Currently, the Democratic Party is in crisis, so it is a very good time to look closely at all the ways it is falling apart and ask ourselves: “Is this a failure of the Democratic Party, or are there problems with the concept of democracy as a political ideal?”
But why use the word “democratism” instead of “democracy”? Well, we have words such as liberalism and conservatism, which are used to describe political campaigns and ideologies. So, why not use the word “democratism” to describe the political campaign and ideology of democracy as a political campaign to promote the ideology of democracy? Anyone who doubts that this ideology is promoted needs only to look at the popular daily use of the word “democratization” in all its various meanings.
There should be no doubt that there is a political campaign to promote the ideology of democracy. There is even a recent compilation of hundreds of news promoters in hundreds of different markets in the US reciting the exact same multi-paragraph script which concludes with “this is extremely troublling to our democracy”. No reference is given to who wrote the script they are all reciting, but surely the multi-paragraph reciting was not repeated by hundreds of outlets accidently. Every standard of detecting plagerism would indicate that the public statement was cooordinated.
So, we are using “democratism” to describe the political campaign and ideology of democracy as a political campaign to promote the ideology of democracy. We will also loop in the concept of “democratization” as it is used in political and economic discourse and as an ideal.
To perform this comprehensive analysis, we must first clarify what the concept of democracy is. We’ll look at how democracy is used in political discourse and how it’s defined in political theory. Then, we’ll examine the core principles of democracy and critically evaluate them.
Why? Certainly, this is a worthy endeavor since so much of society and culture are handed over to democratic arbitration. The concept of “democratization” is widely used on a regular basis as an ideal to be used in determining who get’s what, and why. So, “democratization” will also fall under our microscope and telescope of critical analysis. We will attempt to look at it from every angle, including from the inside and the outside.
If democracy is prommoted as an idea, that is to say, as something to be pursued in life and even as a political campaign, and if it is false or flawed, then it will promote false requirements. False requirements always end up sovling the wrong problem. So we will also investigate all the cultural artifacts that have been produced and that we live with today because moralists and “thought leaders” have been promoting the false requirements of democracy for many decades.
So let us begin with a comprehensive list of both the popular concept of democracy and the more technically developed definitions of democracy so that we can “deconstruct” them.
NOTE: I will be using the justifications for democracy produced by OPEN AI’s GPT-4o model as a first draft. It has read much of the internet, and the LLM is specifically designed to produce the most common text phrases, so it is probably a better starting point than any academic study, however, we will also incorporate those as time permits.
All edits are available at The GitHub repo for this site
In the vast expanse of human history, the concept of democracy has been a beacon of hope and progress. However, the term “democracy” itself is often misunderstood, leading to misconceptions about its true essence and the values it upholds.
NOTE: Democracy “is often misunderstood” because the concept difers greatly from its implementation.
This article aims to clarify these misunderstandings and delve into the core principles of democracy, emphasizing the importance of “democratism” as a guiding force for a truly democratic society.
NOTE: This article will not assume that the dominant political theory is simply accidentally misunderstood. This article will ask the somewhat novel approach of asking if democracy as it is promoted and used is a coherent ideal. Certainly, a majority vote system exists and can be used, so we are not going to question if such a system can possibly be used. However, we will question the entire remainder of democracy wherin majority vote is promoted and campaigned for as the system to be applied generally.
Democracy is often mistakenly equated with majority rule, where the will of the majority prevails over the rights and interests of minorities. This narrow interpretation fails to capture the essence of democracy, which is a system of governance that values individual rights, freedom, and equality. Democracy is not merely about voting for leaders or making decisions through popular referendums. It is a complex system that encompasses various institutions, processes, and norms that ensure the participation, representation, and accountability of all citizens.
NOTE: This is quite a misdirection. Democracy is rightfully equated with majority rule, because that’s how it’s implemented. However, the misdirection tells us that democracy is actually made up of “a complex system that encompasses various institutions”, and the rest is mere “convincing language”. Democracy itself does not value individual rights, for instance, and democratists (promoters of democracy) often malign individual self interest as “selfishness”, and in opposition to “the common good”.
..So, the remaining part of the misdirection is the “complex system of institutions” part. This is a common misdirection, and it’s a way to make democracy sound more complex and sophisticated than it is. In reality, democracy is a simple system: the majority rules. That’s it. The “complex system of institutions” are the millions of governmet funded agencies, NGOs, and other organizations that are used to influence public opinion and promote the agenda of the majority elect. These institutions are not part of democracy itself. They are a way of for elected officials to move portions of their agenda beyond the accountablity of the electorate.
To understand the true nature of democracy, let’s examine its core principles:
Democratism is a philosophy that serves as a guiding force for democracy. It emphasizes the importance of active citizenship, participation, and engagement in the political process. Democratism encourages individuals to take an active role in shaping their communities and society, rather than relying solely on elected officials to make decisions on their behalf. Democratism also emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and diversity in the political process. It recognizes that all voices should be heard and that decisions should be made in a way that reflects the diversity of the population. Democratism promotes the idea that democracy is not just about voting, but also about creating a society that is fair, just, and equitable for all.
