Solneman
(Kurt H. Zube)

Even in the concept that equates democracy with the rule of the people, there is expressed that kind of unclear thinking which is associated with the diverse ideas circulating around this concept.

For since domination is a condition of unequal freedom in which the freedom of some is greater than that of others, at the expense and against the will of the latter, it is right away a completely nonsensical idea that a people as such could rule over themselves. That is why democracy in reality has always meant, at least so far, that by means of the idea of the "people" as a "higher" being - compared with the individual - it is possible to rule over all individuals. In doing so the representatives of the "people" create substantial gradations among the dominated individuals, through privileges and monopolies, which enable power groups to exercise domination, for their part, over other groups or individuals.

The people as such, i.e. the sum of its individual members, cannot rule - for the reason alone that they have neither a uniform will nor uniform thinking, and indeed no uniform and independent existence aside from or compared with the aggregate of the individual members in the people. It is merely an abstract general notion that exists exclusively in people's thoughts. Its counterpart in reality is the aggregate of the highly diverse individual members of the people who are only somewhat similar by the virtue of the country, climate, race, language, culture and common historical events.

The "people" becomes an ideological swindle - and so in practice a concept coined by visionaries and power addicts - only when it is propagated as a mystically elevated, independent entity standing above the individual members of the people and having a claim to dominate them. Naturally, the people are vis à vis the individual just as little a "higher essence" as, for example, the aggregate of horses is vis-à-vis an individual horse. This representation of "the people" is a purely conceptual product of the brain which has no provable relationship to reality and is, moreover, quite illogical. Proof can be given neither for the existence of this "people" nor for its alleged will or "true interest." All such allegations are nothing other than untenable assertions which have only one purpose: to justify the aggressive use of force which has actually taken place.

Attempts have indeed been made to give varied and rational arguments for what is practiced as "democracy." However, these arguments partly contradict evident facts and partly they proceed from premises that are quite contestable. The concept of "democracy" is also affected by the conservatism of habits characteristic for the development of human thinking. There is no strict logic involved that could be at everyone's disposal and would make flawless thinking possible. Rather, there is something like a primeval forest through which contemporary leaders of thought have carved narrow paths, which others have followed through contemplating these thoughts. The new results deviate every time only very little from what has already been achieved, just as far as a new path of thinking is cleared sideways or forwards.

Connected to this is probably attachment to accustomed institutions - even when they are long outdated.

Individuals attempted to free themselves from the inexplicable arbitrariness of a multitude of gods (i.e. from the domination of those who presented themselves as the spokesmen of these gods) and also from the unlimited autocracy of a personal and single God, by means of the concept of a God of love and justice, as if it were an enlightened heavenly monarchy. However, the thought of domination remained in these attempts.

It was similar with the human autocrats, the feudal lords, princes, kings and emperors. Here also individuals and groups among the subjugated wrestled some concessions from them and sought to extend their own freedom and to limit the autocrats' sphere of domination. Alas, they merely replaced the decentralized domination of the feudal lords with the centralized domination of a monarch, and finally replaced this with the domination of an abstraction, the people, without realizing that this could only mean domination by its representatives, thus by a new oligarchy. Most of all, they did not realize that previous struggles were directed not so much against different forms of domination and different persons ruling at a time as against domination itself.

Moreover, until two hundred years ago, there was in the masses of the subjugated only very rarely a consciousness of personality which demanded the freedom of the person as an individual and not just as a generic type. Seldom was, there a concern for individual and not just collective freedom. There were, to be sure, in the American Revolution of 1776 and, less so, in the French Revolution of 1789, shy and inconsistent attempts to start with the individual and to deal with social institutions as the creations of individuals with equal rights, creations which would be subject to their control. However, conventional modes of thinking, which perceived domination as the traditional way, and the confusion of the aggregate of all individuals with the "people" (which was now proclaimed the new sovereign and, indeed, sovereign over the aggregate of all individuals), finally generated the mongrel "democracy," whose foundation, aim and "genuine" content is still contested today.

In this, as a rule and theoretically, some "basic rights" are conceded to the individual as allegedly independent from their being granted by the State. However, these are in practice annulled by the representatives of the sovereign "people," who are either self-proclaimed or were chosen in a highly questionable manner. They did this by extending the power of the State into ever new spheres and by finally making it total. Thus even in the "Western democracies," they achieved many times the power of the worst autocrats of previous ages: a power over health and freedom, property and blood, life and death - always in the name of a "democracy" which established under its dominion a plethora of special conditions of domination over individuals and whole groups. Men have not yet rid themselves of domination as such. It is only the masters and the forms that have changed. Domination itself has remained.

That was partly to blame on the confused concept of freedom, which has degenerated into a mere phrase. Since a condition of freedom in social relationships is possible only under the equal freedom of all while no one has more freedom of action at the expense of others and against their will, this condition of freedom is identical with the absence of domination. The very name of "democracy" already contains the concept of domination and is, therefore, the negation of the equal freedom of all.

Responsible for the continuance of domination was, furthermore, the idea (which habit turned into a fixed idea) that, for the establishment and preservation of a condition of freedom and equal rights, it was necessary to have a dominating power set above the individual. In this, one confused, at the same time, power with dominating power and defensive power with aggressive power. To establish and maintain a condition of freedom, power is, indeed, necessary- but exclusively one kind of power: non-aggressive and purely defensive power, the power of those voluntarily united in appropriate organizations for the pursuit of their mutual interest in the maintenance of the equal freedom of all.

Among the ancient Greeks, who are considered the inventors of democracy, there was no talk at all about equal freedom or, at least, about equal rights for all. Even political rights were possessed by only a tiny minority of about 3% of the total population. Otherwise, the population consisted of un-free persons, slaves and those politically disfranchised. In later times, the last group gradually gained citizen rights, and a degree of co-determination.

The original democracy was, therefore, essentially an oligarchy, and everything so far counted as a democracy - with the (formal) exception of Switzerland - has remained an oligarchy, even where, in the end, all citizens of a particular country have achieved the same political rights.

That political rights are not all that matters has been shown by the fact that in the past slaves without political rights have not only received secure support from their masters but have often been turned into advisors and managers of estates, while even today members of politically sovereign masses can at any time fall into destitution and misery.

Much more important than equal political rights is equality of rights generally, e.g. access to land on an equal basis. The concept of the equal freedom of all is still more comprehensive than the concept of equal rights. For all individuals could have the equal right, e.g. according to the basic thesis of communism, of consumption according to their needs, of consuming the products of the work of others. As an equal democratic right is also considered the claim to the authority not only to take money forcefully out of the individual's pockets "for the benefit of the community," but also the claim to hold individuals in tutelage, in numerous ways, and occasionally even to order them to a hero's death - assuming one has received a largely unlimited authority from the "sovereign people" or, indeed, the "mandate" for such an action.

While under the equal freedom of all, no one has a right to the product of the work of another, and no one has the right to give anyone an order (unless he has been conceded this right by the person concerned). While here there are no rights and responsibilities other than those which are voluntarily agreed upon, allegedly equal "democratic rights" "legitimize" aggressive actions against the will of those involved, institutionalize privileges and monopolies as well as oligopolies, and enshrine the unequal freedom of individuals. By unequal freedom of individuals is not meant the different sphere of action of individuals, determined e.g. by inherited abilities, acquired capabilities and accomplishments, but, exclusively, individual spheres of actions that are limited by aggressive force, where one has gained enlarged scope for free actions at the expense and against the will of another.

What is fundamentally meant by "democratization" and is more darkly felt than clearly perceived, is the real and genuine enjoyment of equal rights by all individuals, without privileges, monopolies, or domination of one or the other. It can be achieved through the consistent realization of the principle of the equal freedom of all. In theory as well as in reality, "Democracy" is a system of domination, which although one may prefer it to an autocratic and in particular to a totalitarian system, is just as inevitably doomed as those are. This is not because of some historical law or other sort of law effective in this direction, but simply because facts are stronger than ideologies, and in the face of these facts the inconsistencies and contradictions of "democracy" are untenable in the long run.

