Why Our "Sacred Democracy" Doesn't Work - 8 Core Flaws and Fallacies that America NEVER tells you about!

 

As we've all seen, this 2020 Election fiasco shows just how flawed our "Sacred" Democracy is. The news media keeps referring to "Our Sacred Democracy" yet democracy itself is inherently flawed in many major ways. Why does the media never talk about this or bring on someone who can (like moi)? Why do they always TELL you what to think but never encourage you to think for yourself? Someone should ask them that. Here are several key flaws with democracy and why it doesn't work.

1. Democracy means "rule of the majority". The majority of people are mediocre and always will be. No different from 2000 years ago. Therefore, democracy is "rule of the mediocre" not the rule of the wisest or smartest. Basic logic. In contrast, the great philosopher Plato said that Socrates preached that the rulers should be those with the most wisdom and virtue and have the highest ethics, as he outlined in "The Republic". That makes a lot more sense than being ruled by the mediocre masses, and is true of a society as well as of the inner constitution of a man.

2. Democracy assumes every vote and every opinion has equal weight and value. This is obviously not true. Some people are wise and smart, and some are stupid and foolish. To make smart opinions equal to dumb opinions is an obvious fallacy and mistake. So this is one of the core false assumptions of democracy. Plus the founding fathers obviously did not want everyone to vote. They only wanted men to vote and only men with income who pay taxes. Not just anyone. The dumb US media never tells you that of course. Democracy would work better if only smart people with no criminal record were allowed to vote. If there was some system to weed out dumb people and make sure that only wise people vote, then the system would work a lot better of course. But that suggestion is blasphemy in the US of course.

3. Democracy presupposes that "the majority are always right". This is a false assumption as we all know, because the majority are often wrong, especially since the majority are not very bright and mediocre at best. This is especially true in a large country like America. Also, most people are gullible and easy to deceive and manipulate. Therefore the best deceivers can control the politics in a democracy. This means the best smooth talkers and charmers win elections, not the smartest or brightest or wisest or the most moral people. There are no controls in place against this or any checks and balances.

4. There are no checks or balances in a democracy, or against corruption. What is the majority are WRONG? What if the majority votes to suppress or harm the minority? What's to protect the minority, even if it's only 49 percent vs 61 percent? What if the majority is crazy or mad? Majority rule is essentially mob rule, and mobs are not rational or controlled. Especially in America where people tend to have toxic personalities and are immature and delusional, as opposed to Switzerland where people are more mature and rational and therefore democracy works better there. 

5. There is nothing in a democratic system to prevent corruption, such as bribery and lobbying on behalf of powerful interests to buy up politicians. As we all know, politicians are "bought and paid for" in America and thus compromised. They are not free to do what's right and follow their conscience or even free to be honest, hence they cannot truly serve their people. Hence politics is all show and no substance. Everyone can feel that at some level. So there's no point in participating in politics. It's all fake and the average person has no voice. What would work better would be if there were no politicians and everyone voted directly on the issues without any parliamentary intermediary, like in Switzerland. That would eliminate the corruption and special interests. But alas, that only seems to work in small countries like Switzerland, large countries are another matter and far more complex.

Corruption is allowed to run rampant in the USA and has only gotten worse in the last decades. Even former mafia men like Michael Franzese said in his interviews that America is far more corrupt now than it was in the 60's and 70's. So sadly, "freedom" in America only means the "freedom to exploit and control and suppress others". Especially in the US system where the US Constitution is no longer truly adhered to, and the system is hijacked by a criminal syndicate with a private central bank printing the money supply, and an IRS organization, both of which are unconstitutional and against what the founding fathers set up. In contrast, in a monarchy the monarch is usually wealthy and cannot be bribed, so he does not succumb to corruption, and can do what's right in accord with his conscience, and do what's best for his country.

6. The founding father John Adams said that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Not for a wicked, degenerate society full of people who only care about themselves and are mean-spirited and toxic. This makes sense. However, US democracy assumes that democracy works all the time regardless of whether a society is moral or amoral. This is flawed because it means that even if a society is composed of mostly evil people or bad people, that it still works and is still the best form of government. No one has to tell you how flawed and wrong that is. Yet the US media and its propagandists never consider this. They never think at all it seems. They are just dumb robots.

