Mental Lever Page Description

Mental Levers are mini-articles. They answer key questions and present important libertarian and voluntaryist ideas in bite-size chunks that are easy to share. They are grouped in the following Collections:

Is democracy inherently perverted?

Perversion: the distortion of something from what was intended.

Representative democracy is intended to provide self-rule. It does nothing of the sort. The logic is inescapable…

In a democracy, the majority vote counts 100% but the minority vote counts 0%.

Read that again. Let it sink in. 

The majority rules the minority. So democracy isn’t self-rule. Democracy perverts the concept of self-rule. Democracy is still others-rule, just like monarchy or a dictatorship.

The Founders actually understood this problem. They attempted to solve it by crafting the Bill of Rights. This was supposed to limit government to the protection of rights as described in the Declaration of Independence. That would have given us true self-rule. Alas, the Constitution itself violated the Declaration’s definition of legitimate governance, and the Bill of Rights had no enforcement mechanism. So the result is tyranny of the majority and the aggressive leviathan state we have today.

The solution is voluntary funding for government combined with strong jury nullification. That would give us consumer-controlled governance, or what we call post-statism. Dissenters could withdraw funding from any action that violates their conscience, and individual jurors could nullify any aggressive statute by hanging juries. Then Americans would finally, at long last, enjoy true self-rule.

Jim Babka

About the Author

Jim Babka

Facebook Twitter

Jim Babka is co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and President of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. He’s an author and former talk show host.
Previously, he was the President of RealCampaignReform.org, Inc., defending free press rights all the way to the Supreme Court. He and Susie are the proud, home-schooling parents of three teenagers. He enjoys theology, UFC, target practice, and Tai Chi.

Perry Willis

About the Author

Perry Willis

Facebook Twitter Google+

Perry Willis is the co-founder of the Zero Aggression Project and Downsize DC. He was the National Director of the Libertarian National Committee on two occasions, and ran two Libertarian Party presidential campaigns. He has an extensive background in marketing and fundraising, and has ghost written direct mail appeals for numerous luminaries, including Karl Hess, Ron Paul, Charlton Heston and Harry Browne.

Does this way of thinking intrigue you? Want to learn more or participate in creating such a society? Then join the Zero Aggression Project using this subscription form…

Subscribe form for Lever Pages

 

Show Comments 31

 

    1. Yes, the colonist warned that democracy leads to mobocracy. The 1928 US Army Training Manual on Citizenship mentions this simple truth. Wilson said that the US would make the world safe for democracy, as though US politicians had any right to tell anyone how he must live. And then later Truman said that the US would be the arsenal of democracy. Substitute mobocracy for democracy and you begin to see the utter immorality, wickedness of political governments, not matter their make, model or flavor.

  1. Manmade “law” is defective because man is subject to the temptations of Satan. Manmade “law” supplants Jehovah God’s law and therein lies the root of the evils that have beset Amerika from its inception. I encourage people to read Ted R. Weiland’s books: Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective http://www.missiontoisrael.org/blvc-index.php
    Law & Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
    http://www.missiontoisrael.org/law-kingdom.php

    Yes, I know there are those who reject Jehovah God and the ransom sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Each person has free will, freedom to choose. However, when one votes, he is sanctioning politicians to use force to deny others of their free wills, their freedoms to choose. How duplicitous, how diabolical, how ironic is that? Clearly, voting is not Christian and there is no foundation for it in the Bible.

    With respect, I just don’t think manmade law, politics, is going to be corrective, though I would like to give organizational government based on voluntary contracts a chance; it can’t be worse than political government.

    1. jackW: I agree with your conclusion that a society based on voluntary contracts should be given a chance. But I don’t use the Bible, or Christian ethics to support my claim. No matter. It is enough for me that you will not violate me, my free will, my rights. That is an excellent starting point for a relationship. We can get along with mutual respect. Why? What makes that possible? It is in our nature to do so, it is the human means of survival to use reason, not violence, not fraud.
      Some would disagree and point to exceptions. The exceptions do not create, they destroy. Destruction of others is not conducive to survival, in the long run. Cooperation is. Viking raiders eventually became settlers and assimilated with their previous prey. Why? They saw more value in cooperation than conflict. Did their god “Odin” command it? No. Their reasoning mind did. We all have one. We can follow it, or listen to commands of authority. My only “authority” is my ability to reason. That is sacred to me. I want it respected, therefore I respect it in others. It’s only logical.

