Commentary: Democracy: The Enemy of Freedom!
By Darryl W. Perry
July 7, 2013 - In late June, large-scale protests erupted in Egypt, as protesters demanded Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi restructure his cabinet and call early elections. On July 1, CNN reported one supporter as saying, “The president is staying. We believe in democracy. If people don’t like him, they can vote him out in three years.”
That sentiment was echoed by Abdul Mawgoud Dardery, a representative for the Muslim Brotherhood, saying the opposition “failed in the previous five elections we had in Egypt since the revolution, and they don’t want to fail a sixth time. That’s why they’re going to street politics. Street politics is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve democracy.”
On July 3, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Gehad El-Haddad said that Mohamed Morsi and members of his presidential team had been arrested by presidential guards. The head of Egypt’s Freedom and Justice Party and the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood also were arrested.
Before the arrests, Dardery claims that Morsi has reached out to opposition leaders many times, but the opposition is “afraid of democracy.” That is an interesting choice of words. Especially when one considers that most Amerikans believe that “freedom” and “democracy” go hand-in-hand with one another. In the minds of many, “afraid of democracy” is akin to “afraid of freedom,” however the two statements are almost contradictory.
In practical application, democracy is a system in which a plurality of people who show up on voting day attempt to impose their will on everyone else. Allow me to pause for a second to say that I’m not opposed to voting, as I believe one can vote in self-defense. However, I am opposed to a system that uses threats of force to make everyone in a geographic area comply with the wishes of a few. If the joint opinion of the plurality changes in the middle of the term, in most cases there is no option for recourse.
Why then should people not have a manner in which they can let it be known that they do not consent to the ideas expressed by the local (or national) government? Why must everyone be obligated to live under the policies chosen by a plurality of people as expressed on a given day?
The idea seems foreign to most people, and they would likely claim “it would never work,” or “it’s never been done before.” Both claims are, in fact, false! Polycentric societies have existed in several places at various times throughout history; in Medina during the time of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, in Gaelic areas during the Middle Ages, and to a lesser extent in the United States before the New Deal, when most people received social services from fraternal organizations or mutual aid societies - not government.
I long for the day when democracy, much like slavery, is viewed not only as a thing of the past but also as a system that should have never existed. No government or society should be able to claim a monopoly over any geographic area, and every individual should be able to give his consent to and/or withdraw his consent from any “government” at any time. In fact, I recall being taught that governments exist with the consent of the governed. Can someone then choose to not consent? If not, how is “forced consent” different from a contract signed under duress?
Darryl W. Perry is an activist, author, poet & statesman. Darryl is a regular contributor to The Bulverde Standard, The Canyon Lake Week and The Comal Beacon, and writes a monthly article for The Sovereign. He hosts the weekly news podcasts Freedom Minute and Police Accountability Report and hosts the weekly radio show Peace, Love, Liberty Radio on the Liberty Radio Network. Darryl is co-founder and co-chair of the NH Liberty Party. Darryl is Owner/Managing Editor of Free Press Publications.