Democracy is ideological, not only because one of its "justifications" starts with the mystified concept of the "people," which supposedly, as a "higher" being, not only stands above the totality of all individual members of a nation but also as an independent organism, as some kind of spirit of the people, hovers over past and future generations. More than that, however, it is self-evident that neither the actual existence of such a "people" nor the assertions and claims of its self-appointed representatives are provable. They are, therefore indistinguishable from pure phantoms of the imagination and are thus to be treated in the same way.

But even where, more rationally, the people is considered as the totality of its present members, a number of positive attributes are quite frequently assumed (i.e. invented) for it which are untenable when the matter is judged coolly. One need only take a look at history to find the following confirmed: Wherever the mass of a people has expressed an opinion or moved to action, they have shared and approved the most primitive and nonsensical prejudices and errors, and their actions have usually been characterized by abominable brutality and cruelty.

Even in 700 BC the prophet Isaiah described the mass man in Judea, whether rich or poor, elevated or lowly, as weak-willed, rascally, arrogant, rapacious, slovenly and without principles or scruples. Plato, in Greece, 400 years later, judged the mass of his contemporaries likewise. He even compared them to a herd of rapacious old animals. One can also read in the diaries of Marcus Aurelius what he, in Rome, about 500 years later, thought of his contemporaries. The darkness of the Middle Ages has become proverbial and the accomplishments of modern times in this respect can be studied in the examples set by WWI and WWII, as well as by subsequent wars and revolutions. An impressive selection of such references can be found in Urkräfte im Weltgeschehen (Primeval Forces in World Events), Parts 1 and 2, ed. by Ludwig Leher, Munich, 1968.

During the 18th century the Romantics, in particular Rousseau, with his unrealistic and arbitrary thought constructions (which did not prevent him from making also some statements coming close to reality) brought into circulation concepts which have lasted until today concerning the people's "goodness" and "justice" (in comparison with their rulers, that is relatively, they often were good and just) and concerning the voice of the people as the voice of God.

Where was this goodness and justice towards Socrates, who was condemned by the people to drink a cup of hemlock? Where was it towards Jesus, who was condemned to crucifixion by the people, who preferred the murdered Barabbas to him? Was it not the people who demanded and committed the abominations of the French Revolution and who also bellowed and enthusiastic "Yes!" in answer to Goebbel's question: "Do you want total war?"

Absolutism became complete only due to the mythology of the people. That the French Revolution eliminated absolutism is a falsification of history. In reality, the authority of the State was extended catastrophically, and all the liberties still remaining in the 17th and 18th centuries under absolutism were eliminated. While the individual was placed under continuously increased pressure from the State machinery and was deceived into believing that he himself was now the State, those who were sitting at the controls of this machinery hid themselves behind an anonymous absolutism. It was still possible to dethrone or kill an aggressive prince; but individual resistance to the people was all the less possible the more other individuals believed the new myth and wrongly interpreted every attempt aiming also at their liberation as an attack on themselves. Those who, supposedly, represented the "public" thus became unassailable and were considered from the start as always right towards the individual - especially since behind them was all the prestige and power of the government and, in addition, also the good faith of a manipulated majority. Modern mass media have made possible the unprecedented manufacture of public opinion and its manipulation. This has been supported by the State's education towards obedience via the schools and military service, by the continuous expansion of the State's "tasks," making individuals increasingly more dependent upon what is called the State and what is described as the "representation" of the "public interest," while, in fact, it is rather clumsily masked domination by a small group, an oligarchy, as happened, quite openly, at the inception of democracy.

Democrats do not notice that the Soviet system is also based, quite logically, upon the sovereignty of the people. The "genuine and true will of the people" is so ambiguous and varied, and every rule of the people is so much dependent upon functionaries who make the actual decisions, that democracy and people's democracy are, fundamentally, only distinguishable from one another in the manner of manipulation by means of which the selection of the functionaries is made. In this, certainly, their ideology has a voice also. In both cases there is a great degree of manipulation. There are many types and divisions of domination. There is, however, only one freedom, the equal freedom of all, which is identical with the absence of domination.

The manipulation of the so-called will of the people was very strikingly parodied in the Quotidien de Paris in the middle of October 1976 (i.e. on the occasion of Mao's succession), when the paper asked the question: Why do the Chinese masses remain so quiet during the current power struggles?
"Where, actually, is the Chinese people? What does it do? What does it think? What does it want? Where does it hide ...? For in China, as is well known, everything comes from the masses and everything returns to the masses. Thus, when the people these days did not appear on the political stage, the reason was simply that one had forgotten to inform it about its own demands, one had neglected to instruct it concerning its own wishes. That is, one had not even considered inviting the people to their own festival. The people were against Yu, Tsching, Tschao and the others, but one had not had enough time to tell them so. It was thus necessary to act even before the people understood that this was in accordance with its will. It is simply a question of method."
In Western democracies only the forms and the methods of manipulation are different.

Karl Gordon-Wallach says in Politische Mythologie (Political Mythology) concerning the sovereignty of the people (his much more extensive reasoning should be read there):

"This fairy tale concept has precipitated the whole political confusion of our age. The nebulousness and impossibility of this political idea has caused the decline of Europe. Mythology has replaced clear political ideas.

"In the course of two centuries the mythology of the 'sovereign people' has become a world-wide religion. All the political adventures and all the political mortal sins of our century have arisen from the confusion which this unhealthy and impossible concept has caused.

". . . The concept of the sovereignty of the people is constantly portrayed as something quite harmless and peaceful. Precisely in this manner of describing things lies the beginning of a mythology. There is nothing wilder, more dangerous and more unpredictable than the people coming to power. Every type of Jacobinism shows us this with sufficient vividness.

"Whoever equates the sovereignty of the people with the ideal direction of the State, approaches the reality of the direction of the State with completely false ideas.

"... Inherent in the concept of the sovereignty of the people is the idea that the people are, necessarily, always right because they are good and unspoiled; and because no one will harm himself, the decision of all is, therefore, always the best solution.

". . . The theory of the sovereignty of the people encountered tremendous demand when an infallible means was found to neutralize the people's right to rule. This means of sterilizing the will of the people is the political party.

". . . The State's dogma runs: the party system is the expression of political freedom and at the same time the guarantee for the rule of the people. - It is still one of the highest duties of the citizens to believe this nonsense.

"... The party system, as is demonstrated for us everywhere in the Western world, has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of the people but is the expression of a form of domination quite different from that of the people. The democratic party system is nothing other than an oligarchy, i.e. the rule of the few. The political parties are small spheres of domination by a few. But the fiction is maintained that these groups are nothing other than popular associations built and supported by the will of their members. In this they are supposed to be - as we have been assured -exact mirror images of the State ruled by the people.

"Certainly, the political parties are the exact likenesses of the parliamentary democratic State, namely, in the sense that the State is just as much ruled by a few individual people as the particular political associations are.

"In the parties as well as in the State, fate is directed by a few very influential men. These few make the decisions and direct the will of the people. For the people have, generally, only a very limited political inclination and passion. Financial sufficiency, a peaceful existence, and participation in the pleasures of life are their main concern.

"Thus the political parties constitute some kind of discipline for the politically shy masses and they signify a channeling of their only slightly conscious will into political directions.

"Decisive in the parties and in the State are those men who direct the weak conscious will of the people into the direction which they, the few, desire. The people are not angered by that. On the contrary: whoever does not fulfill this task of direction wears the people out. This can be observed in the following examples: in many places there are small doctrinaire democratic groups which want all their decisions made by the whole of the membership. But these parties are condemned to remain small, since they work ineffectively. Firstly, they fatigue their members, and secondly, their activities are sluggish because they lack a leading group imbued with a certain will to power and maintained in its position by quite specific group interests. The honest but rather useless efforts of these small political groups only serve to prove that the rule of the people is a beautiful illusion. There is no people that feels itself passionately responsible for public affairs and State matters.

