why anarchy is more democratic than democracy

A post by The Angry Exile, in which he touched on issues of scale in the viability of differing modes of socio-political organisation, sparked a train of thought that was further fueled by critique of democracy one of the Exile's commenters linked to which itself linked to this at my source of all knowledge.

The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations.

I was recently involved in a spat at samizdata regarding the prevalence of oxford ppe grads in our ruling class. That this age old production line for, and entry ticket to, the apparatus of power is responsible for the perpetuation of our one-party over lords and makes the supposed 'democratic system' impervious to change seemed to escape some of these tory-boy 'libertarians'. another nail in the coffin of my libertarian flag waving. libertarianism is not as clear cut as id like it to be. its waters are muddied by cultural conservatism and a sentimental attachment to the state. im beginning to agree with the ignorant leftist trolls that the term is little different to neo-con. libertine/voluntaryst/individualist/anarchist all less ambiguous and closer to my thoughts.

anyways back to the point - the oxford produced playdough extrusions with their ppe elite entry tickets are Michels' oligarchy. this is the reason why nothing ever changes, why the blue team are exactly the same as the red team and why the parasites, dependents and clients of the state prevail.

This Iron Law of Oligarchy along with other criticisms all count against democracy in this pragmatic empirical analysis of state vs anarchy. (there is always the self ownership anarchist trump card of the objectively justified illegitimacy of coercive power as popularised by Mr. Molyneux)

John T. Wenders writes:
“The unpopular answer, of course, is no. Freedom and democracy are different. In words attributed to Scottish historian Alexander Tytler: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.' Democracy evolves into kleptocracy. A majority bullying a minority is just as bad as a dictator, communist or otherwise, doing so. Democracy is two coyotes and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” There is a difference between democracy and freedom. Freedom is not measured by the ability to vote. It is measured by the breadth of those things on which we do not vote.

Machiavelli also put forth this idea that democracies will tend to cater to the whims of the people, who then follow false ideas to entertain themselves, squander their reserves, and do not deal with potential threats to their rule until it is too late to oppose them. we can see this in our contemporary democracy with the rise of social welfare statism. politicians literally buying power with cash for votes, creating dependent client groups as reliable voting blocs. this unsustainable vote-yourself-rich giveaway is, even as we speak, bankrupting the western world and, as Machiavelli prophetically saw it is too late to oppose this kleptocracy by  democratic proxy.

Another criticism leveled at democracy is the tendency toward recurring cyclical government. dissatisfied with the status quo voters buy into the grass-is-greener promises of the only opposition. the dream inevitably turns sour as elite inertia stalls any naive new progressives from rocking the profitable establishment boat.  and so it goes - red team blue team red team blue team following the same old dissatisfaction, reaction cycle.

yet another problem with democratic government is the short-termism. it has been said that at least a dictator will pursue the long term good of the state due to his lifetime rule. a hereditary monarch will go beyond that, ensuring the state is in good health for their heir. democratic rulers on the other hand are out to maximise the benefits of their limited terms. they have to grab power, votes, influence and money in a very small window of opportunity so they will tend to do insane short term things and leave the future mess for the next lot.

there is an alternative to this unquestionable religion...

id say the market mechanism in all its natural beauty is the felicific calculator that the utilitarians dreamed of. it is the impossible voting technology that democratic utopians desire. it allows constant voting on every single issue. only the market mechanism can collect, analyse and feedback all the countless pieces of information and subjective valuations of each and every individual concerned but no more. the possibility of mob rule is nullified. the market mechanism can accommodate strength of feeling where a single vote cannot convey such nuance. 

democracy has, in the western world, developed toward corporatism, technocracy and elitism. this is more clearly evident in the media than at the state-corporate level. crony capitalist technocrats pass through the revolving door of the public/private oligarchy and become regulatory legislators. equally, old legislators will retire to chummy boardroom promised in earlier payoffs. in the more visible world of the media technocracy the same faces switch from tv to radio to newspaper column. They influence the electorate or more importantly apply the more subtle threatening pressure on legislators that if policy doesnt follow then an apathetic electorate might be mobilised. what politician would dare go against a knee-jerk populist reaction. 'string em up' shout the mob. only there is no longer a mob. there is a small gaggle of the meejah commentariat trustworthily disseminating the supposed views of an imaginary mob. if a reporter stood in front a legislative building tells us someone said something then that must be true. if several such sources echo this it now becomes an 'overwhelming consensus'. the next evening the decision making legislator is hauled before a preening star interviewer from this controlling priest class and faces demands that he enact the 'will of the people' that this technocracy has embellished, influenced or invented.

mises.org etc are full of material explaining the wonders of free market economics and how it can be a natural source of order and freedom. id say that it is democracy that becomes increasingly impossible on larger scales. it is unable to cope with the objective plurality of humanity. no imposed system ever can. the individual has always been the most oppressed minority. the real beauty of anarchy is that naturally occurring systems such as the market and competing individual self interest form a self regulating self sufficient provision of life, liberty and happiness.