“There is no such thing as “autocracy” versus “democracy.” All government is arbitrary, unlimited and contingent. There are only different versions of autocracy. I’m sorry if you’re learning this for the first time,” writes Curtis Yarvin in his latest article.
(I think Yarvin is wrong about the issue of unlimitedness, but I will come back to that).
On the face of it, this is a scary prospect, but if we think about it for a moment, we find that it’s not so scary after all. While all governments are essentially dictatorships, they are not all the same. Yes, there are scary tyrannical governments that can create hell on earth. But there are also governments under which life is tolerable or even good. Living standards are decent and rising, poverty is falling, people feel safe, public services work, citizens are not bullied and they look to the future with optimism. This is often related to the fact that some governments are dependent on popular support and others are not. But there may be other reasons.
Democracy – these are just glimpses. The people resist the temptation to be a rabble or an aggressive mob (which is a constant threat), enter the scene for a while, help push something through, support one dictator against another, redirect developments, and return to their cottages. If a government is to be stable, it must be monarchical or oligarchical by default, argues Curtis Yarvin, and he is right.
Let’s just not get sucked into thinking that it’s about justice, rule of the people, rule of law, punishing bad people, or anything of the sort. The best we can aspire to are conditions where we can live quite freely and quite safely (it will never be quite perfect), work honestly, learn new things, have a little fun now and then, and earn enough to live a decent life. It’s not a little. For hundreds of generations before us, it was unaffordable. And it’s beginning to be unaffordable again.