I don’t think that I have to define ‘democracy’ to start. Everybody has an approximate knowledge on that notion; it means ‘rule of the people’ etymologically. The notion of ‘modern democracy’ implies a parliamentary one: It’s ‘the government of the people via their representatives’.

It’s the fact that I don’t believe in ‘democracy’. Because I know ‘who and which things people do rule’ and ‘how they rule and appoint their representatives’, and it’s, I think, so disgusting.

Who is the people rule? Is there a ‘public’ who is embodied? Can a thing who is not embodied, not alive and not conscious rule anything? Can ‘public’ rule?

We have to expose the real mean of ‘public’ in this context. You can think that ‘the public in this context’ is the majority; because the government party is the party elected by the majority, but let’s look at this issue deeper and in a more meaningful manner.

Because this majority can’t determine the every law and every decision conducted by the government, the real governors are the people who was elected and appointed by the people elected: So, it’s a ‘politic-bureaucratic elite’, not us.

Namely, as the least minority in the society, I mean, as an individual, I was governed by a party either I don’t even vote or maybe vote but not accept every decision or law of the government is under an authoritarian guillotine which has been creating by parliaments and governments continually.

But in the theory; government would have a right to govern delegated by the people governed! Merely in reality, I can’t hit a man, take his money and give it another person legally; but governments have compulsory taxation and welfare programs; I can’t imprison a man or make him worked for me compulsory; but governments have authoritarian jails and compulsory recruitment services. Whose rights or liberties are these? No one!

So states don’t take their power by the public delegated his rights and liberties to the government. Nor the people come to the power as they vote one time for every 4 years. Let’s talk about ‘the public’ more. What do this elected, elite ‘public’ rule?

Firstly, of course, they rule ‘public’. But, wait a minute! You tell me that public will rule? Do public rule the public? If everyone rules himself, there’s no need for government. So, who rule this people? Again, it’s a ‘politic-bureaucratic elite’. If there’s no elite, if there’s no governors and people governed, there’s no state. So, can we still believe that ‘we rule us’?

And what does ‘ruling politically’ mean? States have economical rules and institutions; and we sell and buy many things everyday; states have judicial rules and institutions; and we sometimes have some problems with other people; states have international rules and institutions; we contact with people from other countries.

Then, how can a government rule the country? The only method to govern ‘people’ is taking their initiative on their life into ruling elite’s hands, and these elites have to make people acted as they want.

No one who believes liberty can accept these conditions but minarchists and Marxists do. If I can’t govern my relations with people but judicial, international or economical institutions do; there’re no individuals but a mechanical machine absorbing our life energy.

This ‘government’ has to govern ‘manpower and capital’, too. But as you know, politics is not related with ‘production processes’ directly. Then, politics can’t create but make productions and wealth shared. Politics is related with distribution. State seizes the wealth owned by people and gains its wealth by enslavement, coercion and plundering to survive continually.

How can we believe that ‘dumb man’ can plan, govern and regulate the production process? Do they know anything about pricing, productivity or other types of calculations which actualizes as numbers and notions? How can people decide our national culture politics even they don’t even know the name of Kafka or Goethe?

Some people always tell ‘people can’t betray themselves’; but we know that they even don’t know what utilize them! How many people think about the meaning of life –in the real sense- philosophically? Let alone thinking the meaning of life philosophically, can they even think on any issue philosophically?

But a moderate democrat could still insist that democracy is not the best; but it’s better than all other governmental systems. But why we need the government? Why do we have to set all these constitutions and institutions? How can we explain stupidities of public choices with this moderate democratic theory? How can we know that they don’t vote the man which will crush the whole economy?

Doesn’t your ‘public rule’ mean ‘hopeless, dumb and fancy men’s rule’ in real life?

Really, I do suppose in that way…