Bourgeois democracy gives people the power to choose their leaders but not their policies, that is, the ability to elect some man while no real change of policy happens. America still does not have many policies that the people support, such as universal healthcare, and even in those European democracies that are supposedly more responsive to popular sentiment they force mass immigration on the people against their will.
What If instead of choosing leaders and not policies you chose policies and not leaders? What if the basic schema of democracy was inverted?
Imagine that instead of voting for a politician you subscribe to an Aristocrat. The Aristocrat maintains a legal code that protects you from crime. He also administers a budget for social services that is given to him by the king. You choose your subscription and can change it once per year at the beginning of the year. The police maintain a list of all laws and when you call the emergency number they show up and the AI on their phones tells them what laws have been broken and are enforceable for a given client. It is the subscribers Aristocrat that determines the penalty not the suspect (who of course has his own Aristocrat).
Aristocrats are like lawyers but they don't just litigate they make the law. Imagine on the 20th floor of an office building, and taking up the entire floor, is a law firm called William and James Aristocrats. These guys are literal law makers and they stay in business by advertising their aristocracy. The king pays their bills and they get paid on a per subscriber basis, and the more subscribers they have the more they get paid. There is some cut-off threshold when they have to have a minimum of, say, 10,000 subscribers. Anyone with a law degree can become an aristocrat provided they get a license, find subscribers who are willing to switch, and pay the king the required licensing fees.
If you don't like William and James you can dump them and go with any number of other firms. If you don't choose an Aristocrat one will be chosen by lottery for you.
The king has a bureau that audits the firms to keep them honest, and he also controls the police force and other functions of the government like the military. But he takes a pretty hands off approach by allowing the people to choose their laws by choosing their Aristocrats. It's a dictatorship but it has consumer choice regarding the legal system. This shields the dictator from criticism because he can just say "well I let people choose their own laws." If fact he even has more legitimacy than most bourgeois democracies because he can point out the fact that people in those democracies don't actually have a choice about government policy, but his people do. He does everything a dictator normally does: he has an inner circle, he reserves parts of the economy for his oligarchs, he maintains power over the armed forces. But he is able to brush off criticism by pointing out that if people don't like LGBT indoctrination of their children, or race and ethnic stuff, or their taxes, that all of this is determined by the subscription they choose. He's not the one oppressing gays, the parents who choose William and James are. He's not the one who puts people to death. He gives every aristocrat a certain amount of money for each subscriber. Some aristocrats have chosen to put criminals to death in order to save money. After all, it cost 30 cents for a bullet but tens of thousands per year to incarcerate someone. After all every Aristocrat gets a fixed amount of money on a per subscriber basis. Some of them have chosen to save money by hanging criminals and using the money they otherwise would have spent on incarceration to pay for healthcare. And you know what? The subscribers like it that way because they would rather have more benefits.
Because politics becomes a consumer choice it becomes incredibly based. Because the consumer is the one making the choice and not the king, he can just brush off all criticism. He's a libertarian and it's not his job to tell people how to run the government. The people choose how their government is run by choosing their aristocrats. All he does is maintain his position and keep the law market humming along. It gives the people choice without challenging who runs things, it deflects all criticism, it makes everything a market decision, and it makes the consumer responsible for every unpopular thing the government does. By turning them into consumers it forces "voters" to actually consider trade-offs. It runs a government of popular choice without assembling large crowds of people in one place or giving power to the most annoying activists. It and shuts down debate before it even begins. Don't like the fact that my Aristocrat will have you whipped for stealing my TV? Ha! Sucks to be you!
And whipping is cheaper than incarceration so there's more money for those great paid family leave benefits I get.
In a market aristocracy all the Communist can do is cope and seethe as the consumer gets exactly what they want with no need to compromise with leftists arguments. There is no argument, none at all. It's politics without arguments. Don't like it? Argue with you neighbor about which Aristocrat he should choose. Oh but his choice is confidential so he can just lie to you or maybe slam the door in your face. In a market aristocracy and no one is required to listen to any bullshit leftist's opinion. No one is required to listen to any opinion because opinions stop mattering completely. It's all just a consumer choice bro, and there is no way to coordinate action. In fact that is the way rights significantly differ from democracy. Instead of rights guaranteeing freedom of association they guarantee freedom from association, and freedom from pressure, freedom from entities that seek to manipulate consumer choice. Trying to introduce democratic elements of mass coordination is explicitly forbidden and a violation of consumer rights.
And this is another thing: a market aristocracy can legitimately say that attempting to coordinate democratic reforms is an attempt to violate the rights of citizens. Because coordination of subscribers is market manipulation and monopolistic behavior. Everyone is getting exactly the loss they want so why are you attacking the system, what gives you the right? Unlike a dictatorship which has to constantly lie and pretend it isn't doing what it's doing, a competitive market aristocracy is what it is and can be itself proudly. It can legitimately claim to be a valid alternative to popular democracy. It can even ridicule democracy and say "in our system people actually get to choose their policies but in your system they only choose politicians."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please keep it civil