"... When we are taught that the parties are the 'high schools of democracy' then we can quite understand this. For future ministers learn there how to manage the will of the people. In the parties they learn how things are made palatable for the people, how majorities can be obtained by surprise motions and other tricks, how 'false resolutions' of the party rank and file can be weakened, killed or otherwise saved."

"The determination of the will of the people may also help one influential party group to supplant another or to topple undesired but powerful individual persons. Party friends and comrades-in-arms can in this way be given the cold shoulder or stabbed in the back. Such experience is indispensable for anyone who wants to get ahead in the people's State.

"All of those experiences of party life can be splendidly applied in the higher echelons of the national democracy. There, too, a merciless struggle takes place between certain individuals as they wrestle for the most influential positions. This is the reality of the democratic leadership of the State.

"... The struggle for power is fought with severity and relentlessness, even though democratic screens are set up to hide this unpleasant spectacle from us.

"... Court intrigues have left the ante-chambers of princes in order to flourish anew in party offices and the corridors of parliaments. Thus an impressive swarm of flatterers and courtiers still circulates around the sovereigns of today. The party leaders are the democratic courtiers who attempt to obtain the favours of their sovereign through flattery - only with the difference that the prince of the modern age, that is, the people, has no chance of getting rid of the intriguers and flatterers. For the so-called sovereign of today is the whole people, all citizens - and so no one. How could everybody, who at the same time is nobody, interfere with the wasp's nest of combinations, arrangements and insidious intrigues which occur all around in his name?

"Thus it happens that in reality the courtiers, flatterers and adventurers have every possibility in the democratic system of successfully playing their un-pleasant game. The anonymity of power and the exercise of power beckon un-political forces into the arena and deliver the power of the State over to them. That is the reason why in all parliamentary democracies economic forces finally shape political decisions... and not, as theory stipulates, the people. That is also the reason why the major economic forces in the world again and again stand up for parliamentary democracy. This form of the State offers them the greatest opportunity for indirect influence, which constantly and everywhere fortifies itself behind the 'will of the people.'

"Next to the mythology of equality exists that of unification (elimination of the opposition). It is not a specialty of the totalitarian one-party-State. It also flourishes in the shadow of democratic anonymity and nameless wielders of power affect the parties and the public institutions. Between them these rule all the institutions of the country, not only the apparatus of the State, the army and financial matters but, also, public opinion and education. Everything lives in tenacious dependence from one another.

"In such a manner the truly free life of the mind is compressed into a disappearing narrow space. Also, the actually free spheres of life of the individual, where he can still decide his personal fate, according to his own discretion, are, likewise, becoming vanishingly small. The high cost of living, the permanent pressure exerted, consciously or unconsciously, upon all outsiders, the official social measures, obligations imposed by the State and an obtrusive way of life do constrain all the movements of life.

"The unbelievably wide and deep reaching effect which the mass media radio and television have, contribute their part to the suffocation of personal impulses. In the press, the large news and photographic services coordinate the 'respectable' press, and in the illustrated papers the greed for profit demolishes everything.

"Thus this musty Western climate arose in which everything must integrate and subordinate itself to the course of the ' process of production'. To expose oneself because of an opinion is considered unprofitable and this as approximately the same as stupid. Whoever offers any service without demanding for it, right away, a high fee, is considered ' an idealist'. He earns from the private sector as well as from the State only contempt, one that is flavoured by the suspicion that his attitudes might be undependable."

In this same book the author, furthermore, calls public opinion:

"the opinion of the most powerful man in the country, who in power concentration such as parties, business and also scientific organizations, industrial associations etc., have the final word.

"To pronounce this fact means, however, wanting to shake forbidden fruits from the tree of political knowledge. Whoever wants to call these things by their true name, endangers himself in the liberal democracy, also.

"No one is supposed to find out how information and public opinion are handled in our epoch. Thus public opinion is employed merely as a mythological concept. No one is to touch it with a sacrilegious hand or to lift this veil of secrecy which is carefully spread over this myth.

" ... In reality, public opinion is the expression of what the influential families and personalities of a country think about a particular matter.

" ... The more effective the communication media are, the more strictly and ruthlessly are they made to serve this public opinion.

"... Whoever utters something that displeases the officials or those powerful in a country, will be relentlessly shot down.

"... In theory, the Swiss Radio has been transferred to a private concern for administration. But the people thus commissioned know exactly what is expected from them. A small press campaign is started from the right spot (by which the 'anger of the people' is organized), a few angry telephone calls from influential personages, a few winks of the eye and frowns, and the civil servants of this ' privately administered' radio know that they must now immediately undertake 'technical changes and cuts which are determined by scheduling'. Moreover, this or that man is 'accidentally' or 'purely through oversight' no longer invited to collaborate.

" ... The mythology of public opinion is of the greatest importance in the Western countries because there the matter of opinion is quite free. Everyone can say what he wants, even on the radio ... provided, naturally, that he will be permitted at all to speak freely on the radio! One ca also say whatever one wants in the newspapers ... provided, naturally, that such a free statement of opinion will be printed! Or one can say whatever one wants to say in books, assuming that one can find a publisher or can permit oneself to finance it oneself and that the book is then also noticed and reviewed.

"The theoretical freedom of expression is, therefore, limited by a number of technical difficulties."

"The gap which separates theory and practice of the free expression of opinions must not be so thoughtlessly pointed out. There are, after all, even in the Free West only infinitely few men who are not simply satisfied with the set opinion in political affairs and who are plagued with a bizarre zeal to verify if those things are actually true which have already been poured into a person in primary school."

Even when one starts from the non-ideological concept of the people and understands by this the totality of all individual members of the people present today, it is still an ideological concept (i.e. an empty, unprovable assertion) that this "public' or its majority is called to rule or has a "right" to rule, not only over all individual members of the people but, moreover, over all "foreigners" who are stating in the national territory concerned, for which the people concerned raised a monopolistic claim.

It is, indeed, contested that the aim is here domination and one asserts that this is eliminated through democracy and that all are equally free because all can participate in the same way at the polls. Through this "the representatives of the people" would be determined, who would then express and follow through the will of the people or of the whole or of the majority.

Actually, elections offer only one opportunity, namely to choose between different practitioners of domination. They offer no opportunity - not even through non-participation in elections - to remove oneself from the domination by others. For, although most of the voters are not conscious of this, the vote for the so-called "representatives" of the people means the surrender of the right to self-determination and an authorization for others, not only to interfere with the freedom of the voter concerned (which would still be quite acceptable), but also with the freedom of third parties. Thus it authorizes aggressive actions and, thereby, the voter and authorizer becomes himself aggressive.

Mind you, the democratic elections common today are not concerned with the commissioning of those who merely have the task to protect the equal freedom (and, thereby, the truly equal rights of all) against every attack but, on the contrary, are dealing with the authorization of aggressive interventions - not only with the freedom of those bestowing the authorization but, in particular, with the freedom of non-participating third parties.

While the first would represent organization without domination (on a voluntary basis, whose more precise description will follow later), the second case is concerned with the transfer of distinct functions of domination, not only over themselves but, also, over third parties. It is typical for the confusion in today's thinking that some are of the opinion that this process would mean the abolition of domination, while others, confusing the defensive power for the maintenance of genuine order, with the aggressive power of domination for the establishment of subordination and superiority, do, quite naively, declare domination to be "necessary" in order to peacefully settle conflicts.

One cannot speak of equal rights and duties, which are sometimes considered as characteristic for democracy, where on one hand the rights are limited to being allowed to mark a cross every four years on a ballot, while the majority of those elected in such a manner claim for themselves the right to act, with the whole power of the State apparatus, not only against the wishes and interests of the majority among the voters but, also, against the wishes and interests of their own voters. (This is then classed as the pursuit of the "public interest").

Moreover, these "representatives of the people" also claim for themselves the right to regulate the affairs of those members of the people, who did not vote at all, i.e., who neither gave them an authorization nor a commission and, lastly, even the affairs of all those in their realm of power, altogether, i.e., even of those, who neither desire their impertinent interference nor their "welfare benefits". With what right? With that of aggressive force!

