by Gary 'Z' McGee

May 28, 2025

from Self-InflictedPhilosophy Website

World On Fire

by Cleon Peterson

 

"It is not 'the will of the people'

but the will of politicians

- prompted by groups of professional lobbyists,

interest groups, and activists -

that reign in a democracy."

Frank Karsten and Karel Beckman

It is as clear as a slap in the face that the USA suffers from a leadership problem...

This has been blatantly obvious both historically and across the political spectrum.

Our leaders are not leaders at all.

 

At best they are misguided shepherds.

 

At worst they are immoral wolves.

This is not a problem of individuals gaining power (for individuals will always seek power).

No...! This is a systemic problem.

It comes down to the basic functions (or dysfunctions) of our democracy.

 

It comes down to the nuts and bolts of a system that does not work for We the People but only works for a select few people who fleece the majority and use their power to create more power for themselves and less power for those they have fleeced.

For the sake of freedom and liberty, something has got to give.

We must have the courage to declare our Interdependence Day in the face of our failing democracy.

 

We do this by realizing that democracy is the worst form of government other than every other form of government on the planet.

 

And then we must go about improving upon it.

Declaring our Interdependence Day depends first upon targeting, diagnosing, and then attacking the system that is creating our bad leadership:

the plutocratic constitutional republic disguised as a democracy.

Then it depends upon coming up with a viable solution: a meritocratic constitutional republic that utilizes sortition as a method for sound leadership.

This won't be easy.

It will require courage and civil disobedience, at first.

 

It will require challenging the Powers That Be.

 

It will require harmonious anarchy in the face of disharmonious plutocracy.

 

It will require sheep to rise up, come together, and realize that though "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what's for dinner," a well-armed lamb can flip the script.

Let's break it down…

 

Our Failed Democracy (Plutocratic Constitutional Republic)
 

"The prime objective of totalitarian government

becomes the incessant destruction of

all evidence of spontaneous, autonomous association.

To destroy or diminish the reality

of the smaller areas of society,

to abolish or restrict the range

of cultural alternatives offered to individuals,

to destroy in time the roots

of the will to resist despotism

in its larger forms."

Robert Nisbet

Modern democracy, particularly indirect democracy, is flawed and leads to a form of "soft totalitarianism" rather than social flourishing.

It enables corrupt politicians and bureaucrats to enrich themselves while undermining essential societal institutions like free markets, strong families, sound money, and an impartial media.

Democracy's flaws - such as the attraction of power-hungry individuals, the inability to prevent the worst from rising to power, the inability to keep money out of politics, and the illusion of public control - create conditions where the state grows excessively powerful, eroding individual autonomy and independent societal institutions.

Therefore, we must be willing to explore and openly debate alternative forms of political organization.

These alternatives might include decentralized governance, libertarian principles, or systems that prioritize individual liberty and limit the scope of state authority.

We must move away from reliance on a "political savior" and instead address the systemic issues that allow state power to grow unchecked.

A sound solution leans toward reducing the scope of the state and revitalizing non-governmental institutions to foster a free and prosperous society.

This could involve,

• decentralized governance (a systems where local communities or voluntary associations have greater control, reducing the power of centralized bureaucracies)

   

• strengthening independent institutions (policies that protect and promote free markets, families, and other autonomous communities to counterbalance state authority)

   

• limiting political power (mechanisms to prevent the rise of "morally uninhibited demagogues,") such as stricter checks on political authority or alternative selection processes for leaders...

A combination of harmonious anarchy, meritocracy, and sortition could address these flaws by reducing centralized state power, prioritizing competence, and ensuring broader representation.

Below, we explore how these concepts might work together to address our failing governance, focusing on their potential to foster a freer, more prosperous society while countering the issues of unaccountable elites, excessive state control, and the erosion of independent institutions.
 

Harmonious Anarchy

"Unlimited power

in the hands of limited people

always leads to cruelty."

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
 

Harmonious Anarchy:

A system of voluntary cooperation without a centralized coercive state, where individuals and communities self-organize through mutual agreements, free markets, and decentralized institutions.

 

It aligns with our emphasis on autonomous institutions (e.g., markets, families, communes, and guilds) as barriers to state overreach.

The main objective of harmonious anarchy is to reduce centralized power.

Democracy concentrates power in the state, weakening independent institutions like families, markets, churches, and healthy communities, leading to soft totalitarianism.

Harmonious anarchy emphasizes voluntary, decentralized cooperation, minimizing or eliminating coercive state structures.

 

Communities could self-govern through voluntary associations, such as local cooperatives, private organizations, or mutual aid societies, which are all historical barriers to state power.

Governance could rely on decentralized networks of institutions (e.g., private arbitration for disputes, community-based welfare, or market-driven economic coordination).

This reduces the state's ability to impose "small, complicated, minute, and uniform rules" (Tocqueville) that stifle individual autonomy.

Private law societies or blockchain-based governance systems could handle contracts and disputes without state intervention, preserving the autonomy of institutions like those Nisbet describes in The Quest for Community.

Nothing is possible without freedom.

Anarchy makes freedom possible so that healthy horizontal leadership can become possible.

