Tuesday, May 30, 2017

The Alrenous Power Redistribution Impossibility Theorem

Democracy is socialized power. Instead of a small group being in charge, everyone has a micro slice of being in charge, which add up to some decision when added together. Democracy is impossible.

It isn't natural for power to be evenly distributed. It must be redistributed. Someone must then have the power of redistribution. If they have the power of redistribution, they could redistribute it all to themselves. They are the sovereign.

IF the vote exists THEN power was redistributed THEREFORE power was not redistributed. Impossible by contradiction.
IF the vote doesn't exist THEN democracy does not obtain.

Democracy is logically impossible. The people cannot rule.

Of course the logician can go wrong. I could have accidentally divided by zero somewhere. So let's check.
Sovereigns have a reliable source of security. A sovereign voter would be able to unilaterally defend their right to a vote. As a result it would be impossible to prevent such a person from voting, for any reason. Felons. Noncitizens. Children. Nonhumans.
It would be impossible to recant on the vote procedure. No Hitler. No Stalin. No Kims. No juntas at all, actually.

Checksum complete. There's another one which shows that were democracy real, it wouldn't have to be implemented on purpose. It would simply happen, which is historical nonsense.

It is logically necessary that the vote is an illusion of power. The redistributor maintains the illusion purely to hide their sovereignty. They rely on the fact that doing roughly what the vote says will provide parasitism opportunities disguised as charity. (Ctrl-f 'siphon'.) Modern states are highly sophisticated machines for appearing to do what the vote says while doing things as distant as possible from what the vote says, should the redistributor be in the mood.

(Only the tiniest apologies to Chamley-Judd.)


anon said...

democracy doesn't really redistribute power certainly not to individuals at best it offers a contest between a few for power.The individuals are almost never even offered what they actually want and when they are they never get it. Its a proxy for war between the powerful with less cost to those who usually bear the costs of wars. It is almost never a revolutionary war, its almost always necessary to have an actual war to get a revolution,the people never get what they want from revolutions either, which is why they rarely participate in them.What democracy does do is add security to the rulers. It makes people think that they are responsible for the ruling and therefore cant overthrow it, that there is hope the next election will get them what they wanted, that there is nothing to be done anyway because the power is so diffused in a democracy you would have to guillotine millions that therefore tyranny is not intentional its just the way it is. Democracy is a brilliant strategy by the powerful and is why they wish to make it hegemonic.

Hugbane said...

Great comment!
Is this common libertarian stuff, your own observations, or an abstract of some specific author's views?