Only when something corresponds to the will and the interest of all individuals, is it proper to say that it is also in accordance with the will and the interest of the public. The "public welfare" is, however, usually only a fraudulent pretext by which the realization of the interests of individuals and groups at the expense of others is disguised. The "representatives of the people" are not at all in a position to act in accordance with the will and the interests of the public, even if they would want to do this. For the intentions and interests of individuals are altogether different, of a very great variety and, for the most part, opposed to each other. In democracies the "representatives of the people" are determined primarily to carry out the will and to support the interests of those parties and groups, which remain anonymously in the background, certain groups do also follow their particular interests even within the parties.

Already before the last election for the "Bundestag" (Federal Parliament of the German Federal Republic), it was already certain, for approximately 90% of the seats, who would be sent to parliament. For the parties and the associations had apportioned safe voting districts to "their" candidates and had assured the few insecure ones through election tickets. The voter could only decide in a few seats - more or less for one or the other party. And even in this he was so perfectly manipulated by the parties, associations and their functionaries, that the result was predictable far in advance.

Just how much the voters have been disfranchised is shown also by the constitutional provisions which state that the representatives are not bound by instructions and commissions. They can, therefore, simply break explicit promises upon which they were elected. They can even take their mandate over to an opposing party - an action which otherwise, under criminal law, would be prosecuted as breach of trust and fraud. This is defended by saying that the representatives should represent the whole of the people (which, in practice, is a sheer impossibility) and should only be subject to their conscience. The absolute monarchs, too, were only subject to their conscience and they asserted, likewise, that they had the welfare of the whole people in mind. But they did not have, not by far, the kind of power which today is wielded by the oligarchy of "the democratic representatives of the people" and, especially, of those people upon whom these "representatives" depend.

Moreover, hardly any of these "representatives of the people" dare make a truly thorough reform proposal - if his career is dear to him - or even speak the full and unadulterated truth. For then he will be attacked, not only by the men behind the scenes in the opposition party but also by those in his own party and by his party colleagues - since they are afraid of losing votes. The result is an opportunism that is as undignified as it is unscrupulous.

The wire-pullers of the established parties protect themselves against new competing parties not only through stipulations (in Western Germany) that a party must obtain 5 to 10% of the vote before it can represent the people, but also by a plethora of other impediments. Moreover, they have created many additional advantages for themselves. They are paid back a large portion of the costs of their election campaigns from tax funds. The election contributions and the new regulation on attendance money will soon make them completely independent of contributions by party members. The German television viewer now pays for campaign propaganda on TV with his quarterly television fees. The production costs of these television spots are also carried by the taxpayer, as campaign costs for the parties. Everything is thus enacted almost free of charge for the parties, and indeed, the larger they are, they more this is so.

One has all the less reason to speak of an equality of rights between the voters and their representatives (and their bureaucratic appendages) because the main function of the representatives is to reach into everyone's pockets, at their own discretion, and to distribute what is taken, again at their own discretion, into other pockets (including their own). This occurs by means of a multitude of direct and indirect taxes, and the extent and nature of the latter taxes remains unknown to most people. It also occurs through an "economic" and "currency policy" which influences incomes, depreciates savings, endangers pensions, makes many workers unemployed, and drives self-employed people into bankruptcy. There are always those who are privileged and those who are disadvantaged - and this happens constantly under the fiction of the "will of the people" and the alleged "common good" (public welfare or public interest).

There is nothing objectionable in voters freely electing (presumed) representatives of their interests and conceding to them such extensive powers against themselves that they can be misused against their real interests also. For it is quite within the framework of what is to be understood by the equal freedom of all when someone voluntarily limits himself, his own freedom of action, in favour of someone else. The matter becomes absurd only when someone presumes to give others the authority to limit the freedom of third parties against their will, in his own interest or in that of the others, so holding in tutelage and coercing the third party.

This is clearly aggression, not only on the part of those elected, but on the part of the voters.

It should be noted that in a democracy the rule of the elected "representatives of the people" (or rather a majority of them) in no way ends when they leave parliament. For many of the legal provisions and institutions created by them during their legislative period continue to exist far into the future. The apparatus of the State, with its ruling bureaucracy, takes on a completely independent life of its own next to the "representatives of the people" and the "government" elected by them. For ministers leave, but the State secretaries, the ministerial bureaucracy and the civil servants remain. Indeed, those sitting at the controls of the apparatus have already largely seized control of the "representation of the people": Over 40% of the representatives in the present German "Bundestag" (Federal Parliament) come from the civil service and, consequently, they have the opportunity to take very good care of their own special interests. The so-called separation of powers thereby becomes a farce.

The influence upon legislation and administration of those who are not elected becomes all the greater the more extensive the activity of the State becomes, i.e. the more presumptuous the "representation of the people" and "government" are in keeping individuals in tutelage. For seeing that most of the representatives and even of the ministers usually lack the expert knowledge required to evaluate correctly the ever more complicated situations created by them, the lobbies of professional and special-interest associations become involved usually behind the scenes, but often quite openly. Those who usually prevail are those with the stronger elbows.

Governments and parties are to a large extent dependent upon special interest groups, and the selection of their representatives, which is manipulated by a small clique, is usually even more of a comedy than that of the "representatives of the people." The latter, to the extent that they do not fight bitterly among themselves for positions and ministerial portfolios, exercise "party discipline" and vote "yes" or "no," mostly without knowing what they are doing, in accordance with whatever the "experts" of the bureaucracy and the committees, or the party leadership, recommend.

Private and national power positions, privileges and monopolies for individuals, groups and institutions -i.e. the so-called "democracy of pull and favours" - arise through countless laws under the influence of special interest groups. Once created, they develop a life of their own and are subject to no kind of parliamentary control. One reason for this is that the aims, particularities and effects of most of these laws are hardly fully known by those who decide over them and, much less so, by the general public. The enormous power of the "Bundesbank" (Federal Central Bank) can serve as an example. It conducts a "currency policy" independent of parliament and the government, by fixing the discount and bank loan rate and the minimum reserve requirement, by inflating the quantity of currency in circulation, and, lastly, by the floatation of securities. All of these actions have far-reaching and immediate effects upon everyone, and yet the "sovereign people" and, much more so, the individual are powerless against them. For the mass of the population, even the educated, do not possess the ability to comprehend and judge what occurs there, as is the case also with the majority of laws generally. For example, an increase of the currency in circulation and the raising of the minimum reserve requirement (i.e. contrary measures) often go hand in hand. However, both of these force the interest rate up, i.e. increase the unearned income which makes the main purpose of the money monopoly more than clear. Indeed, the great masses are kept in such ignorance about the most important facts of money (which are not so complicated that everyone could not understand them) that they do not even have any interest in wanting to form a reasoned judgment. To a great extent, they despise all "politics". (According to opinion polls, only 15% have a genuine interest). It is only due to very extensive propaganda, in which all kinds of tricks have much more weight than factual arguments, that they let themselves be driven as voting cattle to the polls at certain intervals. This circumstance alone already reveals the absurdity of the often praised majority rule.

As mentioned above, there simply are no "peoples" at all, no "people" who are passionately interested in the concerns of the genuine totality (i.e. really of all individuals). Far less is there a people or a nation that feels itself responsible. Only the above-mentioned small percentage of individuals attempt, within and outside the parties, to direct, politically and otherwise, the desire of the masses, which are only feebly conscious and are determined more by feelings than by thinking.

It is also the view, not merely of the above-quoted Gordon-Wallach, that public opinion is only the opinion of the opinion-makers and that these are directed by the truly powerful, i.e. the economically powerful, in a country. They do not need to be censored, for they censor themselves. Martin Walser wrote on this (Die Zeit, 3.3.1972):

"They are dependent upon the functionaries of the owners of the means of production and dependent upon the functionaries of the public corporations. The functionaries are intellectuals in the service of the existing social order. . . . The higher placed the functionaries are, the more rigid and conservative they are in representing society's interests. At the higher levels of the opinion industry there are salaries which have little to do with recompense at all and more to do with bribery. Mucius Scaevola put his hand into the fire. He would not have withstood the offer of a salary of 30,000 DM per month. The superintendent, the program director, the chief editor, the columnist, the economics editor, the political editor, they all have received or retained such posts because they have demonstrated that they regard restricted democracy as the right democracy. They do not characterize the social condition so far achieved with the term "restricted democracy," but rather call it a "democracy based on freedom and law" etc. Thus they probably see only some minor blemishes here and there and perform their duty voluntarily. A pretty condition."

