Excellent analysis! One of our biggest problems is that people think "democracy," all by itself, is a sufficient check on power. I frankly don't understand how anyone can still believe that, but of course they probably won't be taught otherwise in school.

The disturbing flip side of thinking democracy is a magic talisman against tyranny is the belief that democracy sanctifies power - the essence of majoritarianism. "They can't be dictators if we can vote them out of office!" is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world.
The restraints placed on power are MORE important than the process of choosing who gets to wield it. You would be more free under a tightly restrained hereditary monarch than in a "democracy" with totalitarian centralized power.
The human race learned, fairly recently, that elected government is the approach most likely to maximize liberty and human rights, but where on Earth did we get the notion that it's perfect and sufficient all by itself? The world is full of tyrannies that hold elections.
"Democracy" would be the worst of all worlds - tyranny by mob rule, with the oppressors claiming their every fancy was fully and completely sanctified because they won a vote, and why should we let a stubborn minority thwart The Will of the People?
One of the things "democracy" fetishists don't understand - or don't want YOU to understand - is that you don't amass majoritarian power by convincing a majority of the people to agree with you. It's FAR easier to gain power by suppressing those who disagree.
The childlike view of "democracy" is some great lively national conversation where we all decide what we're going to do together. The Democrat Party actually used that as an insipid slogan during the Obama years - "government is just a name for the things we do together."
The reality is aggressive, power-hungry groups intimidating and oppressing the opposition to get what they want. They loudly insist those who disagree with them have no moral standing to participate in "democracy." The number of ideas that can be voted on grows ever smaller.
Getting 51% of the people in a huge nation to agree with you is a sucker's game. Preventing 51% from banding together to stop you is MUCH easier. It's funny how in theory everything is on the table in an unrestrained majoritarian democracy, but in practice nothing really is.
You know who really has the whip hand under "democracy?" Power brokers who can drop packages of bloc votes on the table. Give me what I want, and I'll deliver X votes. Those blocs must be kept disciplined and obedient by teaching them to feel entitled and hate everyone else.
And of course, the more centralized power becomes, the less important the concerns of individual people will be. One vote among tens or hundreds of millions gives you no "control" over "democracy," especially not compared to power brokers with bloc votes and big city machines.
What you need to be free, really free, is a tightly restrained central government, constitutional rights it cannot transgress against no matter how morally superior politicians might feel or how badly special interests desire it, power devolved to local representatives.
It's still not a perfect setup - there will always be tension between freedom and the desire for more government intervention - but the best thing about constitutionally limited, decentralized government is that you really can organize and make a difference in local government...
... and if that doesn't work, you can fairly easily move to a city or state that respects the freedoms you value and supports ideas you believe in. Americans were given the best deal anyone ever got by our founders, and we let it slip away. We were foolish to let it go.
"Democracy" and majoritarianism are appealing to people who want to be ruled, hunger to rule over others, or have been convinced that freedom is scary. Easier to accept totalitarianism when you can tell yourself it was sanctified by "democracy."
The worst illusion is the foolish belief that we can always vote the totalitarianism away if we don't like it. Sorry, folks, but the core belief of "progressivism" is that nobody ever gets to vote again once government power is imposed, no matter how badly it fails.
Look at how the Democrats have used Obamacare to enslave voters. It was sold with lies, it failed so spectacularly that even the Dems agreed it's a disaster during their debates... but there's no going back, ever. You're not even allowed to talk about returning to freedom.
All too often, "democracy" boils down to one man, one vote, one time... and the voters don't really know what they're voting for. True freedom lies not in the opportunity to say "yes," but in the power to say "no." /end

More from John Hayward

More from Society

Like most movements, I have learned that the definition of feminism has expanded to include simply treating women like human beings.

(A thread for whoever feels like reading)


I have observed feminists on Twitter advocating for rape victims to be heard, rapists to be held accountable, for people to address the misogyny that is deeply rooted in our culture, and for women to be treated with respect.

To me, very easy things to get behind.

And the amount of pushback they receive for those very basic requests is appalling. I see men trip over themselves to defend rape and rapists and misogyny every chance they get. Some accounts are completely dedicated to harassing women on this site. It’s unhealthy.

Furthermore, I have observed how dedicated these misogynists are by how they treat other men that do not immediately side with them. There is an entire lexicon they have created for men who do not openly treat women with disrespect.

Ex: simp, cuck, white knight, beta

All examples of terms they use to demean a man who respects women.

To paraphrase what a wise man on this app said:

Some men hate women so much, they hate men who don’t hate women

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
#24hrstartup recap and analysis

What a weekend celebrating makers looks like.

A thread

👇Read on

Let's start with a crazy view of what @ProductHunt looked like on Sunday

Download image and upload

A top 7 with:
https://t.co/6gBjO6jXtB @Booligoosh
https://t.co/fwfKbQha57 @stephsmithio
https://t.co/LsSRNV9Jrf @anthilemoon
https://t.co/Fts7T8Un5M @J_Tabansi
Spotify Ctrl @shahroozme
https://t.co/37EoJAXEeG @kossnocorp
https://t.co/fMawYGlnro

If you want some top picks, see @deadcoder0904's thread,

We were going to have a go at doing this, but he nailed it.

It also comes with voting links 🖐so go do your


Over the following days the 24hr startup crew had more than their fair share of launches

Lots of variety: web, bots, extensions and even native apps

eg. @jordibruin with