pull down to refresh

By Ryan McMaken

Those who become “elites” through the initiation of violence, and through the looting of others, have always been frauds and imposters.
In democracies, those who gain and maintain power are effective at deceiving the voting public and at currying favor with the ruling coalitions of various interest groups. They’re not “the elite” because they are especially virtuous or well educated. They simply excel at cultivating the knowledge necessary to wield the power of the state against their enemies and against potential rivals.

This is only true for democracies where the candidates and the electorate choose to be evil and stupid. If the candidate is a pure-hearted capitalist entrepreneur and the majority of the electorate are freedom-loving patriots, then this superelite have indeed obtained power by virtuous means.

But of course 1 person 1 vote is unstainable in the long run. Influence over the monopoly on violence must be proportional to individual virtue. Access to the coercive force machine is a privilege to be earned, not a right. For millennia that privilege has been obtained through mastery of violence and deception, the antithesis of virtuous work. By transitioning to a system of 1 Bitcoin 1 vote, we can ensure that governance is subjugated to the demands of the market just like any other industry.

reply

It seems unlikely that someone would ascend to elite status through politics in such a world. More likely, a natural elite would win the election based on their track record.

reply

It wouldn't be recognized for what it is. Anyone that obtains elite levels of power would automatically get branded by even their own would-be supporters as a sell-out to the old elite. It would have to be an egoist in the truest sense, someone utterly impartial to anyone except their own morality.

reply
reply