From: jimruttshow8596
This article explores various perspectives on the structure of governance, focusing on the inherent power dynamics within political systems and questioning the efficacy of modern democratic models. It draws heavily from the insights of Curtis Yarvin, author of the Grey Mirror Substack and founder of the neo-reactionary movement, who proposes a shift towards a monarchical system.
Critique of Modern Democracy and its Power Dynamics
The discussion begins with a critique of current representative democracies, suggesting that they often operate on symbolic rather than objective realities of power [03:38:00].
The Illusion of Democratic Power
In modern democracies, there are two primary goals:
- Collecting the wisdom of crowds to create effective public policy [05:47:00].
- Making people feel they are in charge, giving them a sense of importance and power [07:49:00].
However, a critical unexamined assumption is that democracy is genuinely in control of the state [09:49:00]. If democracy is not fully in control, then the goal of any power structure within the system should not be to gain the “fruits” of its power, but to gain more power [11:00:00].
The U.S. government, for instance, is argued to lack a true executive branch, with agencies tightly micromanaged by legislative bills [14:03:00]. Congressional politicians, once elected, often find their primary job to be fundraising, with legislation often originating from lobbyists or activists rather than the elected officials themselves [17:40:00]. This suggests that the “steering linkage” between democratic input and state action is “not hooked up at all” [19:33:00], rendering modifications to democracy as either purely symbolic or requiring a complete re-engagement of its power [19:47:00].
The concept of “de-politicizing the government,” prevalent since the early progressive era, means taking power away from the people while making them feel well-governed as long as they are not directly harmed [21:42:00]. This contrasts with the historical reality of the Gilded Age, where politicians were indeed in control, leading to a “corrupt” and “nasty” system likened to a “third-world country” [21:27:00].
Liquid Democracy as a Power Amplifier
The concept of “liquid democracy”—where individuals can vote directly or delegate their vote to others, with the expectation that votes would flow towards those with greater expertise [03:54:00]—is used as a thought experiment. Yarvin argues that its typical design is “herbivorous” (like a sheep), optimized for policy-making under the assumption of absolute control, rather than for contending for and holding power in a “carnivorous” (lion-like) political environment [25:01:00].
Solid Democracy: Concentrating and Projecting Power
To make liquid democracy “solid,” Yarvin proposes modifications aimed at concentrating and amplifying power:
- Delegation Lock-up: Instead of instantly reversible delegation, political delegation should be frozen, for example, for four years or even for life, ensuring leaders can act with more confidence without constantly fearing a recall [28:01:00]. This creates an “unconditional power bond” [47:45:00].
- Centralized Command: To execute “basic chimp politics” (smashing enemies and taking power), power must be concentrated into a laser-like focus, not a diffused flashlight [26:58:00]. This means delegating to a single point, enabling decisive action [32:38:00].
- Unified Party Discipline: Instead of individual representatives, a “solid democracy” would operate with a single combined staff and extremely tight party discipline, aiming for maximum power rather than policy returns [44:55:00].
This “solid democracy” is presented as a machine for winning elections automatically by dominating primaries with high turnout from highly directed members [46:52:00]. Ultimately, this leads to a system where participants delegate all their political power—not just voting, but participation—to a central authority [49:31:00]. This effectively “hacks” democracy, using it in ways unintended by those who take it seriously [48:58:00].
The Case for Monarchy
From the “solid democracy” thought experiment, Yarvin concludes that the ultimate in democratic power looks like a monarchy [01:12:20]. This arises from the realization that to be effective, a population must delegate all its loyalty to one center, recreating the “political contest of the pre-modern era” where the king and the people allied against the nobles [01:12:40].
Historical Transitions to Monarchy
Historically, the transition from democracy to monarchy often occurs when democracy devolves into civil conflict. An example is the rise of Caesar in Rome, not as an evil destroyer of a thriving republic, but as a unifier in a state of continuous civil war [01:14:48]. Such leaders prioritize peace and good governance over factional conflict, essentially making “politics” (in the sense of constant internal struggle) disappear [01:21:42].
Monarchy is presented as the natural system of government for a “fundamentally apathetic and disengaged population” who “just want to grill” (live their lives peacefully) [01:11:57]. The core of modern political engagement, Yarvin argues, is “collective fear” of the other side [01:23:41]. If a monarch can eliminate this fear by governing impartially (like Caesar, who governed all of Rome, not just his faction), then the remaining fear energy transforms into gratitude for peace and efficiency [01:27:24].
The End of Conflict: From Fear to Gratitude
This transition, likened to Eastern Bloc revolutions of 1989, is envisioned as a “joyous peaceful movement” rather than a violent one [01:18:41]. When people witness concrete improvements in daily life—cleaner cities, better services—they experience a “sense of awaking from this nightmare that you didn’t even know was a nightmare” [01:30:43]. The goal is to devise peace by removing the political system that encourages parties to hurt each other [01:32:19].
Conclusion
The article concludes that democracy today is weak because its population is largely deactivated, while oligarchy is extremely activated [01:09:38]. The “democratic deficit” observed in structures like the EU, where power is profoundly undemocratic but life is “basically fine,” suggests that people have already accepted delegating power and not getting it back, as long as it allows them to live their lives [01:34:40]. Discarding the “empty husk” of democracy’s legitimacy and returning to a historically normal system like monarchy is presented as a mature decision to achieve a government that effectively works [01:39:05].
While acknowledging that current political problems may stem from institutional structures that promote polarization [01:40:05], the presenter, Jim Rutt, maintains that democracy, despite its flaws, remains preferable to other systems. He expresses skepticism about finding a benevolent monarch, citing recent historical examples of centralized power leading to tyranny [01:40:52], but concedes that new thinking on governance is needed [01:48:51].