wealth overflowed the capital; distress constrained the Republic to stretch out voting rights to more extensive portions of the populace, yet political incorporation did little to neutralize the monetary stratification of Roman society. This sounds shockingly well known.

The Roman Republic came to an end when Julius Caesar seized power; from that point on, Rome was ruled by kings. However almost nothing changed for the Romans. The bureaucracy, the military, the economy, and the courts kept on working the same.
This story has been rehashed over and over. In the French unrest of 1848, the temporary government's administrator of police entered the workplace abandoned by the ruler's consul of police and took up the same papers his forerunner had recently set down. In the twentieth century moves from autocracy to democracy in Greece, Spain, and Chile,and all the more as of late in Tunisia and Egypt, social developments that ousted despots needed to continue battling against the extremely same police under the democratic regime. This is kratos, what some have called the Deep State, persisting starting with one regime then onto the next.

Laws, courts, prisons, armed forces, police—the greater part of the instruments of coercive force that we consider abusive in a dictatorship or monarchy, work the same in a democracy. However when we're allowed to cast votes about who oversees them, we’re supposed to take them as ours, even when they're used against us. This is considerable accomplishment of more than two centuries of democratic upheavals: rather than annulling the methods by which rulers administered, they rendered those methods popular.

Democracy & Slavery

The attention on consideration and rejection is sufficiently clear at the beginning of modern democracy in Rousseau's "Of the Social Contract", in which he underscores that there is no difference between democracy and slavery. The more "wrongdoers" are in chains, he recommends, the more immaculate the freedom of the subjects. Freedom for the wolf is death for the lamb, as Isaiah Berlin later put it. The zero-aggregate origination of freedom communicated in this representation is the establishment of the talk of rights conceded and ensured by the state. In other words: for natives to be free, the state must have extreme authority and the capacity to practice complete control. The state looks to deliver sheep, holding the position of wolf for itself.

By complexity, on the off chance that we comprehend freedom as total, the freedom of one individual turns into the freedom of all: it is not just an issue of being secured by the powers, however of crossing with each other in a way that expands the potential outcomes for everybody. In this system, the more that coercive power is brought together, the less freedom there can be. Along these lines of imagining freedom is social rather than individualistic: it approaches liberty as an aggregately delivered relationship to our potential, not a static rise of private rights.

Are you really free?

In democracy we leave the safeguard of our interests, the fulfilment of our needs, and the association of human relations and life, in the hands of others. It is expected that by voting we pick the individuals who we think will best speak to our interests, however that doesn't fit with reality: The political parties in certainty just speak to their own particular advantages, as indicated by the standards, they themselves build up, looking to ascend to the statures of political and monetary power in order to keep up their predominance and impact over whatever is left of society.

What was the basic need of a government? Social equality, economic stability and peace? Here, we are at a point where equality has become a dream, where economic instability is at its zenith and peace is internal. Today, world’s richest 85 people (politicians and corporate) own more than over 3.5 billion people. In a survey by CNN, they quoted- “World’s richest 2% control 98% of the economy.” Peace has been overrated-- the superpower declaring war on countries, making Syria a shooting zone (where people are actually gathering to PURGE). Even if 10 percent of the population votes, they’ll have a majority and sir, you’ll have no say.

Democracy does not assure correct decisions. "The only thing special about majorities is that they are not minorities," explained Lorance Lomasky (an American Philospher). There is no strength in numbers, or rather; there is nothing but strength in numbers. Parties, families, corporations, unions, nearly all voluntary associations are, by choice, oligarchic. Indeed, in assemblies whether direct or representative, in electorates as in legislatures, the whole is less—even less—than the sum of its parts. It is even mathematically demonstrable (but not by me) that majority decision-making generates inefficient, socially wasteful, more or less self-defeating decisions.

The psychology of the ekklesia (assembly) is the psychology of the agora (marketplace): "Voters and customers are essentially the same individuals. Mr. Smith purchases and votes; he is the same man in the supermarket and the voting booth"- Gordon Tullock, Economist. Capitalism and majority rule government rose to predominance together as the objectives of the same class, the bourgeoisie. Together they made a typical universe of egotistical individualism—a field of rivalry, not a field of collaboration.

The Philosophy of Democracy

Democracy, like litigation, is an ill-disposed idea: “Majority rule belongs to a combat theory of politics. It is a contest between opposing forces, and the outcome is victory for one side and defeat for the other" said James Fitzjames Stephen (lawyer, judge & writer). Indeed, as Georg Simmel saw, majority rule is really what might as well be called power. "We agree to try strength by counting heads instead of breaking heads. The minority gives way not because it is convinced that it is wrong, but because it is convinced that it is a minority." Literally facing a rival publicly may incite animosity, outrage, and competitive emotions

In a winner-take-all system there is no motivating force to repay or pacify crushed minorities, who have been told, that not only they’ll not get their way, they are additionally trashed as wrong. The unaccountable majority is pompous; the crushed minority is angry. Coercive voting advances polarization and solidifies positions. Thoughts can convey contrasts to the surface, augmenting instead of narrowing them. These outcomes, quieted in systems of huge scale, secret voting in not very successive elections, are highlighted in the envisioned shared blend of small electorates, to a great degree continuous election, and public voting. Citizens will take their hostilities and ulcers home with them and act them out in regular life. Elections are undesirable all around, but nowhere would they be more disparaging of community than in face-to-face assemblies and environs.

Is democracy regardless the best form of government? Its hypothesis is reducible to ruins in a couple pages. Believers assert that democracy promotes dialogue, but where is the dialogue about democracy itself? Democrats disregard their commentators; as though democracy is such a done deal, why try to defend it? They simply underestimate it -- that some people (Locke? Rousseau? Lincoln? Churchill?) gave extraordinary reasons for its existence, but no one ever did. That is the reason you didn't learn it in school. You were just made to accept. The contentions for democracy—which isn't regularly explained—is so imperfect and unstable, some of them even so senseless, that devout democrats may be startled.