Most people go through life never asking what is the primary purpose of the governments we endure. For them governments just are. They exist. Like the flu or the rain. Nothing one can do about them. They are just a natural phenomenon. These people intuitively believe that governments fulfill some sort of very important and ultimate purpose that cannot be fulfilled in any other way. They firmly believe -because they have been programmed to believe- that there is some sort of pact between governments and citizens; that it is OK to suffer under their rule because…well… because this is the way things are and it is the way things always were.
This is, of course, nonsense. We know that Social Contracts Are A Scam and that people have been brainwashed throughout government-mandated and controlled education (see Lost Memories). The truth is that there is no pact and that people have been fooled. That is a fact.
THE PACT
However, things are not as simple as they may appear. We know that civilization grew and evolved through political thinking. We know how it all began (see The Law of Political Systems Direction). There was an original pact between people and leaders and that pact had to do with safety and security. Security against other groups of people and safety against nature. Larger groups of people acting in unison under the leadership of one person had a much better chance of surviving than being alone. Again, this is pure survival instinct that cannot be overridden.
This pact was even translated to modern times; the most prominent organization to do so being the United States with their original constitution whose primary job was to provide security against foreign threats and barely little more.
What this means is that the only pact that actually makes sense is one that ensures or enhances mutual security and nothing else. Everything else is an optional add-on at best and a bolted-on ridiculous imposition at worse. And even the original pact in any of their incarnations is hopelessly flawed.
BACK TO BASICS
We are going to take now a leap of faith for argument's sake. We will assume that somehow this basic security pact can be made to work -without flaws- in modern democracies. We will simply assume that such a pact exists from an empirical point of view. Therefore it is only fair to judge modern democracies by using a ruler that measures how much safer (in terms of external aggression) we are when compared to no political organization at all. Unfortunately, we don't have such a ruler. But what we do have is a measurement as to how well current modern democracies have been doing against previous political systems. We measured that parameter in our article The Aggressiveness Of Modern Democracies. We showed how after the 1800's the number of wars skyrocketed and that this number continues to grow even today. We also showed how since the 1800's the entire world has become far more unstable in terms of wars.
This being the case, we can only reach one conclusion: modern democracies have failed miserably to fulfill their basic mandate, if there ever was one. But if their primary objective has failed, why do people continue to believe that other, secondary objectives can be achieved? It is a delusion. If an organization cannot deliver even the most basic condition of the deal, we should get rid of such organization. Let us say this again:
Modern democracies have failed because we have more wars
If modern democracies would be successful, we should see a decrease in the number of wars as time goes on. What we observe is just the opposite.
Of course, in the bigger scheme of things and when compared to previous political systems, we are much better off. For example and generally speaking our overall safety and security levels are better, but wars-wise, they are much, much worse.
We argue for the dismantling of all governments not just because we have more wars, but because this increment in wars is a key indicator pointing at a key and inherent flaw in the current political system. Wars are just the tip of the iceberg. The problem with this flaw is that it is not circumscribed (i.e. restricted) only to wars but it equally affects the economy, social conditions, health care, shelter and many other overall elements of our well-being. Think of this war-scale as fever in a patient with appendicitis.
The higher the fever the worse the patient is. And yes, fever could spike and kill the patient, but the main problem is an inflamed appendix which will only get worse. Fever is not the underlying flaw, appendicitis is.
CONCLUSION
Modern democracies have fulfilled their destiny by giving us better economic conditions, more freedom and security than their predecessors but they are now in their last legs embarked in a self-destructing path which will eventually lead people to a total disillusionment and political evolution. All in all the democratic system wasn’t bad, but it is now time to move on. So yes, democracies have outlived their original purpose, if they ever had one.
This is how we see things. We may be, of course, in error. If this is the case, please feel free to let us know. But even if we are, nothing will be lost by cancelling modern democracies since Libertarianism and truly free markets are far more efficient and effective than governments. What do you have to lose?
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
