Democracy, in my view, is certainly a political conspiracy and not an ideology. I say so, because the state is highly regarded as legitimate by the majority of the population. Once upon a time, most land was owned by kings and then dictators who had taken it by violent conquest. As time went by the population wanted more power, and the legitimacy of the fascism dropped. In order to regain legitimacy and avoid losing all power, the leaders gradually gave up some of it to the population in the name of democracy. People, imbecilely, saw this as something positive, and the state gradually regained its political legitimacy. “People preferred democracy to a dictatorship because it gave them more power”. Today, unfortunately, people believe that the “state is necessary, government is essential, welfarism is fundamental, democracy is required and disarmament is must”, and therefore have valiantly stopped looking for alternatives. It is very difficult today to free the “democratic eejits” from the chains of political servitude which they radically revere. Nevertheless, they do not entice discoursing free market capitalism, liberty, private property and individualism. On a sickening note, I can also predict that tomorrow morning they can impudently “decide about what you should be wearing or not” by just citing the rationalism of ‘majoritarian rules in the democracy’. They will walk extra miles by swelling the chest to just notify you that ‘voice of the majority is the voice of the God’. I, therefore, think it is legitimate to critically point out that ‘democracy is a form of socialist government which stands for the communist state’ to “buy the people, off the people and far the people”.
Full government control of all activities of the individual is virtually the goal of democracy. I will surely commit suicide, if I happen to consciously experience that democratic society eliminates crony capitalism within this decade. I am confident to study that the democratic society is extensively failing to bridge the social gap, thus, the “democracy is preparing the crime and the voters are committing it”. Ever pondered that “why would, in a democratic society, the legislators have to frequently talk about freedom, democracy and liberty?” If democracy ensures establishment of an open society and growth of free thinkers, then why still the publishing materials are owned by the democratic governments? Why do the social activists or democratic protesters have to run poles-to-poles seeking permission to democratically protest in a liberal society? If democracy is meritocratically the best form of government, then why there isn’t drop in ‘red-tapism’ procedures? In fact, I can easily challenge the proponents of democracy by simply hinting to them about the ‘censorship laws exceeding free speech in a democratic society’. Thus, it should be directly noted that the system of democracy is immensely immersed in the liver of masquerading regime.
Democracy doesn't favor the individual above all else, nor does it promise to. “One of its greatest failings is that single voices of reason are too easily drowned out by the cacophony of the masses.” Isn't it? In any system of democracy, the society is based on constitutional coercion than voluntary contracts. Freedom is a classical joke in the democratic society. Therefore, the eccentric individuality and rugged individualism are lost in the matrix of democracy. Nevertheless, even the followers of hypocritical Ayn Rand indirectly call for “limited government” protecting the individual rights than actually enunciating anarcho-capitalism as a splendid alternative in their discourse. Nonetheless, ‘democracy is a live gang rape of all the people in action’. Isn't it? Last but not least, the health of democracy depends upon quantity than quality. The ‘majoritarian mechanism’ enlists even ignoramus in it, who largely infringe upon the individualism and privacy of enlightening individuals. The leaders, in the political system of democracy, are busier with forming political alliances and thereby maintaining their positions rather than looking after the administration. Isn't it? In practice, the administration is run by the bureaucrats who owe no responsibility to the people. Therefore, democracy is a ‘cult of incompetence'. Now, let me not also highlight about corruption in democracy because even the founders of democracy down there burning in hell are conscious about it.
Ever wondered about who’s “paying” for the functioning of all political parties in the system of democracy? I guess printing more money, inflating the prices, centralizing the banks and taxing people conventionally serves as open sources for this payment. Who knows what is financed behind the mainstream political picture? Anyways, did you also go through my previous essay that how in the name of “we” the democracy and its government exploits an individual?
Last but not least, democracy supports eminent domain and opposes liberty.
I am highly obliged to my media students Shariq Khan and Divya Dhanuka for researching the materials on this topic.