From: jimruttshow8596
The discourse surrounding modern governance often pits traditional democracy against alternative models, including the theoretical liquid democracy. Curtis Yarvin, author of the Grey Mirror Substack, offers a sharp critique of these systems, arguing that their fundamental assumptions about power are flawed, ultimately leading him to advocate for a return to monarchy [01:06:06].
Understanding Liquid Democracy: A Theoretical Approach
Liquid democracy, as conceptualized by some, is a system where every individual can, in theory, vote on everything [03:57:04]. However, anticipating low participation, it allows individuals to proxy their vote to someone else [04:02:44]. In one proposed version, voters could assign proxies for multiple categories (e.g., defense, health, education), with the expectation that votes would gravitate towards those with greater expertise [04:07:07]. The core idea is to implement direct democracy at scale through recursive delegation [05:02:45].
Perceived Goals of Democracy
The presumed goals of a system like liquid democracy or traditional democracy are twofold [05:36:00]:
- Collecting the wisdom of crowds: Tapping into the collective intelligence of voters to produce effective public policy [05:47:48].
- Providing a feeling of importance: Allowing people to feel they are “in charge” and that their participation matters, satisfying a deep human need for power and relevance [07:49:00].
H.L. Mencken’s adage, “the art of democracy is giving the people what they want, good and hard,” highlights the often-unflattering reality of this second goal [06:09:00].
Critique of Traditional and Liquid Democracy’s Assumptions
Curtis Yarvin argues that liquid democracy, and by extension, traditional democracy, are built on an “unexamined assumption” [09:35:00]: that “democracy is actually in control of the state” [09:49:00]. He contends that if democracy is not fully in control, then focusing on optimizing policy within that framework is misguided [10:16:00].
The Illusion of Control
Yarvin asserts that the “steering linkage” between politicians/voters and government is “really not hooked up at all” [19:31:00]. He illustrates this by noting:
- The legislative function, even in a system like liquid democracy, would need to dismantle the existing power structures, such as Congress, which are unlikely to relinquish their positions [23:51:00].
- The U.S. government lacks a true “executive branch” in the traditional sense, as agencies are micromanaged by legislative bills, not a single executive [14:03:03].
- Politicians, particularly in Congress, operate with minimal real power due to seniority rules and fundraising demands, with legislation often originating from lobbyists or activists [16:31:00].
He highlights the paradox where “democracy is good” but “putting politicians in charge of the government is bad” [02:10:00]. This negative characterization of politics stems from the Progressive Era, when efforts were made to “disconnect the wires from the voters to power” while maintaining the illusion of democratic participation [21:42:00].
The “Solid Democracy” Thought Experiment: From Herbivore to Carnivore
To illustrate his point about power, Yarvin proposes a “solid democracy” [38:14:00], a hypothetical modification of liquid democracy designed not merely for policy-making but for “getting power and also for holding power” [24:41:00]. This “carnivorous” approach contrasts with the “herbivorous” assumptions of traditional models [25:57:00].
Key modifications in “solid democracy” include:
- Locked Delegation: Instead of being able to change delegations at any time, a voter’s delegation is frozen for a period, e.g., four years, granting the delegated leader more confidence and unreserved support [28:03:00]. The more irrevocable the delegation, the stronger the bond and the power [47:32:00].
- Concentrated Power: The goal is to focus delegation on a single point to avoid infighting and maximize power projection upwards [32:38:00].
- Absolute Control: Voters delegate not just their right to vote, but their “power to participate in the political process” to a central authority [49:31:00]. This means voters simply follow direct instructions on how to vote in every election, turning voting into a “pure data entry” task [39:06:00].
- Centralized Leadership: Instead of fragmented political actors, a single, combined staff would manage a cohesive political block with “extremely tight party discipline” [44:55:00].
In this model, the ultimate expression of democratic power, when optimized for acquiring and wielding power, ironically leads to the construction of a monarchy [01:12:28].
The Case for Monarchy
Yarvin posits that the modern world is witnessing a transition from historically unusual periods to historically normal ones, where most people are apathetic and disengaged from politics [01:08:42]. In such a state, he argues, monarchy is the “natural system of government” [01:28:06].
A Unified Force
Historically, monarchy often represented an alliance of the king and the people against the nobles (oligarchy) [01:12:51]. Yarvin cites Julius Caesar and Napoleon as examples of leaders who rose to power when republics devolved into civil war [01:14:35]. These figures, unlike their factional predecessors, chose to govern for the entirety of their realm rather than for a single faction [01:20:58]. This approach de-escalated political conflict and led to an era where politics, as factional struggle, “just disappears” [01:21:53].
The Benefits of Benevolent Monarchy
The argument for a benevolent monarchy rests on its potential to be a “truly unifying force” [01:22:56] that overcomes historical class, race, and ethnic conflicts [01:22:36]. The “microwave” analogy describes political conflict not as inherent but as “agitated by the microwaves” of a dysfunctional system that incentivizes parties to “hurt the other” [01:32:26]. A monarch, by contrast, is not a “representative” of factions but the “ruler of Rome” who takes responsibility for the state [01:24:50].
Yarvin contends that if the fear driving political engagement disappears, it leads to “universal apathy” and a questioning of the existing, “crazy system” [01:29:10]. This, combined with visible improvements in governance—such as safer and cleaner cities, or better infrastructure—could lead to a widespread “sense of gratitude” and acceptance of the new order [01:31:19]. He compares this potential transition to the “joyous, peaceful movement” of 1989 in the Eastern Bloc, where the fall of a centralized system was a relief rather than a violent upheaval [01:18:41].
The Present Oligarchy
Yarvin concludes that the current system is already an oligarchy, not a true democracy, with politicians acting as proxies for powerful, hidden networks [01:27:40]. He argues that the illusion of democracy is an “empty husk” that merely serves to make people “feel powerful” through a form of “pornography” [01:37:00]. Abandoning this illusion and directing collective energy towards a government that “actually works” is a “mature decision” [01:39:14].
Conclusion: A Debate on Governance
While acknowledging the current “broken politics” and the need for new thinking in democratic institutions [01:48:47], the counter-argument maintains that while a benevolent monarchy is theoretically possible, historical examples of centralized power (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) demonstrate the extreme dangers [01:41:14]. The argument remains that democracy, despite its flaws, remains “the worst system, except for all the rest” [01:48:41]. The question of how to ensure a monarchy remains benevolent is a crucial one that remains to be explored [01:49:21].