One of the most powerful opinion shakers, Rudolf Augstein, has explicitly proclaimed that there must be domination as well as servitude (in Der Spiegel, 2.6.1975). Another, Henri Nannen, once very frankly and bluntly admitted (Stern, 13.2.1973): "that in our society injustice rules, that a few are powerful and many powerless, that the victims of recessions are still the workers rather than the entrepreneurs, that property makes one free and poverty unfree (sic) - who would want seriously to contest that? And who would want to contest that our laws serve to preserve the establishment, to protect the rulers from those ruled, property from the grasp of those without property, and the powerful from the insurrection of the powerless?" He holds that this is an advance over previous conditions, where power ruled through inheritance and possession. Here he is only partly correct, for does not power today rule even more comprehensively than before, through inherited and newly acquired possessions, despite "universal, free and secret suffrage?" And he thinks, quite correctly, that the present condition is more bearable than "the authoritarianism of functionaries who subscribe only to a political ideology. Whoever wants to force upon humanity a Utopian happiness by persecuting dissenters, prohibiting newspapers, limiting freedom of movement, building walls, and by locking up critics in asylums for the insane, should be resisted to the utmost.

Nannen, however, does not say how "democratization" ought to continue - only that every advance requires a hard struggle. He favours only "co-determination at the workplace" and does not see that this does not touch at all the exploitation through land rent and interest. And he does not see or does not want to see what is ideological, unrealistic and absurd in democracy.

Take, for example, the principle of majority decisions as a justification for domination. The application of this principle can be quite meaningful -in organizations whose voluntary members pursue a common aim and have the option to escape an infringement of their freedom through non-discriminatory withdrawal. However, as a principle for the exercise of domination, it is one of the most inane principles, for a monarch or a dictator can now and then be an intelligent and responsible man, but the majority, especially in party- democracies, is, as a rule, if not without intelligence, then at least without judgment, a hot-bed of corruption and of the irresponsibly mediocre. It partly provides a theatre of action for sly power addicts, and by its dead weight partly hinders those who have still remained honest in the general morass. As Goethe (as well as many others) said: "Nothing is more repulsive than the majority, for it embraces only a few strong pioneers, and otherwise comprises only scoundrels who accommodate themselves, weaklings who assimilate themselves, and the mass that merely follows without the least knowledge of what it wants." Similarly, Schiller said: "Everyone, individually, is tolerably clever and sensible; but everyone as a body is an utter blockhead!"

Above all, the majority principle is a conspicuous contradiction of the ideological principle of the sacredness of the "will of the people" and the "common good," which have already been shown to be nonsensical. For if a majority has the right to direct a minority according to its will, to force it and to rule it, then there can be no question of this corresponding to the common good or the will of the whole people. With all three of the loudly proclaimed main principles of democracy, we therefore have only blatant absurdities. In order to be consistent with the majority principle, one would have to grant it in civil life, too. Then two imbeciles must be granted greater rights than a single normal citizen or a genius. And as long as two do not receive under civil law a "right" against one, three against only two, etc., the majority principle in public law is at least a sign of schizophrenia, if not of brain damage.

It is also one of the contradictions between the ideology and the practice of democracy that in numerous cases the "representatives of the people" openly disregard the will of the majority of the members of the people, for example, by hindering or rejecting plebiscites (which are characteristically liked by totalitarian regimes, which gladly let their own will be confirmed by the manipulated masses, as the "will of the people"). Another example: They disregard the will of the people when opinion polls reveal that the majority is for the retention or the reintroduction of the death penalty. Thus such a disregard of the "will of the people" can be quite reasonable. For that the voice of the people is the voice of God is only true in so far as it is often as incomprehensible as the so- called "will of God" is said to be. However, one cannot declare the will of the majority to be sacred and nonsensical at the same time.

Moreover, it has become clear, through numerous opinion polls and individual interviews, that the ideas and judgments of about 90% of all people are extremely primitive and backward. This applies not only to the masses of the uneducated but, just as well, to the so-called educated, who, as for example Ortega y Gasset observed, judge outside of their special subjects like barbarians or primitive wild men. In other words, about 90% of all human beings, with regard to all problems going beyond their narrow point of view, are almost without judgment - even when they are intelligent. This applies also to the election of suitable representatives - where they are, again and again, taken in by skilful demagogues.

For that reason alone, conditions must be created in which people can affect only themselves through mistaken decisions, not third parties. The power of domination must therefore disappear!

It is also evident that elections are manipulated through the mass media, by private interest groups as well as by the parties, and especially, by the government. The alleged "will of the people" is first only suggested to some groups among the people who are not aware of this, while the great mass of the people have already delivered themselves up to every possible sort of suggestion and claim for leadership, in religions and ideologies, because of their own inclinations. In this, their own will is not only given up, largely unconsciously, but handed over to others, mostly to anonymous power groups.

Seeing that by now people remain quite unimpressed when a Mr. Miller makes claims that appear unfair - although he may assert that they also correspond to the wills of Mr. Baker and Mr. White - why should people respect the so-called "will of the people," behind which stands only the confused and questionable will of a few million Millers, Bakers and Whites? When, as can be confidently presumed, for ten stupid people (or let us say, more politely, ten people incapable of judgment) there is at most one bright fellow, then democracy according to the majority principle means that all prejudices, all emotions, all untenable fancies and beliefs sit in judgment over the minority of reasonable people.

Certainly, leadership by these reasonable people is necessary, but this is quite different from domination, for it stands in strict opposition to it.

Opposed to a democracy resting upon the alleged "will of the people," the "public interest," and the majority principle (that is, an illusionary, ideological and quite frankly fraudulent democracy, which permits individuals only to exist dependently, as parts of a group), there is another, less ideological, although no less illogical, interpretation of it.

According to this interpretation, all individuals are supposed to have an equal share in the power required for the protection of the basic rights of the totality of all individuals. It is the thesis of Anarchism, too, that power, which must not be confused with domination (and a corresponding organization), is necessary for the protection not only of very humble basic rights but of the much more extensive equal freedom of all. However, outside of political power (even though closely linked with it) there are other very strong powers, privileges and monopolies. These are not only created by political power and have been made largely unassailable based on certain arbitrarily interpreted "basic rights" but also exert, on their own, an immense influence upon the functionaries of political power. Mere formal protection of the "basic rights" of those who are not privileged is of little use, since, simply because of the privileges and monopolies possessed by others, the dispossessed have little of what would make protection meaningful. Of what use, for example, is the right to express opinions freely when, in practice, only the editors of newspapers and journals (as well as their owners) and the program directors of radio and television stations (to the extent that their directors agree) have these rights? Behind most of the "basic rights" in the constitution of the German Federal Republic (which are, moreover, formulated in such a way that there is the widest scope for arbitrary interpretation), there stands, immediately, a limitation through existing and future laws - laws which are continuously produced as if on an assembly line. Even the "unassailable essence" of the basic rights is constantly interpreted with reference to higher interests, by institutions which not only enjoy equal rights with individuals but confront them as superior authorities - with all the power of the State behind them.

It is exactly the same with the elected representatives of the people. Here one must note that a sensible selection is only possible within parameters that are easy to survey, e.g. within smaller communities or neighbourhoods where everyone knows everybody. It is impossible in incomprehensibly vast States where completely unknown candidates are presented to the voters only via party lists and are successfully pushed upon them with the aid of all the tricks of modern mass psychology.

It is also incompatible with this more realistic view of democracy that the "representatives" are bound neither by the instructions given to them by the voters nor by the promises which they have made to the voters. The constitution of the German Federal Republic allows them to do this, due to an ideological concept of the people and the totality. Whenever they have genuine conflicts of conscience, they should be allowed to vacate their seats, but not to betray their voters, to practice political jobbery, and to secure personal advantages for themselves, e.g. by insisting on a guarantee from the other party on their continuance in office.

