What is modern democracy but a mere opinion of an accidental majority? Would you ask the majority to decide what you need to be prescribed during a cancer treatment? How about something less vital, but by no means less complicated, such as fixing your car? Would you like to survey every dimwit and every wise man and woman around the block, and everyone in-between, or would you rather go straight to an expert – a car mechanic? Do you think that sheer quantity of opinions should overwhelm the sound voice of truth, even if it is a single voice on the face of the earth? I remember that voice. It was the only voice preaching in the desert. I heard it, and then I saw it silenced on the cross by none other than the democratic majority, and since then I decided to stop heeding to the dictating opinion of that ignorant and often brutal mob. As my dear and wise countryman, Thoreau once said, “When were the good and the brave ever in a majority?”[1] And then I heard Socrates echo beyond the centuries, which, by the way, seem to obstruct the meeting of true good men throughout history, as they always seem to be ever so scarcely scattered throughout labyrinths of tense and dunes of time, “But my dear Crito, why should we pay so much attention to what ‘most people’ think?”[2] That same majority always discriminates against a genius. They cannot help it, – they are certainly opinionated, although they know very little. Hence the conclusion: democracy is binding and limiting, as it binds you to cater to the opinion and fancy (rather than to the universal truth and benefit) of the majority, and that in and of itself limits your freedom.
And why should we roll with the elite, i.e. aristocracy of any sort, as an alternative to that blind majority described above? Elite, if not always, at least from time to time is bound to be elitist and in the result, if not persecute us, at least bitterly disappoint us by being most inequitable. Hence the conclusion: aristocracy, just like democracy, is also binding and limiting, as it binds you to cater to the opinion and fancy (rather than to the universal truth and benefit) of the “chosen” few.
How about royalty? It seems to me that a King is a better alternative to the two forms of political government already mentioned, but that too only if the chips of fortune are placed on the right guy. As I am a free man, I cannot leave my future, or the future of my fellow men, up to the fickle fortune, it matters not how favorable the odds. That same King, even if he is of the best stock, is bound to be most inequitable at least once. Recall biographies of the greatest Kings, and by that I mean most beneficent Kings in history, such as King David and King Solomon. They all, in spite of their God-given talent and power to administer justice, did unjust things sometimes to others, but more often to themselves. They could not help it, – by nature a man is fallible. Hence the conclusion: royalty, just like democracy or elite, is also binding and limiting, as it binds you to cater to the opinion and fancy (rather than to the universal truth and benefit) of a powerful single individual. Now, if the individual is good, – and I must admit that there is a greater chance of a single special individual being good than of the majority or the minority – all is fine, but if he is not, the entire country is in deep trouble (forgive me using a euphemism just this once, but you all know perfectly well what I really mean by “trouble”).
Things get a lot worse when socialists take over. They, just like all good historical demagogues, claim to benefit all, but profit only themselves. Now, imagine catering to such a tough crowd comprised of such “egalitarian” criminals. Hence the conclusion: socialism, just like democracy or aristocracy or royalty, is also binding and limiting, as it binds you to cater to the opinion and fancy (rather than to the universal truth and benefit) of the powerful special interest group of hypocrites, who seem to preach by day and thieve by night.
So far we have not discussed the worst form of political governance – constitutional government. There you have a dingy and outdated legal instrument, called the constitution, written by equally dingy and morally diseased old (and, thank goodness, extinct) men, which contemporary elitist minority worships beyond belief, and yet even within this elitist group no one seems to be able to agree on its essence. So they attempt varying and often opposing interpretations which to me is a most nonsensical gibberish, redundant prattle and useless gobbledygook in the first place. Judges, justices, prosecutors, lawyers, legal scholars, – all the “men” of the juridical “science”, – are running in circles and chasing their tails; to quote the Book, “As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”[3] Hence the conclusion: constitutionalism, just like democracy or elite or royalty or socialism, is also binding and limiting, as it binds you to cater to the opinion and fancy (rather than to the universal truth and benefit) of the powerful special interest group of hypocrites, who seem to administer justice by a certain strange default, and for that they want to charge you an arm and a leg.
Capitalism is an alternative to all of these. It neither limits you, nor binds you in any way. Here you can cater to all: to the majority, to the minority, to a single man, to a demagogue who preaches socialism or to a hypocrite lawyer who tries to do an injury by advocating justice. You can open a Leftorium if it suits your lifestyle, as long as it is economically viable. Now, if you don’t want to do any of these, that is also perfectly fine with capitalism. Do not participate in the marketplace. Be completely self-reliant. Do not cater to anyone, but yourself. Live on a parcel of land, plough and sow and reap the harvest for self-sustenance only. As long as you don’t request anything from anyone else, no one else shall demand something that is yours. And it is on these grounds I have stated that capitalism is neither binding nor limiting. In fact, all the truly great men of our common history, who were historically always persecuted, would have survived and even thrived in pure and competitive capitalism. Who threw Thoreau in prison? Who persecuted John Brown? Who attempted to enslave the American nation? NEVER capitalism, but always a democracy, an elite, a royalty, a judiciary of some sort, and they all did it by engaging in collusive dealings with their elected or appointed governments.
Capitalism does not care about the color of your skin, or how superior or inferior anthropologically you may be. It does not take under consideration in its allocation of rewards anything, but merit as recognized by the targeted market, not by majority, but rather by the distinct group which is of consideration in a given economic activity. It is up to you to choose the group, and that is something no other mode of political or economic governance, except capitalism, can offer continuously. And in the result, it does not unfairly discriminate, which means that the most meritorious, i.e. hardworking, talented, farsighted, courageous and vigorous succeed.
[1] Thoreau, H. D., Sanborn, F. B., Lazarashvili, Z. K. (2011). American Heroes: Thoreau and Brown. Georgian International University Press.
[2] Plato. (2005). The Collected Dialogues of Plato: Including the Letters (Bollingen Series LXXI). Princeton University Press.
[3] Bible, Proverbs 26:11.