A recent article on The Anti-Media chronicles a Tedx Talk by investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. The piece chides Ms. Attkisson for revealing uncomfortable facts about the efforts to silence “fake news” despite how they will play in progressive circles. In short, the mainstream media willingly participated in a propaganda campaign started by people loyal to then Presidential Candidate Clinton as a means of silencing alternative media outlets. Despite its corrupt origins, the campaign continues to gain steam around the world.
As we’ve made clear time and again, the Internet is the greatest development in the global advancement toward individual freedom. By decentralizing the control of information and communication, the World Wide Web makes it possible to organize, expose corruption, debunk propaganda, and overcome manipulation once orchestrated within the various seats of power. Those who stand to lose the most by this development have recently discovered an urgency to stem the tide rising about their high towers. Be it power brokers like George Soros covertly tugging the puppet strings of politicians and bureaucrats or those actually occupying positions of power, elected or otherwise, the threat of a world where individuals can be exposed to their machinations will not be tolerated. To this end, progressives of all stripes have begun circling the wagons.
A recent editorial in the New York Times attempts to make sense of the failure that democracy represents with regard to equality. It only requires a few lines of reading to discover some of the major fallacies muddling the author’s understanding and argument. However, rather than delving into those weaknesses, it seems more instructive to challenge the very idea of democracy. While this short post won’t do the same justice to political theory and history found in Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, for example, we can at least attempt to summarize the major flaws with democratic rule.
Chief among the limitations inherent in popular representation are shortened time preferences and vulnerabilities antithetical to private property. In the case of the former, election cycles shorten the time horizon for representatives, making it more likely to spend resources today that should be saved for tomorrow; the current U.S. debt offers ample evidence of this. As for the latter, the ability to confiscate private property at the ballot box eliminates one of the key components of peaceful coexistence.
For my own political journey, this left few alternatives. Monarchy, oligarchy, and tyranny have their ethically and empirically evident shortcomings. If rule by the many is just as problematic as rule by the few, what course remains? Self rule, best known as anarchy.
Like sunrise, the progressive outcry concerning the recent school shooting in Florida was completely predictable. Having removed the “right wing extremist” talking point from the standard response, Nikolas Cruz directed the conversation immediately toward gun control, not that the media is above initially blaming a shooting on ideologies that fit their preferred narrative. Now leftists of all stripes are demanding that the man they’ve called “literally Hitler” for sixteen months confiscate all the guns.
Of course, despite the rhetoric, gun control is never about completely removing guns. The aim instead is to relieve private citizens of access to firearms. Government agencies, on the other hand, would naturally be trusted with an increasingly militarized arsenal. The fact that governments are populated by people, or that this approach is a standard component of tyranny’s rise across history, is lost on those overcome by emotion.
As a result, logic will not win this argument. Each time an emotionally unstable person picks up a weapon with the intent to kill others, emotional responses will again drive the narrative. Fortunately for those of us who understand the importance of self-defense, there remain far more privately owned guns in the hands of stable, moral people than the government has the capacity to confiscate. Only defense against “enemies both foreign and domestic” will retain any semblance of freedom in this country.