 

Neither freedom nor horizontal leadership can function under rulers and masters.

 

The harmonious anarchist makes horizontal leadership possible by making rulers and masters obsolete.

 

Uncomfortable anarchy is always healthier than comfortable tyranny.

Meritocratic Assemblies
 

"All governments suffer a recurring problem:

Power attracts pathological personalities.

It is not that power corrupts

but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."

Frank Herbert
 

Meritocracy:

A system where leadership or influence is based on demonstrated ability, competence, or expertise rather than popularity, wealth, or political maneuvering.

 

This addresses the article's concern about "morally uninhibited demagogues" rising to power in democracies.

The main objective of meritocracy is to prevent the rise of corrupt leaders.

Unchecked democracy attracts "pathological personalities" and "morally uninhibited demagogues" due to the nature of elections and power's corrupting influence.

By prioritizing competence and proven ability, a meritocratic system could ensure that only qualified individuals hold decision-making roles.

For example,

roles requiring technical expertise (e.g., infrastructure or economic policy) could be filled by individuals with demonstrated skills, selected through transparent, performance-based criteria rather than popularity contests.

Random selection from a qualified pool could prevent the rise of power-hungry elites by reducing the influence of political campaigns and lobbying, which serve special interests.

Sortition ensures that decision-makers reflect a cross-section of society, not just those skilled in political manipulation.

A hybrid approach could use sortition to select candidates from a pre-vetted pool of competent individuals, ensuring both diversity and merit.

For instance,

a council for economic policy might be randomly selected from economists, entrepreneurs, and other qualified professionals, avoiding the "ruthless and power-hungry" types.

Ancient Athens used sortition for many roles, ensuring broad representation, while modern examples like citizens' assemblies (e.g., Ireland's Citizens' Assembly) show how random selection can produce balanced, competent decision-making.

We don't need scapegoats who are hamstrung by lobbyists, corporations, and bankers for "leaders."

 

We don't need plutocrats propped up by money and monopoly.

 

We don't need puppet politicians controlled by the deep state.

 

We just need authentic leaders and prestigious elders chosen randomly from a meritocratic competitive assembly of other authentic leaders and prestigious elders.

That will get the job done just fine, while also preventing scapegoating, power mongering, and the rise of demagogues and psychopaths.
 

Sensible Sortition
 

"The selection of state rulers

by means of popular elections

makes it essentially impossible

for harmless or decent persons

to ever rise to the top.

Presidents and prime ministers

come into their position

not owing to their status as natural aristocrats,

as feudal kings once did,

but because of their capacity

as morally uninhibited demagogues.

Hence, democracy virtually assures

that only dangerous men

will rise to the top of state government."

Hans Hermann Hoppe
 

Sortition:

Random selection of decision-makers from a pool of citizens, as used in ancient Athens for certain roles.

 

It aims to reduce elite capture and ensure diverse representation, countering unaccountable politicians serving special interests.

The main objective of sortition is to protect independent institutions.

Unchecked democracy destroys autonomous institutions (e.g., families, markets, churches, and healthy communes) through propaganda, regulations, and bureaucracy, paving the way for totalitarianism.

Harmonious anarchy prioritizes these institutions by allowing them to operate independently of state control.

 

Meritocracy ensures that any coordinating bodies (e.g., for standardizing trade or education) are led by competent individuals who prioritize institutional health over political gain.

Communities could establish voluntary standards for education, healthcare, or charity through meritocratic councils, with sortition ensuring diverse input.

For example,

a meritocratic board of educators could design curricula, subject to approval by a randomly selected citizens' panel, preserving local control, family autonomy, and community values.

Historical guilds operated independently to set standards and resolve disputes, a model that could be revived in a decentralized, anarchic framework with meritocratic oversight.

Randomly selected citizens' councils could review and approve decisions made by meritocratic bodies, ensuring accountability and preventing elite capture.

These councils could operate within defined, limited scopes to avoid overreach.

Individuals and communities could opt into governance structures, aligning with the anarchic principle of non-coercion, while those who disagree could form alternative associations, fostering competition and innovation.

Meritocracy reduces the influence of "pathological personalities" by prioritizing competence, while sortition prevents entrenched elites, countering demagogues.

Harmonious anarchy limits centralized control, protecting independent institutions and preventing soft totalitarianism, as warned by Tocqueville and Nisbet.

Sortition ensures diverse voices, addressing democracy's failure to reflect the public's will. Meritocracy ensures effective decision-making, while anarchy's decentralization fosters resilience, preventing the "terminal corruption" James Kalb describes in the Tyranny of Liberalism.

A combination of harmonious anarchy, meritocracy, and sortition could address decentralizing power, prioritizing competence, and ensuring broad representation.

This hybrid system aligns with alternative political organizations that protect independent institutions and prevent the rise of corrupt elites.

While harmonious anarchy provides a framework for voluntary cooperation, meritocracy ensures effective decision-making, and sortition guarantees accountability and diversity.

Together, they offer a potential path to a freer, more prosperous society.

Careful design and experimentation would be needed to balance their strengths and address practical challenges.