Why I don't believe in Democracy.

I enjoy getting into discussions with supporters of the ukuncut movement on Twitter. I do so to highlight, the simple truth, that they defend the use of a system which uses violence to achieve it's aims. I like to point at the Gun in the room.

Last evening, I made it clear that Democracy is nothing more than: the voting in of a Crime syndicate. Here is one response I received:

emily_james Emily James

@Bodderick I like the mob, particularly when it's well informed and not overly manipulated. The oligarchy we have is not a real democracy.

Now, Emily is a fan of the mob, I am not. I believe in the right for the individual to live their life free from tyranny. The most persecuted minority on earth is the individual. Emily believes that an informed collective is a good thing. No doubt it is, for the group, but how does an informed mob act in a democracy when the State is intertwined in every aspect of our lives? Don't believe me, look around your room and find me something that is not regulated by the State?

Well, let us take an informed mob. The mob I will use base their entire understanding of the complexity of humanity on a book written over 1000 years ago. This holy script is a complete guide to life, with laws that have the ultimate punishment of the death penalty. Being that democracy is a numbers game, the only thing stopping them from forcing everyone to abide by their code, is the size of their mob. This scenario becomes quite scary when you look at how many people actually vote in elections and the percentage of these voters required for total control. If you think a totalitarian regime will never happen, you only need to remind yourself of how Hitler and, more recently, Hammas came to power.

So yes, democracy is shit. It is shit because Emily and her mob want to use their collective power to demand that the State use its violent coercive apparatus to enforce compliance (of their agenda) on everyone else, whether they like it or not.

I don't have a problem with collectives (as long as they are voluntary). The power of a group to solve a problem is a good thing. We are living in an age of austerity, but it doesn't have to be a bad thing. It is obvious that the UKUNCUT movement is a force to be reckoned with. Could the energy they have be used in a more productive and voluntary way?

There was a time before Big Government. In 1913 the only contact you had with the State was when you visited the Post Office or met the local Bobby on the beat. By and large, ordinary people were left alone to do as they pleased; the state did not interfere in the everyday goings on of it's citizens. There was no Welfare State; the task of helping people (with social and health provision) was provided by Charity and Friendly societies funded on a voluntary basis. It is often forgot that the main hospitals in London were the result, not of the State, but of private charity and voluntary collectivism. Could UKUNCUT not use these concepts to save the services that they are afraid of losing, instead of demanding that the State use its coercive power?