First, equity is a false requirement. False requirements solve the wrong problem. It’s not even a requirement that is even described clearly, but if you tried to describe it clearly, you would find it quickly decompose into petty discriminations, which would be embarrasing to any promoter of equity, who I will describe as an equitist.
Equity is promoted as a way of distributing goods to more people, but it never means distribution to all living humans. There are several good reasons not to include all living humans, because equitism is a false requirement, but the equitists themselves will be the first to start targetting demographic categories as being less deserving, and who their campaign of equitable redistribution will take from.
And second, equity is a false requirement because it can never be achieved. It can’t even mildly be achieved, and the real architects of the equity agenda know this. Even upon cursory examination, equal access to a product made by humans, such as AI inferrence, serves no purpose. Should, for instance, inferrence compute resources be allocated to people who don’t want to use it? This is a non-trivial question because a significant initial cost of developing a new product made by and for humans is promotion.
The economic category of promotion is concerned with converting people who do not want to use a product into people who do want to use a product. It is a significant portion of the early cost of bringing a product to market. The market-based promoter already wants to expand the use of his product to the whole of the earth, but he is intelligent enough to be honest with himself and others about who he will target first. He targets people who he can convince to use his product so much that they will pay him to use it.
While the equitist also wants to expand the usage of the product he is promoting, he is much less honest about his primary target. You can ask anyone to give a clear statement of the ideal profile for campaigns of equity that aren’t already part of regular market promotion. They won’t be able to do it. An equitist could ride a long way on the back of the regular market promoter who already tries to expand his market to the whole of the Earth, but at some point the equitist must hop off his free ride and take some steps for himself, and that is exactly where the equitist falls down.
This is where the equitist must admit that he doesn’t just want to promote usage of the product to people who might be persuaded to use it but can’t pay at the moment, because the regular promoter is already out there in front of him with payment plans, free trials, package deals, bulk pricing for resellers and a host of ancient and well-understood processes to smooth way for new users and even develop whole new markets.
It’s at that point that the equitist must admit how he’s going to pay for the long ride he’s taken on the back of the regular market promoter. And that’s where he will reveal for the first time the plan that he calls “equity”.
The “equity” agenda, if it is anything at all beyond the regular promotion of a product, is the plan to expand the use of his product beyond any market purpose for the use of the product. The regular promoter is already working on expanding the product to everyone else.
The equitist wants to expand it not just to people who can’t pay now but to people who never will pay for the product that they use.
That’s the only way that he can expand the market reach of the product beyond with the regular promoter is already struggling to expand to.
So it is at that point that The equitist hops off the back of the salesman who he has ridden so far on in his quest of market expansion, that he turns around to him and reveals his plan to destroy everything the salesman has achieved.
“I will expand the use of this product to people who never will pay for it because they don’t even believe in paying for it”, the equitist says.
He then stabs the salesman in the back, shoots the CEO of the company that created the product in the back, pulls up the tent stakes and collapses the whole manufactory down upon them and sets it all on fire.
The equitist then walks off with the cart of products produced by the dead men and their families and communities and looks for the nearest armed violent thugs to implement the next phase of his diabolical, but still yet unstated plan of redistributive plunder.
And then begins a new day, but the star that rises in the sky shines only a darkness that is much, much worse than blindness.
(Note: This text was created entirely from the AI, presumably based on the title)
The Democratist Party is a pyramid scheme that uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich. The poor are the bottom of the pyramid, and they are the ones who are forced to pay the most taxes. The rich are the top of the pyramid, and they are the ones who receive the most benefits. The middle class is the middle of the pyramid, and they are the ones who are forced to pay more taxes than they receive in benefits.
The Democratist Party uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. For example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was created to provide healthcare to the poor. However, the ACA has been used to subsidize the healthcare of the rich. The rich can afford to pay more for healthcare, so they receive more subsidies than the poor. This means that the poor are forced to pay more for healthcare than they would otherwise have to.
The Democratist Party also uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the middle class. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was created to provide tax cuts to the rich. However, the TCJA has been used to increase the deficit and debt. This means that the middle class is forced to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise have to.
The Democratist Party also uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. For example, the Federal Reserve was created to provide financial stability. However, the Federal Reserve has been used to bail out the rich banks and create money out of thin air. This means that the poor are forced to pay more for goods and services than they would otherwise have to.
The Democratist Party also uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. For example, the Department of Education was created to provide education to the poor. However, the Department of Education has been used to increase student debt and create a system that benefits the rich education corporations. This means that the poor are forced to pay more for education than they would otherwise have to.
The Democratist Party also uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. For example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was created to provide healthcare to the poor. However, the ACA has been used to increase healthcare costs and create a system that benefits the rich insurance corporations. This means that the poor are forced to pay more for healthcare than they would otherwise have to.
The Democratist Party also uses the government to steal from the poor and give to the rich by creating programs that benefit the rich and hurt the poor. For example, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was created to provide tax relief to the rich. However, the TCJA has been used to increase the national debt and create a system that benefits the rich corporations and the wealthy. This means that the poor are forced to pay more in taxes than they would otherwise have to.