What would America look like if it weren’t open to radical new ideas in the past? What would She look like if the men who created Her weren’t relentless in their ambition, unapologetic for their ideas, or if they didn’t have the wherewithal to achieve their revolutionary idea? Democracy as we know it would have been just a hiccup in the history book.
Before its inception, kings ruled over lands with an iron fist. Their power was only limited out of fear of uprise as a result of pushing the boundaries too far. This just made them perpetually push their boundaries little by little, careful to avoid a revolution.
Humans look to ideas for guidance, and when they find them, they become infatuated with them. They live their entire lives according to these ideas, whether these ideas are right or wrong. When a majority of people think they are right, dissenters are silenced and ridiculed, but the dissenters are the ones who try to look objectively to see if these ideas really are right, or just, or moral.
During the time of kings and tyrants, an idea, seemingly sent from Heaven, descended to the people. This idea was so noble, so fair that it was given a God-like status. This idea inspired men to set out to change the world and leave the world as a spitting image of this idea. To create a world of justice, equality, and fairness in the name of democracy. Thanks to dissenters we got to experiment with a radical idea such as democracy.
But what if democracy was equally as bad, or even worse, than the monarchial predecessor? What if the majority were commonly the wolves, voting alongside the minority, the lamb, on what to eat for dinner? What if the majority of parasites, voted democratically, alongside the host, on what to devour? What if this idea, which was once thought as a liberating and virtuous idea, was proven wrong and dangerous?
Fast forward to today, democratically elected officials rule with an iron fist. Their power is only limited out of fear of pushing the boundaries too far. This just makes them perpetually challenge the current boundaries, and do so in such a way as to psychologically indoctrinate the majority into believing their propaganda. Their boundaries have been extended because of the reality that a violent revolution is infeasible.
Their legitimacy is their castle which protects them, which creates the propaganda that their cause is a noble one. Their legitimacy, in the eyes of other humans, is precisely what allows humans to rule over other humans for no other reason than popularity and demagoguery. Dissenters are silenced and ridiculed because objectively looking at the system is a direct threat to their precious legitimacy.
But what if a new, more virtuous and noble, yet much more revolutionary, idea based in the foundation of self-ownership, praxeology, and human action was created? One that said no human should be exempt from the laws of morality, no matter how many votes s/he received. One that understood that no matter how hard one tries, there are certain economical laws which, similar to the laws of gravity or physics, cannot be ignored without severe repercussions. One that said no human should be able to rule, backed by the monopoly of force and legitimacy, over any one else.
This new, revolutionary idea, which was democracy in times of monarchy, is anarchy in times of democracy. Despite what is said about anarchy on television, anarchy can be peacefully achieved and will remain peaceful as long as there is a unanimous respect for property rights. You own yourself and all the fruits to your labor; I own myself and all the fruits to my labor.
Of course the idea of anarchy sounds heinous at first, but so did democracy. It sounds so appalling because it is a direct threat to the legitimacy of those who hold power over us. They lose their legitimacy, and they lose their monopoly on the use of force. They lose their precious ring.
Capitalism and a respect for property rights are the liberating and virtuous ideas that humans once wrongly believed democracy to be. Trading goods for profit encourages peaceful relationships to form as opposed to violent ones, where people with different beliefs and lifestyles can find a way to provide value to each other, and improve each other’s life, rather than destroy it.
The dissenters are the ones who are vehemently questioning everything they were taught to believe in search of a more moral way. They aid in not letting humans become too infatuated with certain ideas, especially when they are wrong. Dissenters of the past are responsible for birthing democracy, and letting us test the idea for ourselves.
Now, dissenters are calling to end the blind legitimacy we humans give to the state. Based on the failures of every government style, from democracy to tyranny, public government to private government, it is time to admit that we have been fooled throughout our entire existence. We don’t need a government to live in a civilized society.
No government means no rulers, not no rules. Everything that is done by the state with the implicit monopoly on the use of force, from policing, to legislation, to roads can be handled by the market. That is to say that private individuals can voluntarily interact with each other and create a much more prosperous, peaceful, and pleasant life than any state could ever wish to do. This is possible because the sole reason of this idea is that the foundation is based on voluntary interactions and helping other people, rather than forceful interactions and arbitrarily choosing one group of people over another group of people.
Anarchy is the new democracy.