From: jimruttshow8596
Curtis Yarvin, author of the Grey Mirror Substack, proposes replacing the current U.S. government with a monarchy [00:01:06]. This is not a metaphor, but a proposal for an actual king [00:01:10]. This idea is presented as part of an ongoing exploration into the problems of representative democracy and possible alternatives [00:01:17].
Critique of the Current System
Yarvin offers an assessment of contemporary society, arguing that the system, including proposals like “liquid democracy” (a concept where individuals can vote on all matters or delegate their vote, famously explored by the Pirate Party in Germany [00:04:07]), often emphasizes symbolic over objective realities [00:03:35].
According to Yarvin, the goals of democracy, as understood by its supporters, are twofold:
- To collect the “wisdom of crowds” to make effective public policy [00:05:47].
- To make people feel they are in charge, giving them a sense of importance and power [00:07:49]. This power drive is a significant, yet neglected, aspect of human psychology [00:08:53].
Yarvin contends that the fundamental, unexamined assumption behind such democratic designs is that “democracy is actually in control of the state” [00:09:49]. He argues that this assumption is false [00:10:18]. If democracy is not in control, or not fully in control, then the primary goal of any political force should be to gain more power, not merely to gain the fruits of existing power [00:11:03]. He notes that the current U.S. executive branch “doesn’t actually exist” in a functional sense, as agencies are micromanaged by legislative bills, and the White House has limited actual power compared to Congress [00:14:55].
Yarvin asserts that the power of politicians and voters over government machines is “very very minimal” [00:16:26]. He claims that elected officials, particularly in Congress, gain no real power as newly elected members due to seniority rules [00:17:10], and their primary job becomes fundraising [00:17:40]. He describes the legislative process as being driven by lobbyists (seen as corrupting with money) and activists (corrupting with power), rather than by the elected officials themselves [00:16:40].
He points out a paradox: the terms “politics” and “democracy” are synonyms, yet “politicizing” an agency is viewed negatively [00:20:17]. This negative connotation of politics dates back to the Progressive Era, when efforts were made to “disconnect the wires from the voters to power” [00:21:11]. This created a system where people still “feel that they matter” but without actual political efficacy [00:21:51].
The “Solid Democracy” Thought Experiment
To address the perceived powerlessness of modern democracy, Yarvin proposes a thought experiment: transforming “liquid democracy” into “solid democracy” [00:37:01]. The goal of this new system is to optimize for “getting power and also for holding power” [00:24:41].
Key modifications to “liquid democracy” in his “solid democracy” thought experiment include:
- Locked Delegation: Instead of being able to change delegation at any time, a voter’s delegation would be frozen for a significant period, such as four years, or even for life [00:28:03]. This ensures guaranteed support for the delegated leader, enabling them to act with greater confidence [00:28:30].
- Concentrated Power: Delegation should be focused “on a single point” [00:32:42] and be as irrevocable as possible [00:32:48]. The less one can back out of a commitment, the stronger the power [00:47:31].
- Absolute Control: The delegated leadership would be granted “absolute control over your vote” and “all forms of political power that you can exercise” [00:37:58]. This means voters would simply fill out their ballots according to a sample provided by the party/leader, acting as “pure data entry” [00:39:06], cutting themselves out of the loop [00:39:13].
- Unified Leadership: The “solid democracy party” would recruit candidates (e.g., 435 for the House [00:42:23]) and have “one combined staff for the whole solid democracy party” [00:44:55], ensuring “extremely tight party discipline” [00:45:05]. The goal of this block is not policy, but “to be as powerful as possible” [00:45:14].
- Delegating Participation: Beyond voting, individuals would delegate their “power to participate in the political process” [00:49:35]. This could enable a new president, elected via solid democracy, to declare “emergency powers” and use popular support (e.g., a million people in Washington D.C. [00:53:53] with a phone app providing micro-directions [00:54:40]) to seize governmental positions, fund themselves directly, and shut down existing institutions, akin to the fall of the Stasi in East Germany [00:52:50].
Yarvin states that this “solid democracy” design turns a “deer into a lion” [00:26:03], providing the means to “actually win” [00:42:02] by solving the coordination problem of a large, disorganized populace [00:26:36]. He references the Egyptian Tamarod movement as an example of popular mobilization for a new government [01:02:28].
The Case for Monarchy
Yarvin argues that by optimizing for maximum “democratic power” through “solid democracy,” one inadvertently designs a monarchy [01:12:20]. He posits that sovereignty is conserved, meaning there is “always a power structure” [01:07:27], and that if democracy is not in command, an oligarchy is [01:07:39].
He highlights that in “most countries in most times, most people have no interest in politics; they are apathetic” [01:08:52], a state similar to China today where the population is “deactivated” [01:09:01]. Modern democracy, he argues, is weak because its population is largely deactivated, wanting “just to grill” rather than engage deeply in politics [01:11:44]. Therefore, monarchy is the “natural system of government for a fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population who just wants to grill” [01:28:06].
Yarvin suggests that much political engagement is driven by collective fear of “the other side” [01:23:41]. A monarch, like Caesar after the Roman civil wars, or Napoleon after the French Revolution, could serve as a “truly unifying force” [01:22:56] by governing for “all of Rome” rather than just one faction [01:20:58]. This leader’s purpose would be to bring peace by de-escalating factional conflict [01:21:40]. Once this fear disappears and efficient government takes hold, leading to visible improvements in daily life (e.g., clean, safe cities [01:29:21]), the remaining air in the “bubble of apathy” will be gone, and people will question why they ever had the “crazy system” before [01:29:12].
He sees the transition from democracy to monarchy not as a violent upheaval, but as a “joyous peaceful movement,” akin to the 1989 Eastern Bloc revolutions [01:18:41]. In this scenario, opponents would not be persecuted but merely retired, their buildings closed, and they would be transitioned to new pension plans [01:47:23]. This peaceful transition would stem from the realization that “as soon as I stop caring about this thing, it just falls” [01:47:53].
Yarvin asserts that the U.S. currently “live[s] in the ruins of a monarchy that decayed into an oligarchy” [01:26:31], with Franklin D. Roosevelt effectively becoming a monarch [01:25:54]. He compares the selection of a monarch to the process of an executive search firm finding a CEO for a Fortune 500 company [01:05:31], suggesting it is a solvable problem in modern society.
Yarvin concludes that abandoning the “empty husk” of democratic theory and its “illusion” of relevance allows for a mature decision to revert to a political system that “most human beings have used for most of history” [01:39:42], creating a government that actually works [01:39:16]. He views historical figures like Deng Xiaoping and Salazar as examples of effective leaders who used centralized power for the good of their respective countries [01:46:24].