Participating In Democracy

No one can participate in democracy without in some way sharing the anti-rationalistic errors of the masses.  The core tenets of democracy are metaphysical, epistemological, and moral: the desires of the majority reveal or dictate reality, or they should at least be submitted to even if they do not.  Anyone who is a genuine philosophical believer in democracy and not just an opportunist hoping to deceive "the people" must believe in these things in some way.  Maybe they are rational in other areas of their worldview.  Perhaps they participate in democracy at the hypocritical expense of living out the rest of their worldview.  Regardless of what moral obligations might exist, supporting a candidate who says they will disregard or oppose even one of the slightest obligations (though democracy is false already for the more fundamental reason of disregarding the intrinsic nature of logical truths and how they do not depend on social approval) is himself or herself at fault for their abuse of leadership.

Lesser evil or not, whoever votes for a candidate with any ideological and moral flaws whatsoever which they revealed ahead of the election is at the very least treating democracy as if it is a valid philosophy (a logical impossibility since truth is not determined by social agreement), and at worst they are intentionally tolerating or actively supporting the candidate's idiocy and injustice.  Not only would no rationalist ever think that it is even possible for voting to be either an expression of rationalism or a moral right, but they would also never practice utilitarianism.  Relativism, egoism, emotionalism, utilitarianism, or general irrationalism are the only reasons a person would ever think that consensus makes something true, knowable, or morally good--or to tolerate this falsity in any way.

It is not as if the only alternatives to democracy are hereditary monarchies or egoistic autocracies.  This is the other side to why some people submit to the folly of democracy.  In the grip of sheer stupidity, social conditioning, or emotional appeal, a certain kind of person is motivated by a fear of any alternative because they think that the worst version of other forms of government is inevitable, or perhaps that there is no such thing as a non-democratic government that is not inherently, wholly tyrannical.  Someone might not like monarchy, for example, and there is nothing about this political system that is obligatory even in the Biblical worldview that permits it in a specific form.  All the agreement, emotion, and assumptions in the world still cannot make what is logically necessary false.

It of course does not logically follow that all governments besides democracies, whether they are pure or republics (in a republic, people still elect leaders, but the leaders then make policy decisions themselves), are oppressive or installed with personal gain in mind.  Since there is no such thing as a pro-democracy thinker who is not in the jaws of assumptions, contradictions, and emotionalism, it would not matter anyway; if all other governments besides democracies were inherently irrationalistic and unjust, then it would only follow that all forms of government are at a minimum asinine and/or morally invalid.

Whether it is spurred on by uninfluenced subjective preference with no rationalistic restraint or by culturally manipulated love of the "common people," democracy's proponents betray reason to the extent that they embrace any of this.  Democracy cannot be valid because reality is not a matter of voting, consensus, or personal opinion, no matter how much fools wish otherwise.  There is also the inconvenient fact that whoever endorses even one of the more rational, morally upright candidates is still participating in an irrationalistic social construct and is in one way or another enabling them to be secure even in their slight fallacies and evils.  While people can reach a state of perfect rationalism and holistic, unrelenting devotion to morality, no politician I have ever heard of across the entire historical record is in that category.  Democracy would still be erroneous by default even if there was a perfect candidate.