I did, but overall I think many of the shortcomings of democracy are more-so shortcomings of soft money. I suspect hard money would make democracies better than their current form, and I think many people who favor non-democratic forms of government do so because they themselves expect to be part of the small elite that runs things or they otherwise have power in those non-democratic systems.

Replies (3)

The wild part about preferences like ours is the asymmetry between voluntaryists and statists/collectivists. We say "we'll leave you alone to do your collectivist thing, can you just leave us alone so we can do this voluntary thing?" And they say, "No, we need you in the collective or else it doesn't work, you are our hostage."
Conza's avatar
Conza 1 year ago
That's literally the same in democracy The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves”; if the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. One would not think it necessary to belabor this point, and yet the overwhelming bulk of the people hold this fallacy to a greater or lesser degree. — Murray Rothbard