we need democracy would you like to be under fascist rule?. do you want a king and queen?. no you dont so we need democracy we have the most powerful air force and navy. we must fight for liberty!. we must fight for freedom. we have the best economy. we have everything we need to thrive. it just takes you to change the world.

In modern political discourse, it is a common trope to villainize those who question the efficacy and morality of democracy.

Yet, as an anarcho-capitalist, my critique of democracy is not rooted in a desire to seize power or crush dissent, quite the opposite in fact, but stems from a profound commitment to enhancing liberty and stability in our political systems.

It is vital to dismantle the misconceptions surrounding anti-democratic sentiments and reveal the genuine intention behind such perspectives: the pursuit of true freedom.

Democracy is praised for empowering the people and embodying the principles of freedom and equality. However, this idyllic portrayal often masks a system fundamentally at odds with individual liberty.

Democracy, by its very nature, incentivizes the creation of oppositional voting blocs, pitting one segment of society against another.

This division is not a mere byproduct but a necessary feature of a system where majority rule is paramount. The resultant political landscape is one marred by perpetual conflict, as parties and politicians stoke the flames of discord to mobilize their bases.

The constant appeal to anger and fear undercuts reasoned debate and compromises the stability of the political system, to the point that today we have political actors advocating taking power permanently or killing their political opponents, and all the paranoia wrapped up in the Qanon phenomena as well as antifa violence.

As the federal government expands its reach, the interactions between its agents and the public invariably increase, often negatively, multiplying political frustration and making a future civil war more likely.

Each bureaucratic encroachment, each regulatory imposition serves as a reminder of the state's coercive power and takes agency and wealth from private hands.

Such overreach is fertile ground for libertarian and anti-authoritarian sentiments, as more individuals experience the heavy hand of government interference in their daily lives. But it also fuels antidemocratic sentiment among those without a strong commitment to liberty above all.

This growing disillusionment is not an anomaly but a predictable outcome of an ever-expansive state apparatus that seeks to regulate and control rather than liberate and empower. The State, begun with the intent to protect the people, inevitably turns the people into the means of protecting its own power and existence.

The current global political climate offers stark evidence of democracy's failings. From Putin's Russia with its facade of electoral legitimacy to Orban's Hungary, where democratic institutions are systematically dismantled, the pattern is unmistakably clear.

Even democratic stalwarts like Israel under Netanyahu have shown tendencies towards centralizing power in ways that undermine democratic norms.

These examples should serve not as endorsements of autocracy but as critical case studies on how democratic systems are vulnerable to manipulation and eventual breakdown.

But why not oppose democracy when it leads to such terrible outcomes with such terrible consequences.

The prevailing narrative often casts those who oppose democracy as would-be authoritarians. However, this is a gross mischaracterization of many who, like myself, advocate strongly for systems rooted in more liberty, not less.

Democracy is not good enough, THAT is why I oppose it. That and because I've investigated systems of governance that seem better than democracy already.

Anarcho-capitalism envisions a society where voluntary exchanges and individual sovereignty are paramount, far removed from the authoritarian impulses attributed to us.

Our opposition to democracy is not a desire to dominate but a call to dismantle an inherently coercive system that binds individuals to the will of the majority, often at the expense of minority rights and personal freedoms.

The disdain for those who seek to end democracy in order to wield increasing power and crush their opponents is understandable and shared by those of us who cherish liberty.

Yet, it is crucial to recognize that criticism of democracy can stem from a legitimate, principled stance focused on maximizing freedom and reducing conflict.

As we navigate these turbulent political times, let us engage in honest discussions about the limitations of democratic systems and explore alternative forms of governance that might better serve the foundational ideals of liberty and justice for all.

The path to a truly free society is complex and contested, but it is a journey worth undertaking for those who value liberty above all.

I'll tell you the difference.

Libertarians oppose democracy because it limits the liberty of everyone involved and is a tyranny of the majority. We believe in individual liberty, and democracy focuses on collective choice and therefore tramples on individuals necessarily, because individuals can never be a majority.

So we see democracy as an obstacle to new forms of governance which could increase the liberty of everyone. That is, we are driven by anti authoritarian sentiment and ideas.

On the other hand, conservatives oppose democracy because they're tried of sharing power with the left and want a monopoly on power. This is an authoritarian drive.

So the two positions are entirely opposite.

However most people have never heard of the idea of democracy being an obstacle to liberty, but they HAVE heard of people opposing democracy because of authoritarian drives.

Therefore they tend to jump to the conclusion that libertarians who oppose democracy do so for authoritarian reasons, but this is completely false. It is a smear at best, but usually assumed from a position of ignorance.

It doesn't help that democracy has been lauded for decades as the most ideal form of government possible such that any attempt to question immediately creates a thoughtless visceral reaction in listeners leading directly to that ignorant assumption.

They cannot even conceive of the idea of opposing democracy because it is a tyranny of the majority, even though everyone knows that phrase as well.

Mainly it's because they cannot imagine what system or form of governance could possibly replace democracy and offer more liberty. Without understanding that, they have no choice but to cling to democracy mentally and emotionally.

Even most normal libertarians are not aware of the work being done on decentralized systems of governance that some libertarians have created and are creating.

So while the conservatives continue talking about making Trump a king and defeating the Democrats once and for all, which is antidemocratic sentiment in a tyrannical mode, libertarian opposition to democracy is rooted in love for liberty and the desire to increase liberty for everyone.

Totally opposite drives and outcomes intended.

The simple fact is that many of the worst political problems we experience today under democracy can ONLY be solved by a radical change in the structure of political power. That is, a change from centralized forms of governance to decentralized forms of governance.

I spent years trying to solve the lobbying problem, for instance, and failing to solve it, years and years! But I finally found the solution in decentralization of political power. That is only one benefit of decentralized governance, but it's a really, really big one. The lobbying problem is literally unsolvable under ANY centralized system of governance, but immediately solved by decentralization because the economics of it are destroyed, you can't make money that way anymore, as you cannot bribe millions of people to accept laws that are against their interest.