The Absurdity of Democracy

[PAF]

by Sheldon Richman
Oct 17, 2025


If the continuing incompetence of Congress over passing a budget and reopening the U.S. government doesn’t show the absurdity of unlimited representative republicanism, what could do so? Whether or not to extend COVID-era special subsidies for medical insurance appears to be the main issue, but other issues are undoubtedly involved. If it isn’t one thing, it’s another. That’s politics.

The problem is that the government has its hands in everything. That means a constituency exists for each thing the government does. If you want to upset and mobilize a group of people, call for an end to some privilege or restriction, which must come at the expense of the freedom and wealth of everyone but the favored beneficiaries. That’s how “democratic” government works, after all. This sets off a mad quest for favor, which some contenders will be more capable of securing than others. Don’t fall for the canard that the bureaucrats and politicians rationally produce useful things. If something looks, quacks, and waddles like a canard, you can be sure it’s a canard. “Who rules” is a secondary question. The first should be: what are the rules?

Rejecting democracy—representative republicanism, more precisely—does not entail accepting authoritarianism in any form. Quite the contrary. It entails full acceptance of the protection of individual liberty and property rights—the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as Thomas Jefferson, inspired by John Locke, put it in the Declaration of Independence. If we cannot have market-ordered, individualist, anarchism, then at least let’s keep the government strictly limited to barring physical force. If it ventures beyond that boundary, it sets off a civil war over the people’s private wealth and liberty. If you seek the consequences, look around. They are blindingly evident.

As Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

"All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty, in the attempting to perform which he must always be exposed to innumerable delusions, and for the proper performance of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards the employments most suitable to the interest of the society. According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to; three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings: first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice; and, thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions."​

But isn’t pervasive government necessary to engineer a decent society? No, it is not. Thomas Paine, no anarchist he, understood this. As he wrote in The Rights of Man:

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together."​

TGIF: The Absurdity of Democracy | The Libertarian Institute

If the continuing incompetence of Congress over passing a budget and reopening the U.S. government doesn't show the absurdity of unlimited representative republicanism, what could do so? Whether or not to extend COVID-era special subsidies for medical insurance appears to be the main issue, but...

libertarianinstitute.org

 

[Snowball]

by Sheldon Richman
Oct 17, 2025
.

Rejecting democracy—representative republicanism, more precisely—does not entail accepting authoritarianism in any form.

I've been saying this for years here, and I'm quite pleased that Richman has acknowledged as such for his readers to ponder upon. Representative republicanism IS a form of democracy, and it has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be the most pernicious ever embraced. It has also devovled us into something totally other than democracy.

I also appreciate the specific quotations of Smith and Paine which he selected for entry into the essay. There are cues within them that neither of these lodestars of the Enlightenment were advocating for which political libertarians and corporate libertarians today advocate. Today, we are persuaded into considering other truly democratic options such as referendums and participatory democracy. I cannot say that the adoption of such would not encounter major growing pains and waves of confusion, and it may yet require a constitution or other authoritative body or counsel, to beningly keep the peace and ensure the fundamentals are adhered to. We shall never know until we try. The first objective should be to do exactly what he mentions in my added bold highlighting - then we can have a free discussion as free men again about what to do next.

 

[Madison320]

"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together."​

Democracies suck but they're still better than any alternative in the real world.


CNN Republican Debate, November 22, 2011, Ron Paul was asked if his views aligned with anarchism. He responded, “No, I’m not an anarchist. I believe in limited government, not no government. Anarchy leads to chaos, and I think we need some rules to protect liberty, but they must be minimal and constitutional.”

 

[Anti Federalist]

Representative democracy, like what PJ O'Rourke once described as "Good Socialism", only works within small groups of people that are similar in race, religion, community or national purpose, culture and history.

It is utterly unsuited to the cosmopolitan goulash of post modern, Marxist, global "diversity".

The only way you can keep a lid on such a society, or such a world, is with the heavy hand of an authoritarian police state.

Which is why the people running this shitshow are so totally in favor of it.

 

[nikcers]

It doesn't matter what form of government you have if the national culture is demoralized.

If you kill a nations culture you confuse and destroy the minds and the identity of the country itself and it becomes a failed state.

The shutdown of the government is a correct representation of a failed state.

We are being assimilated into a borderless nationless group of people with no cultural ties or shared purpose and community.

This is what happens when you have a mass migration of foreigners who don't assimilate.

A national culture and its spirit comes from its people. A country is only as good as its people.

 

[nikcers]

Just look at the primary driver of this government shutdown.

The government isn't going to provide people with free health insurance anymore.

The fact that the majority of people have this loser mentality that they no longer believe they can find a good job that will give them Healthcare and the ability to buy a home means that they have killed the thing that made us great the American dream.

The American dream isn't something you can bottle and export to another country and make it a successful nation. That was the program that gave us the moon.

This is why we have never been able to do nation building. We can't give other people a shared purpose they have to have that themselves.

We have been importing these failed states into our country. We might have 50 stars on our flag but we might as well have 200 stars. They don't have states in our union but they don't have a shared identity in our union as American either.