      1. Indeed, Jesus did not compel anyone to believe in Jehovah God because Jehovah gave men free will and so Jesus could not and would not reject His will, His gift.

    1. What is democracy? It is the majority opinion of those who voted. If that opinion is forced on all by the initiation of violence, threat, or fraud, then it is tyrannical. Take away the violence/fraud and democracy is harmless. It might even be useful. That’s why we have polls.

      Therefore, it is a faith in force that should be condemned, not popular opinion.

      1. Politics is violence and yet people persist in voting to sanction it. Go figure. Political government is the bane of humanity and we would be wise to terminate it and give organizational government based on voluntary contracts a chance. I would prefer a Christian government.

  2. Add a third: Sortition.
    Sortition (or klerostocracy) is election of representatives by lot, as originally practiced in Athens. The pool from which the lots would be drawn would contain ordinary people, possessed of skills other than the sociopathic skills of polititians.
    Regarding the practical steps to institutionalize voluntary funding: Begin by having lawmakers assign percentage values to “discretionary” spending items. Each item would get that much of a voluntarily submitted pool. If the bleeding hearts claim it’s too small, let them berate the lawmakers to re-assign percentages, or let them berate the public’s conscience to contribute more. Forcing contributions through government would be properly known as theft, once its cloak of morality is removed.
    After this step, we achieve our goal progressively by marking more and more government as “discretionary,” until it all acquires this designation.

    1. “Sociopathic skills”? Or a dysfunctional mind that is skilled in manipulation by fraud and force?

      “The practical steps to institutionalize voluntary…” anything: Begin by teaching the young how to think. This will not make them “good citizens”, i.e., obedient servants; it will not “make” them into anything. It will allow them to fulfill their potential as humans, as they determine. It will facilitate the quick identification of “cloaks” that obscure the truth. Thought leads to creative, peaceful, prosperous societies.

      1. Heh, heh, heh,..yes, the commie/socialist politicians, the dregs of humanity, have engaged their “cloaking” devices and the people are under attack and can’t see the forest for the trees. You reminded me of an old Star Trek episode where the Romulans or/and Klingon’s engaged their “Cloaking” Devices and rendered their ships invisible. The Bible mentions something to the effect: My people are lost for want of knowledge.

  3. I disagree with the premise, Perry.

    The Bill of Rights does, in fact, contain an enforcement mechanism. The Second Amendment enables the People to keep arms and form a Militia. And the Constitution itself only allows a Federal army to be raised for 2 years at a time.

    Historically, what got us into trouble was that Congress could not work out a deal with which to pay down the national debt. Initially it was proposed to place tariffs on imported goods. But then objections to the amount of the tariff arose, so George Washington proposed an excise tax on whiskey. This led to the Whiskey Rebellion, as people refused to pay the tax, and led to enforcement actions to suppress it.

    Public debt has grown like a cancer. It went briefly into remission when Andrew Jackson engaged in human trafficking on a massive scale, coercing peaceable Seminole and Cherokee tribesmen to abandon their ancestral lands and walk to what’s now Oklahoma, then sold those lands to slave-owners who wanted land on which to use African slaves to grow cotton. Briefly the US was nearly debt-free.

    The problem of public debt is that governments claim the bonds to be a secure store of value. Their capacity to take things by force, enable them always to pay the bonds off when they are due, should they choose to do so. Bond holders stupidly believe these assertions, not realizing that the power to seize money and property with which to pay bonds off, is also the same property a government would exercise in refusing to pay the bonds off. This perhaps reached it’s zenith during the administration of George W Bush, when he asserted that the global financial system had a demand for US Treasury bonds and we should meet that demand by taking on greater public debt.

    Just like the Enron Corporation, we’ve now asserted that our debts are assets.