7. Democracy has never worked in history. It's always been unstable and only a transition period, for example between a republic and oligarchy, as in the case of ancient Rome and America too. See here to learn why. It's never worked in ancient Greece where it was first invented, but turned out to be a failure, just as it is now in America. So obviously it cannot be the best form of government, nor is it sacred, as American media and propagandists claim, because it was never a good system to begin with for the above reasons.

8. Democracy also tends to lead to big government, which requires more taxes to fund itself and never likes to shrink back again. The reason for this is that in a democracy, people tend to vote themselves benefits and services from the government, due to their selfish nature and self-interest, which require more government agencies and offices to be built, which in turn grows the size of government more and more until it becomes like a giant octopus or monster. At that point, it will require more and more taxation and public funding in order to sustain itself, like a giant monster does, in order to thrive and prosper, and hence will never want to shrink back to the small size that it should be under a Libertarian society like Thomas Jefferson envisioned. 

That's what you see in the US today unfortunately. In order to justify public funding, each government agency must make itself useful and that means controlling you more and more and taking away more and more of your freedoms and rights, and also instating more and more unnecessary rules and regulations. It's all a vicious cycle that stems from a flawed system that never should have been allowed to grow in the first place. 

It was a mistake it seems that the founding fathers did not foresee this and install any laws in place to prevent this. Because Thomas Jefferson's aim was to establish a Libertarian government only, which protects your fights and liberties but doesn't try to control you or tell you what to do, as long as you don't hurt others or the environment of course. But of course, the founding fathers were only human, not gods, so they could not have forseen everything.

Conclusion:

To learn why democracy doesn't work and never has, not in ancient Greece or modern America, and why a republic is better and more stable, and what the founding fathers intended, see this great video by the John Birch Society.

Now, you might have heard many liberals and academics say that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for the others" as though democracy were the least of all evils. I don't really agree with that though. My ideal form of government would be like what Plato and Socrates outlined in the book "The Republic" with wise philosopher kings as the ruling class. Such as Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman Emperor, for example. I'm not sure if that's ever been tried before though, or how that would work in reality. But it makes solid sense and is true of a man's internal composition as well, because if a man is ruled by wisdom rather than emotion or desire, it's definitely better for him in the long run and leads to better mental and physical health.

The Republic with a US Constitution that the founding fathers of America established was definitely better than the sham "democracy" or oligarchy rather to put it more accurately, that America has today. As every aware person knows, even if democracy were a good system, there's no true democracy in America, only an oligarchy pretending to be a democracy. Or rather what we have is a "democracy of corporations" not of the people. The people get to vote of course, but it doesn't matter because their choices are preselected by the oligarchs and their opinion controlled by the mainstream media, which in turn is controlled by the oligarchs too. 

So it's all a sham for the most part and totally corrupt, with those at the top being untouchable and unaccountable, so they can get away with anything. In other words, might makes right, which is true today as it was in all of history. Therefore it seems, overall the less government the better, that's the key and what the wise founding fathers wanted. As the Libertarian G. Edward Griffin said, "The rule of thumb is, in any policy or decision, the option with LESS government, not more, is usually better."

A Libertarian small government like Thomas Jefferson wanted can be a good thing. But as John Adams said, that only works with a population with good morals and virtues, not a selfish degenerate populace. Also Americans tend to not like centralized control like the federal government in DC, they prefer more states power and states rights, that's why Jefferson was opposed to centralizing federal power in DC like Alexander Hamilton wanted. Either way, I'm sure that would be better than the monster system that we have now in America.

Some say that the US Constitution was written only for an agricultural society, not an industrial one, so it doesn't work well for the modern world. That is a complex issue of course. But regardless, the rule of thumb, as G. Edward Griffin said, is that less government and less slavery, the better, and that means economic slavery too, not just big government. People should be less dependent on money and paying bills so they aren't pressured to become rich and make lots of money, as if that was the sole purpose for living and the only reason God put us on Earth. A parasitic system that involves economic slavery does not feel natural and doesn't feel like a good thing. So some sort of reform definitely needs to be made to it. I'm not saying total freedom or anarchy is the answer either, there has to be a healthy balance between all extremes.

I'd like to leave you with this. When I was a kid, I asked my dad "What's the difference between the Democrats and Republicans?" His answer was, "Democrats believe that government should help the people. Republicans believe that people should help themselves." That's a great short succint answer that highlights the major ideological difference I think, between true conservatives and progressive liberals, without politics that is.