Our Common Cause

I want to talk to you about democracy. The real one. The one that does not exist, and the one we really need today. My research method is that of Hippocrates, who said, look for the cause of causes. In other words, to cure a disease, to solve a problem, it is useless to attack the consequences, it is useless to attack the different causes. There is always a determining cause (the one that determines all the others)and that is our common cause. The first decisive battle is to push the important words "right side up": First. I am not a "citizen" (a citizen is autonomous; he votes himself his laws). I am only a "voter;" that is to say, a political childbecause I am subject to the law voted into existence by someone other than me. Second. My "parents" in politics, the elected officials, do not want me to emancipate myself from themthey do not allow me to vote for or against the laws to which I have to submit myself. We are "the incompetents." They treat us like children. But it is our fault, because children also believe in "Santa Claus," and so voters believe in "universal suffrage," which we accept to call "democracy" (demos kratos, power belongs to the people). The so-called modern "democracy": appoints masters, from among people who have not been chosen; and without any means to resist the betrayal in between two elections; with, of course, the right of expression, true enough, but without any enforceable power. The real name of this undemocratic regime is "representative government." Sieyès (one of the most influential thinkers of the French Revolution), said in 1789: "The citizens who appoint representatives renounce and should renounce making the law themselves. They have no particular will to enforce. If they enforced their will, France would no longer be this representative state; it would be a democratic state. The people, I repeat, in a country that is not a democracy (and France could not be one), the people can only speak, can only act through their representatives" (Speech of September 7, 1789). Voltaire added: "A well-organized society is one in which the few make the many work, are fed by them, and govern them." History has shown, for two hundred years, the sham and the never-ending ruses of "representative government." All the thinkers of the world before 1789, from Plato, Aristotle to Montesquieu and Rousseau, knew that election is by nature aristocratic, therefore oligarchic, and that the only procedure that is democratic is the drawing of lots. Aristotle: "Elections are aristocratic and undemocratic: they introduce an element of deliberate choice, of selection of the best citizens, the aristoi, instead of government by the entire people." Montesquieu: "Suffrage by lot is democracy by its very nature; suffrage by choice is of that of aristocracy." To reinforce this idea, we have two historical experiments, of long duration. On the one hand, democracy and thus the drawing of lots (Athens for two hundred years); and on the other hand, representative government and thus election, also for two hundred years, in 1789. Let us examine the results: For two hundred years, the drawing of lots has always given power to the poorest citizens, "the 99%" (This was democracy in Athens 2500 years ago). Whereas, for two hundred years, election has always given power to the richest citizens, "the 1%" (look at the two centuries of representative government in the worldthere is no exception). So, my central question is this. How much longer will the poor (the 99%) prefer the election from the lottery of the 1% (against their most obvious interests)?

Dettagli