From: jimruttshow8596
The concept of liquid democracy is introduced as a potential alternative to current representative democracy [00:01:21]. Jim Rutt, the host, describes it as a form of direct democracy where every person can, in theory, vote on everything [00:03:54]. However, the expectation is that very few people would exercise this option directly [00:04:02]. Instead, individuals can proxy their vote to someone else [00:04:04].
In Jim Rutt’s envisioned version of liquid democracy, there would be multiple categories, roughly equal to the number of federal departments today (e.g., 20) [00:04:07]. Voters could assign a proxy for each category (e.g., defense, health, education) [00:04:20]. These proxies can then be re-proxied, theoretically moving up a “gradient of knowledge” so that decisions are made by those with greater expertise [00:04:42]. The idea is that these recursively delegated individuals would propose and vote on laws [00:04:58]. This model originated with the Pirate Party in Germany [00:04:08].
It is typically envisioned as a replacement for the legislative function, not necessarily the executive [00:12:53]. Jim Rutt posits that an “elective monarchy” could even be implemented via liquid democracy, provided there are boundaries on the monarch and mechanisms for recall [00:13:06]. In a thought experiment, Jim Rutt describes a liquid democracy where there wouldn’t be a unified executive, but rather 20 “mini execs” for each domain area, each funded separately [00:15:02].
Perceived Goals of Liquid Democracy
Curtis Yarvin interprets the goals of liquid democracy, as understood by its supporters, in two main ways:
- Collecting the Wisdom of Crowds: The system aims to gather the collective knowledge of the large voter population and channel it into effective public policy [00:05:47]. The underlying purpose is to create a government that “works well” and gives people what they want [00:05:59].
- Fulfilling the Human “Power Drive”: Yarvin suggests a more “Machiavellian” goal: to make people feel important and “in charge” [00:07:41]. He argues that people value the feeling of power more than its actual impact on policy [00:08:01]. This taps into a fundamental human psychological need for importance, rooted in evolutionary history [00:08:53].
Challenges and Criticisms of Liquid Democracy
Curtis Yarvin raises several fundamental challenges and criticisms against liquid democracy, primarily focusing on its assumptions about power and political reality:
Unexamined Assumptions about Power
Yarvin contends that liquid democracy operates on the “unexamined assumption” that democracy is actually in control of the state [00:09:49]. If democracy is not fully in control, or if it is merely one of several forces contending for power, then the optimal strategy for any power structure should not be to simply enact good policy, but first and foremost to gain more power [00:10:21]. He states that liquid democracy, in its traditional design, “is not optimized to contend for power” [00:11:47].
The Illusion of Political Influence
Yarvin argues that current political systems, including representative democracy, largely serve symbolic rather than objective functions [00:03:38].
- Congressional Power: He suggests that the “executive branch” in the US doesn’t truly exist as agencies are micromanaged by legislative bills, which are often written by lobbyists or activists, not elected officials [00:13:59]. Members of Congress, especially new ones, lack real power, operating on a seniority basis, and their primary job is fundraising [00:17:10]. Speeches on the Senate floor rarely change votes [00:18:21].
- Disconnection of Voters: He asserts that the “steering linkage” between voters and the government is “not hooked up at all” [00:19:31]. Modifying democracy often results in purely symbolic changes to a symbolic system [00:19:47].
- “De-politicizing” Government: Yarvin highlights the paradox where “democracy is good” but “putting politicians in charge of the government is bad” [00:21:00]. This idea originated in the progressive era to disconnect voters from power, making them feel important while removing their actual influence [00:21:11].
Weaknesses in a “Carnivorous” Political Landscape
Yarvin re-frames liquid democracy as a “herbivorous” idea—a “deer”—in a “carnivorous” political environment [00:25:56]. To be effective, it would need to transform into a “lion” capable of taking and holding power [00:26:03].
He proposes modifications to make it a “solid democracy,” optimized for power projection and concentration:
- Locked Delegation: Instead of allowing voters to change their proxy at any time, delegation would be frozen for a period (e.g., four years or even for life) [00:28:03]. This allows the delegated leader to act with greater confidence, knowing their support is guaranteed [00:28:30]. The more irrevocable the delegation, the stronger the power [00:47:32].
- Single Point of Focus: To avoid infighting and internal conflicts, all delegation should be focused on a single point of leadership [00:32:38]. This concentrates power like a “laser rather than a flashlight” [00:27:44].
- Absolute Control: The delegated leadership would be granted “absolute control” over the voter’s vote and all forms of political participation [00:37:58]. Voters would simply perform “data entry” at the ballot box, following the leadership’s instructions [00:39:06]. This cuts the individual out of the loop, effectively “firing the arrow” of their power [00:39:15].
- Centralized Staffing: For elected representatives (e.g., in a “Solid Democracy Party”), there would be one combined staff for the entire party, ensuring “extremely tight party discipline” and maximizing the block’s power [00:44:55]. This contrasts with the current system where politicians are largely independent fundraisers and symbolic figures [00:46:05].
Internal Instability and Lack of Leadership
The Pirate Party’s experience with liquid democracy is cited as an example of its pitfalls. Due to its structure, it resulted in “infighting and chaos” and failed to develop any “articulate leadership structure” [00:55:57]. This internal disorganization leads to failure in contending for power, as seen in the French Revolution’s Jacobins or the Yellow Vest protests, which lacked coherent leadership and were ultimately ineffective in achieving significant change [00:56:52]. This demonstrates a failure of democratic centralism [00:56:07].
Apathy and Fear in Modern Politics
Yarvin suggests that modern democratic populations are largely apathetic and disengaged [01:08:52]. Their primary motivation for political participation is often “collective fear” of the “other side” [01:23:41]. He argues that this apathy means people have already implicitly accepted delegating their power and not getting it back, so long as their lives remain “fine” [01:35:53]. Therefore, the “empty husk” of democratic theory can be discarded without major societal upheaval, as long as good governance is delivered [01:36:58]. The core of politics, in this view, is about granting different groups the ability to “hurt the other” [01:32:30].
The Problem of Transition
Yarvin argues that attempts to “reform” democracy often fail because they assume democracy is already in command [01:34:25]. He claims that the “revolution already happened” when democracy was “vanquished” and effective power was taken over by unelected “oligarchical policy networks,” as evidenced by the modern US government and the EU Commission [01:25:47]. Therefore, true change involves building a “power amplifier” for the disengaged population, which naturally leads to a centralized, monarchical structure [01:11:14].
Ultimately, Curtis Yarvin suggests that the logical conclusion of optimizing liquid democracy for power and efficiency is the creation of a monarchy, which he argues is the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population” [01:12:28]. He believes that a true, peaceful shift would come from recognizing this reality and choosing a system that prioritizes effective governance and peace over the “illusion” of direct popular power [01:47:35]. This perspective aligns with his views on decision-making models.
Jim Rutt acknowledges the interesting and “scary” logic of Yarvin’s argument, especially the idea of a centralized power base. However, he remains skeptical of monarchy, noting the historical prevalence of non-benevolent rulers (e.g., Hitler, Stalin) and suggesting that current political issues are a function of institutional structures [01:40:02]. He maintains that while the current system is broken, new thinking should focus on better forms of democracy rather than a return to monarchy [01:48:53].