The Ideal Democracy: Why Progressive Reforms are Needed Now

democracyThree cheers for democracy in action!–yes, that’s what they called it. I recently received a letter in the mail from my credit union informing me that elections for the board of directors are coming up, and that it is very important for me to carefully screen the candidates and to ponder–with fear and trembling–the most suitable ones. They even had a list of recommended candidates–candidates that are on the cutting edge of faggotry advocacy, and so on. Of course, we all know that democracy is supposed to be an impartial process by which the originator of the election is not at all supposed to be involved in the process due to conflicts of interest, but I guess there’s an exception for everything. “I MEAN, THESE CANDIDATES WERE JUST SU GUD WE HAD TO STRONGLY, STRONGLY RECOMMEND THEM.”

The phenomenon here that I’ve noted is called democracy creep–likely promulgated by some faggot whose thought process was about as sophisticated as: “HEY LUK DEMOCRACY BE GUD HERE DEMOCRACY B GUD EVERYWHERE!” Half of the time it’s framed as a consequentialist argument based on the positive effects of democracy. Democracies don’t go to war, after all. And if that holds true on the level of geopolitical actors, then it must mean an end to all office politics, so let’s forgo HR and hold elections instead! Or something like that. The other sort of argument offered moves on a per se basis, namely that hierarchy is intrinsically terrible and wicked, and therefore only democratic arrangements are justified in any political, economic, or social arrangement.

And that’s how democracy spreads like a cancer.

Rational ignorance, coined by Anthony Downs, suggests that a failure to be informed of the most basic issues associated with some knowledge issue X results when the costs associated with such knowledge outweigh the benefits. Since that already holds true for U.S. national elections, then the problem will only–a fortiori–be compounded when applied to a credit union that engages in endless feel-good projects (faggotry, etc.) Moreover, the sort of influence that any single voter exerts is negligible. On this criterion alone, it could only ever be rational to vote if and only if your vote is decisive.

There’s also rational irrationality, which points out that when the costs of a belief X are low, the epistemic standards of agent Y are relaxed, such that they’ll be much more prone to and accepting of whatever nonsense is out there, i.e. the “strongly recommended” candidates the credit union listed. I’m not even going to get into Condorcet’s paradox or Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem regarding the impossibility of aggregating preferences; that’ll be for another time and another post.

But lest the progressives weep and gnash their teeth, the progressive in me has found a solution to both rational ignorance and rational irrationality. In order to remedy those problems, and work towards democracy (a moment: because it’s a morally good end in and of itself, it thereby justifies the means I’m offering, here), we need to move towards a scenario in which a class of voters is afforded the time and resources necessary to ponder, so that extended democratization is actually meaningful.

But it’s impossible for everyone to devote their lives to democratization. After all, certain very large segments of the population are needed to dole out welfare, receive welfare, regulate welfare, spend that welfare and use the rest of their free time to campaign for social justice. It’s a busy life, these are essential tasks, and so it’s natural that a certain other segment of the population will be tasked with voting.

And it only makes sense for us to choose young, white males over the age of 18 to be those representative voters. Their privilege simply doesn’t enable them to fight the good fight of social justice. The two just don’t go together. Check your privilege, white boy. Everyone knows that. But even of that narrow segment, we shouldn’t have the low IQ or physically disabled among them. They’re supposed to be recipients of welfare, so I guess there should be some sort of entrance test and physical examination.

Anyway, since the rest of the population has been held back (racism and the kyriarchy) from cognitively demanding occupations which tend to command a large salary, it seems that they’d be doing their duty to society by helping out the voting class—you know, by living in their place and stuff, and maybe, if the white male is really, really busy, cleaning his toilets or something. And probably grocery shopping. And laundry is pretty close to grocery shopping, so I guess they’d do that too. And since they can’t really serve society by doing anything else, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to allow them to leave or to come and go as they please.

Where would they go, anyway? So they’d be like permanent little elves—Santa’s little helpers. That’s how I like to think of it.

But the raw resources still have to come from somewhere. And the city-state across the way from us has been really mean to faggots lately, so I guess they’ve sort of forfeited their surplus resources THAT THEY DIDN’T EARN ANYWAY, and so we’ll just go in and remove the excess for them. It’s kinda like free garbage removal, since morally, they wouldn’t be justified in using it anyway because, you know, faggots and surplus. So we’ll, like, need a pretty large military.

So I think we’ve got this down so far. Our ideal voter class is composed of:

  • young, white males
  • screened for IQ and physical well-being,
  • who are served by slaves,
  • using the raw resources obtained from imperialism

Because democracy. And progressivism. They’re goods in and of themselves. Don’t be a fucking bigot. I’m joining up to plunder; they’re currently offering a rape-with-impunity signing bonus. Faggot-haters should be raped, after all. It only makes sense.