A characteristic contradiction to the theory of the "representation of the whole" lies also in the practice of all parliaments which disregards the principle of a proportional representation of all citizens. If, for example, all citizens are to be represented by 1,000 representatives and there is only a 70% turnout of voters in an election, then, consequently, only 700 representatives should be allowed to take up their seats - as being authorized by those 70%. Actually, the whole 1,000 seats are always distributed among the election winners, as if the 30% who did not vote (and had thus demonstrated their rejection of the "representatives" who had offered themselves) nevertheless wanted to be represented by them.

Here too must be mentioned the effort of established parties to prevent or at least obstruct the rise of new parties through the legal construction of the 5% or 10% hurdles. The votes of those electors, whose group does not achieve this percentage, come to nothing, although they give expression, indeed, to a portion of the "will of the people" and the "public," who are thus on one hand disregarded and on the other hand elevated almost to divinity. Here, too, is revealed with complete clarity what stands behind the so-called "will of the people" i.e. the particular will of vested interests.

When "representatives of the people" is interpreted as representatives of the interests of particular groups (which they actually are, even though they attempt, again and again, to hide themselves behind the ideology of the "will of the people" and the "public interest") then the application of the majority principle reveals itself as especially senseless, for it aims to provide advantages at the expense of the minority and to realize its own will. There is actually only one "justification" of the majority principle: When the majority and a minority struggle with each other, then the former will win because of its superior numbers, and because of this fact it does make sense when the minority subordinates itself right away. Since this is the meaning of the majority principle, one should honestly admit it and name this "right" of the majority simply the law of the big fist. Naturally, and on both sides, ideological notions obscure the actual situation with imaginary and (in many cases) unprovable "rights." We will find a very simple standard for these outlined in the following chapter.

Another contradiction to the supposed enjoyment of equal rights by all in a democracy lies in the fact that the elected "representatives" do not have the legal position of normal representatives and of commissioned people who are dependent upon authorization. Instead, they exercise pronounced domination functions, even towards their electors. The voters in no way enjoy equal rights with them and are only in very rare cases conscious of the consequences which they have initiated. But even among the voters there can be no question of equal rights as long as the absurd condition persists that the delegation of authority from the individual to the "representatives of the people" means that they not only represent his interests - n.b. the voter's own interests - but also represent the interests and regulate the affairs of third parties over their heads! Exactly this occurs in every democracy in accordance with the majority principle.

The conviction that one has a right to push everything that one believes to be good and correct for oneself upon others, if necessary by force, arises from the erroneous belief that inculcated or habitual subjective evaluations are really objectively valid value norms. With religions, people have as a rule understood that such a belief is simply mischief. Not so with ideologies, although these - because their theses are not provable - are just as much a matter of faith as religions are. The majority principle, like most of the other principles of democracy, is merely a "sacred cow."

In a democracy there are only allotted, "permitted" and isolated individual liberties, not, however, true, full, and complete freedom, which is and can only be the equal freedom of all. In this freedom, the "law-giver" and the functionaries responsible for its observance stand under the same principle as all other individuals, and because of that are equal to them, not above them.

Democracy is a relationship of mutual dependence. Anarchy, the equal freedom of all, is a relationship of mutual independence. Kant said on this: "There can be nothing more appalling than that the actions of one man should fall under the will of another man. A man who is dependent is no longer a man; he is only the tool of another man."

Democracy is the unsuccessful attempt to obscure the fact that the State uses aggressive force by making a "right" out of this (i.e. by attempting to feign such a right). For rights can only arise out of free agreements, and no one can maintain that all those subjugated to the State's authority consent to this condition. The constitution of the German Federal Republic states with admirable frankness: "The State's power comes from the people." And that is it. The State is a forced association, in contrast to a free association. What is meant by power is thus not the defensive force against aggression but, rather, aggressive force against non-aggressive individuals and groups.

Does it make any difference for the people against whom this aggression is directed (disregarding completely the exploitation taking place) whether the aggression comes from a single autocrat or several, or from the people, or from anyone whatsoever?

It is quite as foolish to want to vote whether 2 times 2 ought to equal 5 or 4, as it is to want to establish by majority decision whether the freedom of some individuals should be extended at the expense of others (against their will), i.e. whether the freedom of the latter should be limited in favour of the former. Naturally, this is never formulated in such a manner. Instead, one speaks loftily of the "general welfare" which ought to be everyone's concern, and in this the fact is cleverly hidden that it is always only a part of the whole that must pay (moreover, at different rates) or must serve in other ways, while the other part is the recipient or the beneficiary. The concept of "social justice," which can be given almost any meaning, plays a very large part here, next to other ideological concepts, i.e. concepts that are outside experienced reality. For thousands of years, whenever it was not a simple case of openly aggressive force anyhow, people acted only in accordance with religious or ideological convictions, without placing a limit on these acts as is given in the equal freedom of all. For thousands of years, it was always only the belief of some group which stood against the beliefs of some other groups. People struggled bitterly about things which were not provable on either side and on which an agreement was impossible from the beginning. The result, naturally, could not be anything other than the mutually aggressive exercise of force.

To vote whether something that is believed in, i.e. is not provable, is either "correct" or even merely "better" than something else that is also believed in, is an absurdity. The enforcement of the result of such a vote against any minority, no matter how small this group may be, is nothing other than an attempt to disguise aggression, for there can be no reasonable justification for this.

In addition to the factual content of democracy, in addition to what it is, there are also, although usually confused, concepts on what it should be and could be, that is, dreams of something that exists not in reality but only in the imagination. These have condensed into clichés: pluralism, more democratization, and emancipation. What is "democratic" in these dreams is the elimination of any favouritism, any prerogatives of the one against the other, equality of opportunity, and freedom from traditional shackles.

 

HOW THE REAL WHOLE CAN MAKE DECISIONS (^)

The difference between what is practiced as so-called "democracy" and what is fundamentally meant and pursued when one speaks of "democratic conduct," is best made clear by an example from everyday life.

In a "democracy" of the normal type, majorities make decisions which bind everybody. In this process, a few, who actually make decisions in the name of this majority, are themselves controlled by others. In this type of "democracy," an abstraction - the "people" or the "totality" - rules over real individuals, whereas in a free market economy (what is presently considered as such has little to do with a genuine free market economy!) and in an "ideal" democracy, individuals make decisions which concern only themselves and those other individuals with whom they deal directly.

Whoever, for example, goes into a shop and buys a tin of vegetables, is only bound by his own decision when he chooses to buy a tin of brand X. He must then pay the required price. He does not have to buy a tin with the product of that particular firm.

When he buys it, however, he must pay for it. It is not important whether he pays immediately or whether the storekeeper gives him credit.

In the latter case both trust each other. The buyer does not know what is in the tin since he cannot see the contents. However, he trusts partly the label, partly his experience, partly firm X and partly the shopkeeper. When the shopkeeper gives the buyer credit, he does so because he trusts his impression (the label) of the buyer. He believes according to his experience and with his knowledge of human nature that he will get his money in the end. He may, though, be completely mistaken, although this will not happen very often. Also the buyer himself can be mistaken. The tin might contain something quite different from what he desired, or the contents might be spoiled. However, he will not be mistaken very often either, for once he has bought a tin from firm X which does not contain what he expected, next time he will be very reluctant to buy the same again.

The result of such buyer decisions (or voting, as it could be called) is noted by the shopkeeper at regular intervals. Thus he finds out that a few customers, like the above mentioned one, have voted for firm X. He will also find out that a few others have decided for brand Y and still others for brand Z. He must know this in order to place orders for the particular brands in exactly the quantities which he considers necessary in order to satisfy his customers' wishes in the future.

What happens, then, in the different firms producing these foods? The consumers' votes reach them, and their numbers differ for every firm.