    The net result is that these made-up assets have been monetized…our currency is backed by promises and nothing more.

    Swiss democracy has managed to keep their country at peace with it’s neighbors for 600 years. But they accomplished this by making fractional reserve banking illegal. A Swiss bank can accept a demand deposit and charge a fee to hold the funds and release them later, or release them to anyone who presents a check asking for payment. If the Swiss banker promises to return the funds on demand, he may do nothing with those funds but hold onto them. Everyone knows that their deposits are secure, because Swiss bank deposits are not at risk.

    With our fractional reserve banking system, the US built a market in which bonds became backing for currency, and quantities of currency held in vaults, leverage as much as 10 times that much value, held in debt instruments owed by borrowers who borrow from banks. The entire system is held together by belief that deposits will continue to be honored. And this creates a powerful incentive for politicians to lie about the true state of the nation’s finances.

    That’s the primary corrupting influence at work today. We cannot have the luxury of liberty, if we depend on the crooked financial system to pay us what it promised us, for it needs the power to make promises on which it will someday default. If one class of people are granted the power to lie, allegedly in the public interest, and the rest of us must be truthful, there is no reason for us to trust democratic institutions to deliver anything they promised. Those given the power to lie, will use it.

    1. But there is the rub. Lysander Spooner’s No Treason No. 6, The Constitution of No Authority explains the mistake of assuming the constitution can be used as a cudgel to force people to abide by the will of others. In a “free” nation, one must not use violence against another. Yes, punishments can be imposed on those who commit crimes or harm to others after the fact. Marc Stevens asks the question: What factual evidence do you, judge, politician, prosecutor, IRS agent or anyone, have that the constitution and law apply to me just because I am physically present in some state, such as commie/socialist, Democrat, tyranny of corruptifornia? It doesn’t exist and never has. If it were so then the factual evidence would be taught in government schools and we would be propagandized with it by the MSM. If we were forced into the jurisdiction thereof of the US government, then we would be slaves on the plantation state ruled by masters/politicians and their hired overseers/judges/enforcers in the so called “land of the free and home of the brave.” How diabolically ironic is that? If the factual evidence existed then every cop would had a little card, analogous the Miranda warning, telling each motorist the factual evidence. But cops don’t have it because otherwise it would admit we are stinkin’ slaves.

      1. JackW: Someday TPTB (authorities) might admit the public are their slaves. A few years back there was a movement by bureaucrats to remove the “servant” label for them, replacing it with “official” or “authority”.
        Those you can’t see the tyranny and need the tyrants to tell them they are subjects are willfully blind. The day may come when Americans are openly called subjects by the authorities. The subjects will defend their servitude, saying they are protected and need to be ruled.

        Judges have ruled that a citizen whose rights are being violated by an LEO must allow it. Their only legal recourse is to sue in court. So when the govt. hurts you, it has to officially admit it, and it decides what, if any, compensation it will allow. RULERS DECIDE, YOU ABIDE.

    2. “If one class of people are granted the power to lie…”? What does that imply? It is the antithesis of political equality. It violates the rights of the other class. Moreover, that “power'” is useless without the power to enforce their lies on all by violence or threat.

      Who has the right to make such a “grant”? What group can speak for all, enslave all forever? A majority? Can there be a “right” of anyone or any group that violates rights? Isn’t that a contradiction of the concept of rights?

      “Those given the power…will use it.” Those not given power will violate rights. But they won’t be worshiped as protectors and servants. They will be called criminals. And criminals don’t get the voluntary compliance of their victims. That makes their life dangerous, short, and hell. Public authorities do get the voluntary and involuntary compliance of their victims. That makes their life privileged, safe, and immoral. But the vast majority are sociopaths so the immorality is irrelevant to them. They will never change.

      It is up to the “willfully blind” enabling public to stop their self-imposed slavery. They must change.

      1. I don’t see masses experiencing and epiphany and just cease participating in the political crimes; I don’t see the masses refusing to vote. So, I think Amerika is doomed and deservedly so. BTW, government is corporate as yo likely are aware. Some years ago I came across O’Neal v. Wake Co. NC (1928) and the judge plainly admitted this simple truth, which of course was never mentioned in any of my government schooling.

