All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 11, 2009 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
09:11
1480 Democracy Is Minority Rule
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everybody, it's Steph. October the 2nd to 009.
And I hope you're doing well.
I'd like to flesh out a little bit this idea that I popped into True News 54 about democracy being minority rule by definition.
The special interest groups must be vastly outnumbered by the people that they're pillaging, the people that they're controlling, the people that they're stealing from.
They have to be, simply because There's no profit in it unless you're largely outnumbered, and there's little political profit in it if the victims can self-identify, can easily identify themselves.
So, for instance, the way that it would not work is if everybody over 65 sent a bill, like an individual sent a bill to another individual for Social Security.
That wouldn't work politically because you would identify the victim.
I have to pay to this guy a thousand bucks a month or two thousand bucks a month or whatever it is.
Share it around a little.
Well, that would be an obvious war, an obvious conflict, and therefore would be unsustainable politically.
I think that's important to understand.
Democracy is a huge cloud.
Wherein the victims can no longer identify the perpetrators.
It is a halfway house to obscure the identity of those who are receiving stolen goods.
It is the Swiss bank account of theft.
And that's fundamentally what it's for.
The purpose of democracy is so that you can't see who's fucking you over.
The purpose of democracy is to squid ink in your eye so that you can't see who just stole your wallet.
Because if you can identify an individual who's stealing from you, like if the local farmer sends you a bill, With a guy with a gun, then it doesn't work.
Fundamentally, it doesn't work because the immorality of it becomes very clear.
So that doesn't work.
So if you want to steal from people, you don't want to be caught.
And the best way to not be caught is to not be identified and to make it legal.
But fundamentally, you can only make it legal if you yourself cannot be identified.
So, if it's deducted at source, or if you pay to some amorphous entity called the state, because the state has guns, and then the money goes to someone else, you never know who your dollars are going to be.
You can never follow your dollar in democracy, in any status system.
You cannot follow the dollar.
You can't find out the recipient.
It just goes into this cloud of...
And people reach into this cloud, or promise the goodies from this cloud, and you can't find these people.
It is an identity theft, so to speak, that democracy puts forward.
Now, democracy doesn't work very well if the majority steals from the minority.
Now, to be fair, I mean, to be balanced, there is...
The minority called the rich that the majority take a lot from.
The rich pay like 30% or 40% of many taxes, right?
So there are those rich that people steal from, for sure.
And that is an aspect of democracy that is pretty lucrative.
But... The reality is that the poor, and to some degree the middle class, though in particular the poor, who steal from the rich, end up much worse than they would otherwise.
I mean, fundamentally, when you add up what the poor lose in terms of the statism compared to what they gain...
It's really crippling to the poor to be involved in statism at all.
I mean, obviously they get the work eroding, life eroding, family eroding, child-producing sludge of the welfare state.
They get the shittiest schools on the planet.
And that, of course, is the schools are really designed...
The reason that property rights and all this work is that the schools are designed to keep the poor poor.
Because if there aren't any poor...
Then we really don't need a state that much, right?
And that's, I think, important to understand as well.
If you don't have the poor, then there's fewer crimes, there's fewer problems.
That's not the excuse for the welfare state.
So the state schools are designed, again, I'm not saying consciously, I don't know, but they're designed to keep the poor poor, and they lose out a huge amount there.
I mean, the poor is the involvement in it.
Minimum wages, the destruction of the manufacturing sector, the unionization, which keeps most people huddling in the cold in a sort of on-the-waterfront scenario.
And the very class structure is really solidly entrenched in...
In the state of society.
So, for instance, if I were running a private school for poor kids, the first thing that I would teach them to do is to not talk poor.
Private schools in the UK, the first thing that you would attempt very strenuously to do Would be to eliminate, or at least reduce, you know, to drop H's, governor, you know, all that kind of stuff that marks you out as a member of the lower class.
It would be absolutely essential for you to do that.
You would want to blend out these class differences as much as humanly possible, and they'd be resurrected in other ways, but it would be tougher and harder.
You'd want to make people pass for them, but it's not what happens, right?
You can't teach that stuff. In public schools, because public schools are allergic to values, because the moment you have values, you offend parents who go political on your ass, right?
So, this, I think, is really important.
The poor, yeah, they get a few goodies in the short run from the rich, but they lose massively more than they gain.
They get entrenched in poverty.
Clearly identifiable, or identified poverty as well.
The other thing, of course, that occurs, and this is something I haven't talked about much, but certainly will be coming up, Well, the unfunded liabilities and coming collapse of the US dollar is not going to be very beneficial to the poor, and the poor are going to suffer the most, just as the poor suffer the most in a recession, right?
When the rich lose a third of their portfolio value, that's a bummer, but they still survive.
When the poor lose their house and any opportunity of a living wage job in the neighborhood or even in the county, that's catastrophic, right?
So when the shit hits the fan financially, which shouldn't be more than another year or two or three, I would say probably a year or two, Then it's going to be like, well, now what, right?
The poor are completely hosed, right?
Then you'll see the growth of a permanent underclass who can't even be easily pacified by the welfare state and so on.
And of course the blame, freedom, capitalism, blah, blah, blah.
So, it's true that you can get people who prey upon a minority called the rich, but it doesn't work for very long.
And it's worked for, I mean, catastrophically not long at all.
Right? 40 years, maybe 50 years.
It's really not very long.
In a massively wealth-created economy, it hasn't even lasted 50 to 60 years.
And that's not very long at all.
Because it doesn't take a long time for this cancer to metastasize, right?
So, democracy is a way to allow a plethora of minorities to prey upon the majority.
And the idea that it's majority rule...
It's crazy, because the majority would choose to not be pillaged by a plethora of maggoty minorities, interest groups and lobbyists and so on.
They would say, thank you, no, right?
In the same way that we put on bug spray when we go deep into the woods.
So there's no way that the majority would ever want that, at all.
But it is here, and that's because democracy is a rule by a plethora of minorities...
And democracy serves their intention or serves their desires with the express purpose of hiding the person who benefits from stealing from you from you.
And I think if we understand that, then it becomes a little easier to argue against this nonsense pillaging rat fest called democracy.
▲
Export Selection