Let us suppose that Brand X, which was chosen by the buyer in our example, is the most popular brand, receiving 100 votes, while each of the others received less than 100 votes. If the market economy were run like political "democracy" today, then this would mean that in future only brand X would be produced since the buyers had voted that this was the best. All other brands would have to disappear.

However, in the free market economy there is no process as in the political "democracy" of today. Even though brand X showed itself to be the most popular brand, the others were popular enough to encourage their manufacturers to continue their production. All the firms, therefore, for which sufficient buyers have voted will continue production. The vote of the buyers for brand X does not force all other buyers to buy brand X. The patrons of brand Y cannot hinder those who prefer brand X. Likewise, those who love brand X cannot hinder those who prefer brand Y.

This is genuine democracy. It is the process wherein truly the whole people (i.e. the totality of all individuals) votes and actually also determines what corresponds to their wishes. This process hinders and forces no one and provides best for maximum welfare, the greatest choice and the lowest prices for the largest number.

It is completely different where, as in the actual practice of political "democracy", the alleged representatives of an alleged majority have the monopoly for decision-making. What actually stands behind the alleged majority, and whether and where it is meaningful to let a majority decide at all, is a subject by itself which we have touched upon before. Here only one result of such majority decisions is considered: when applied to decision-making in a market economy, it would mean that someone going into a shop in order to buy a tin of vegetables, of brand Y, would be told that brand X was the only brand available because a majority of people preferred this brand. Moreover, the person concerned would not be allowed to solve this problem for himself, for instance, by altogether refraining from purchasing tins of vegetables. Instead, he must purchase them. Moreover, he must buy brand X. Furthermore, he must also eat it. In any case, it is in this manner that political "democracy" is wielded in practice. There the so-called majority determines and enforces what all individuals must do, or refrain from doing - although not regarding a certain brand of tinned vegetables, but on principle, and in far more important matters, concerning the pursuit of happiness, existence, property, income, health and even the lives of all individuals.

Let us suppose, for example, that two men are campaigning for the office of president, say in the United States, where this office is the most powerful position. The first, let him be Mr. Ford, would represent brand X, while the other, Mr. Carter, would be brand Y. Let us assume that Mr. Carter receives more votes than Mr. Ford. Then those who voted for Ford do not receive what they voted for. They had wanted Ford to take care of their affairs, but instead they receive Carter and they are at the same time placed in tutelage.

Naturally, those who voted for Carter are delighted. They have received not only the desired man to direct their own affairs but also one who is empowered to direct the affairs of all others too.

And then there is still a third category: those who desired neither brand X nor brand Y but perhaps brand Z or some other brand. There may also be among these some who desired none of the various brands.

However, under the procedure of majority decision-making, everyone must now pay for brand Y, regardless of their personal wishes and convictions. And they are bound to use this brand Y, even if they would rather not.

Now we are able to see what has happened: With our kind of political "democracy," we have removed ourselves from the principle of the decision by the people, i.e. the totality of all individuals. Instead, we now have domination by a monopoly. All minorities, regardless of their interests and desires, are forced to submit to this monopoly.

In a genuine democracy, those who voted for Ford would have him as the manager of their affairs, and those who voted for Carter would have him. Those, however, who voted for any other candidate would have their own candidate to regulate their living conditions, while those who did not want anyone to regulate their affairs for them would be permitted to have no one to regulate their affairs.

That would be just. Everyone would then have to pay only for what he himself voted for. If he refused to participate in this, he would not have the (actual or imaginary) advantages which he would have gained by participating. Perhaps he would later regret this, but this is his own affair. It is exactly like this as for those who refuse to buy tinned vegetables and might eventually suffer from hunger as a consequence.

One can almost hear the frightened outcry: "But this would mean that we would have many presidents, at least two. And how could we pursue a uniform policy in this case?"

The answer is that this would no longer be possible. But what is so terrible about that? The concept of representation is, necessarily, that of authorization, of business management. Someone is to act for you. Now, how can someone act for you when this someone has full authority for actions which are contrary to your own real interests?

The supposition that he represents you because others have elected him is a self-evident fraud. He can only represent you when you have elected him and even then only when he concentrates on representing your interests.

Under today's false concept of "democracy," men who are opposed to your own true interests receive power over you - through the actions of others. Such "democracy" means majority control over everything. The control of the majority over everything means a monopoly. And the result is always: the control of a monopoly in the hands of a minority.

The above example of the brands of tinned vegetables and the presidential election is partly in accordance with the ideas of and partly derived directly from an article that was printed by professor Andrew J. Galambos, Los Angeles, without indicating the author.

That all affairs, both private and public, can be regulated without the majority principle and without the exercise of aggressive force against others, is an initially surprising concept, seeing our ingrained habits, and its realization will appear improbable to many.

 

TO EVERYONE THE STATE OF HIS DREAMS! (^)

Nevertheless, important thinkers such as Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Herbert Spencer, have already, at least in principle, discussed these thoughts with their proclamation of the right to withdraw from the State. In 1860, the Belgian P. E. de Puydt also proposed an interesting concrete form for its realization, in an essay entitled "Panarchie" (Revue Trimestrielle, Brussels, July 1860).

He said here that even the wisest and best government of a State today can never have the full and free agreement of all its subjects. Because of this, the freedom of one would today mean the negation of the freedom of others, and vice versa. The one subjugates in the name of the "law," while others rise up in the name of "freedom" (as they understand or misunderstand it) in order to become oppressors themselves as soon as they have come to power. The less clear their aims are, the more bitterly and passionately they struggle to obtain more freedom for themselves at the expense of the freedom of others.

In a manner of speaking, De Puydt proclaimed for everyone the State of his dreams, by offering, next to each other and at the same time, all forms of government which have supporters, including those people who wish no government and no State of any previous type. This is to be realized not merely in the form of withdrawal (de-naturalization, renunciation of citizenship, ignoring the State, individual secession etc.) from the State, which is, at least usually, already possible today, but by which the person concerned loses many rights without at the same time getting rid of the corresponding duties, and so is considerably limited in his freedom. Even emigration is of little use, since one is only forced into new borders again and confronted with a new monopoly claim, that of the other State, to exclusive rule within those borders.

What de Puydt proposes is, approximately, comparable to the right of withdrawal from a church and the present consequences of this right (at least in the advanced democracies). In the not so distant past subjects were required to change their religion at the same time as their princes did, and even today sometimes citizen rights are still connected with a religious denomination, or at least moral pressure is exercised to submit formally to a certain creed. (This is most distinct among the substitute religions of totalitarian socialism). Today, however, in most countries, religious tolerance is so advanced that the believers of different creeds live peacefully next to each other, even next to those who are without any religious faith, and the latter are, in practice, hardly at all disadvantaged. This is a condition which was lacking for example, in Prussia in the last century, although Frederick the Great of that country was considered particularly tolerant in religious matters.

De Puydt's proposal first appears to be unrealizable, as was, in previous centuries, the present tolerant relationship among different denominations. It would permit exactly the same coexistence for the supporters of different world views and political creeds, without, as in the present democracies, (not to mention the totalitarian systems), a majority forcing its will upon minorities. The more one thinks about it, the more this proposal proves itself to be the ideal form of a democracy, and its final logical consequence appears, in any case, the consequence of what is meant by democracy, this so terribly misused concept.

De Puydt took as an illustration for his proposal the image of a house with differently furnished apartments: the first, for instance, Western democratic; the second monarchic-conservative; the third communistic; and the fourth completely different from these three. Once someone no longer feels comfortable in his present apartment (e.g. the monarchic one) because he would rather live in another, it would be absurd for him to want to tear down the whole house while the others are still quite satisfied with their apartments. It would be more reasonable if the person concerned were simply to move to another apartment which is more congenial to him and to leave the others undisturbed in their apartments.