  4. Just wrote a few emails on this. For me, democracy, or representative democracy, is a means toward an end. The end is a just society where the rights of individuals are honored. Other forms of government theoretically could result in a just society where the rights of individuals are protected, minorities as well as the majority.
    For the freedom of each individual to exist, laws must be minimal. Otherwise, some people will seize the property of others or inhibit their freedom citing the passage of laws as their justification.
    Democracy can foster tyranny as the majority vote to redistribute wealth and use government force to impose their whims. This tyranny can be worse than a dictator’s because people who resist are told that their right to liberty and property is subject to compliance with majority thought, otherwise known as mob rule.To rebel against a person, political party or group is easier than defending basic human rights against a majority who have no principles to guide them.
    US democracy co-exists with one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and a maze of prohibitions so thick that the average person with common sense is in constant danger of fines and imprisonment.

    1. Statism or constitutionalism is might makes right corruption; it is immorality; it is not Christian.

    2. K. Augustin: I am reminded of the motto on every copy of the newsletter I subscribed to since the early ’80s called “The Voluntaryist”, “If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself”.

      If the end is “a just society where the rights of individuals are honored”, then the means cannot be democratic. Democracy, i.e., majority rule, is putting an authority over rights. How can rights be subject to the whim of today’s popular opinion, an opinion which can change next year, and then change again the next, on and on? Are rights whatever the mob values today? No. Democratic rule is tyranny of the many.

  5. Bob: I agree “…there is no reason…to trust democratic institutions…”, i.e., it’s not logical given history or theory. So why do the vast majority worship democracy, worldwide?
    I began to make this argument with my LP friends 40 years ago: If it’s not logical, then it must be psychological. Where does such an irrational, destructive belief begin? In America, how can so many be so blind, so impervious to evidence or reason concerning the sacrifice of rights to “the common good” or “national security” or “law & order”? Why is it politically moral to use violence against the innocent but not so in the private sector? The statist answer is: The private sector is for personal benefit, the public is for benefit of all. But when that “benefit of all” is shown to be not true in a particular case, no matter, the individual must be sacrificed form time to time, and it will be justified in the long run. How long? No answer. Can this assertion be proved? No answer. Or should I say the answer is the threat of violence? Violence is not an answer or argument, it is the opposite.
    Strong, mass delusions begin in the govt. controlled, mandatory, youth indoctrination camps. They tend to be impervious to logic because they were not logically arrived at. Our (voluntaryist) challenge is to get past the many delusions by getting individuals to see for themselves they were holding contradictory beliefs. This is the focus of Larken Rose in his seminars “Candle in the Dark”. I have yet to attend but I want to learn how he does it.

  6. Bob: “What got us in trouble” was the Constitution contradicted its stated goal of protection of rights. Using the initiation of force as primary protection contradicts the concept of rights. But few saw the contradiction, and those who did were told the govt. was so small and weak that the armed public could easily control it. That was disproved by the Whisky Rebellion. The govt. used divide & conquer. Once the principle of initiation of force and threat had been accepted as a valid (moral & practical) political paradigm rights were sacrificed, not protected.

    So what won out, the rights concept or the use of force concept? Both co-exist as values and contradict. The contradiction must be ended or Americal will be ended.

    1. Yes, the framers rejected Jehovah God and created manmade “law.” Sadly of course, man is not perfect but subject to Satan’s powers and the seemingly well intended manmade “law” was so poor that men had not trouble defeating those intents. The history of the US politics is proof of the utter evil of it.

  7. The sad part is that Patrick Henry and others warned the writers of the Constitution of the consequence of creating a stronger Federal Government :http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/the-anti-federalist-papers/speech-of-patrick-henry-(june-5-1788).php Many of his warnings seem so prescient that they are practically prophecies. Some of the protections (1:30,000 ratio of people to House members ) have been destroyed, and some amendments have been problematic as well. But the death knell to liberty was mostly rung in 1913, when the Federal Reserve gave us fractionated currency.

Leave a Comment:

Fields marked with * are required