For whoever wants to pull down the whole house immediately in order to replace it with another in accordance with his taste, to which the others must then adapt themselves, will naturally have all the others against him. If, on the other hand, someone wants to leave the others unmolested in their convictions and activities, provided that they are willing to apply the same principle towards him, then it is not necessary at all to split the territory of the State concerned into so many sections as there are forms of governments (or non-governments) so that, within the area concerned, each appropriate form rules monopolistically. Instead, the supporters of different political systems and forms of government can live in a united territory, in the same country (e.g. in the German Federal Republic), independent of each other and in accordance with their concepts, next door to each other and intermixed, as today the followers of different religious creeds do. Catholics and Protestants pay their taxes to the church to which they belong, and if a person does not belong to a denomination, he does not pay any church taxes.

In practice this is done as follows, according to De Puydt's proposal: in every community a new office is established, an office for political membership, which will send out a questionnaire to all residents: What form of government do you want? The answers are noted in an appropriate register, and as the case may be, the person concerned is then the subject of a monarch, the citizen of a Western democratic republic, or, as a class-conscious proletarian, subject to the dictatorship of those who, according to him, represent his interests. This will last until he withdraws his declaration, with due respect to all necessary forms and periods of notice.

From then on he no longer has anything to do with the governments of the others, just as little as the citizens of one State today have nothing to do with the governments of other States. He obeys only those superiors whom he has chosen for himself in this manner, only those laws and regulations chosen and accepted by himself and like-minded people - as in a club. He is taxed as determined by the representative chosen by him and those who think like him. (In such a system of government, a majority principle can be quite sensible). Then each of these governments works only within its own sphere, independent of the others. They would work right next to each other, like today's different church administrations, which are only concerned with their own faithful, or like the different State governments, which have their own independent spheres of activity within a federation.

Every individual will then have that State and that government which he desires for himself and will live in his political community as if next to it there were not a more or less large number of others, each with its separate taxpayers.

Certainly, there are dreamers and anti-social elements who do not feel comfortable under any of the previous forms of government. These people, however, can create for themselves whatever new form of government is more congenial to them, exactly like those people who, for example as conscious anarchists, do not want to have anything to do at all with any of the traditional forms of government. There will be minorities, too, which are too weak to collect the means necessary to maintain the form of society which they consider ideal. Then they can propagate their ideas as long as necessary in order to find a sufficient number of people. Alternatively, they could attach themselves to whatever form of government they consider to be the lesser evil. They might also remain completely apart if they are prepared to do without whatever the different government systems offer as actual or imagined advantages.

No one, therefore, will any longer be forced to pay for something or to do something that he regards as having no all-over advantage for himself. Moreover, praiseworthy competition will arise between different government systems attempting to attract as many taxpayers as possible from other systems by offering the best services in relation to the taxes charged by them. Then voters will no longer be tricked with broken promises - in any case, not for long. For they can simply terminate the agreement, and the corresponding government will become insolvent. This provides painful prospects especially for those paradises of the working class and for fascist government systems. In the long run they will not be able to find very many people who are satisfied with or willing to pay for what is offered to them by such regimes.

When there are disputes between the followers of different governments of this kind or between one government and the supporters of another, these will then be handled as they already are today between neighboring and friendly governments, according to international law. Where there are legal gaps, these can be closed by agreements, as has already been attempted with human rights declarations. Individual governments can also bind themselves federally, like the Swiss Cantons, or like the Convention for Human Rights of the United Nations, or like the International Court at The Hague, for the purpose of international legal regularization. The main point, though, is always that the free choice of the individual between the different government systems remains intact, even the choice of belonging to none of the known systems and of taking over none of the responsibilities imposed by them, except the fundamental responsibility of mutuality: not to want to impose on anyone any responsibilities which are not voluntarily accepted or accepted in accordance with agreed upon arbitration courts. This is tantamount to the principle of the equal freedom of all. There is no conflict that cannot be solved in the most reasonable manner with this principle.

No longer need the different parties strive, like today, for domination over each other, nor a majority (or even a minority only) for domination over all others, nor need one attempt to reconcile all under some uniform scheme. Instead, every group is to govern itself according to its own choice and at its own expense - in mutual non-domination!

De Puydt expresses it thus: Domination by priests for those who want it. Freedom should extend to the right to renounce even freedom itself, with the qualification that the right to give notice of withdrawal continues after such a renunciation.

Each government of this type can, therefore, form its own legal system, school system and, in particular, tax system. There are even today beginnings of such an arrangement in the individual States of the German Federal Republic.

Obviously, each can also have its own money, as e.g. the "Badische Notenbank" had within the German Empire at the beginning of this century. There is nothing to prevent the money of one such system of government, if it is kept stable, being accepted as a means of exchange by other governments also, if it proves itself to be the best. Health and transport services as well as the police forces of the different governments will be responsible only for their voluntary subjects, although they will work together with the authorities of other such governments, as occurs today between States. The difference is only that all this will occur within the same territory, in the same way as each of the churches deals only with its believers, who live and mix with one another within the same territory.

Especially internationally - where what has happened until now has always amounted to: "Get up so that I can sit down in your place!" - this system of mutual non-domination offers the only realistic possibility for solving otherwise insoluble problems - for example, between Israelis and Arabs, Germans and Poles, Protestant and Catholic Irish, Christian and Moslem, and white and black in Africa.

Free competition between these governments (perhaps we should call them "representative organizations") will best guarantee progress, since peaceful competition between them compels them continuously to court supporters. Even individuals will then no longer be suppressed, and street fighting will become superfluous. As De Puydt says: Are you dissatisfied with your government? Then take another! That is to say: go to the office for political membership. Take your hat off in front of the department head and ask him to strike your name from the list upon which it appears and in due time (i.e. after a notice period of approximately three months) to transfer your name to the desired new list. The department chief will give you a certificate for this. You greet him once again, and your revolution is accomplished - without spilling anything other than a drop of ink.

Your transfer obliges no one else. There will be neither a triumphant majority nor a conquered minority. At the same time, no one is prevented from following your example.

De Puydt reminds us quite correctly:

"Do you remember the times when people shouted religious opinions more loudly than anyone ever shouted political arguments? When the divine creator became the Lord of Hosts, the avenging and pitiless God in whose name blood flowed in rivers? Men have always tried to take God's affairs into their own hands, to make Him an accomplice of their own bloodthirsty passions: 'Kill them all! God will recognize his own !'

"What has become of such implacable hatred? The progress of the human spirit has swept it away like the autumn wind the withered leaves. The religions in whose names were set up stakes and instruments of torture coexist peacefully today, next to each other, under the same laws, eating from the same budget. When each sect preaches only its own excellence, it achieves more than if it were to persist in condemning its rivals. Consider what has been realized in this obscure, unfathomable region of the conscience - what with the proselytism of some, the intolerance of others, and the fanaticism and ignorance of the masses. Particularly where there are divergent creeds, numerous sects exist on a footing of complete legal equality, and people in fact are more circumspect and careful of their moral purity and dignity than anywhere else. What has become possible under such difficult conditions must be all the more possible in the purely secular domain of politics, where all is so clear and where the final aim can be expressed in one phrase!

"All compulsion should cease. Every adult citizen should be and should remain free to select from among all possible governments the one that conforms to his will and satisfies his personal needs. Free not only on the day following some bloody revolution, but always and everywhere. Free to select, but not to force his choice on others. Then all disorder will cease, and all fruitless struggle will be avoided."

All "diplomatic chess moves" and all effronteries, now camouflaged as "reasons of State" or "honor" or "national interest," will also cease. All fraud in relation to the kind and quality of the machinery of the State will end. Those who are ruled will make comparisons, and the rulers must attempt to do their job better and cheaper than others do. The energy so far lost through friction and resistance will now work in peaceful competition, without such obstructions.

These are De Puydt's views. There are, naturally, still a great many questions and objections that are not answered by him. They will, however, be answered here and in the chapter following the next. For today one still understands by the freedom of one person the negation of the freedom of others (i.e. the opposite of the equal freedom of all), and one is by no means clear on the far-reaching consequences of the equal freedom of all. Most of all, freedom is today understood as an ideology, as the mere product of thought, in no way different from other ideologies and, as mere thought, false just as easily as true. Lenin even called it a "bourgeois prejudice." Real freedom, the equal freedom of all, which is the indispensable precondition for the frictionless functioning of de Puydt's proposals, is however, not an ideology.