Genocide Is Democratic
by Mark R. Crovelli
by Mark R. Crovelli: The
Futility of Fighting Government Corruption in India
It is a curious
thing that people in the modern world have come to worship democracy
at the very same time that they have come to abhor genocide. One
would think that if democracy is such a wonderful thing for giving
majorities the right to do what they will, then genocide is wonderful
for that very same reason. After all, genocide is usually nothing
more than the brutal expression of majority opinion in a given territory
that some minority population ought to be exterminated. Is there
anything more sublimely democratic than that?
There is more
than passing resemblance here. The concept of democracy and the
concept of genocide are identical in every ethically relevant way.
Democracy is a system for reaching political solutions that are
deemed to be acceptable to a majority of the population. This is
precisely what genocide typically is. It is a political solution
to a perceived problem that is deemed to be acceptable to the majority
of the population in a given territory. Sure, there are some people
in a genocidal bloodbath who don’t really have their hearts in it,
but the same is just as true of any democratically derived outcome.
Just think about all those people who voted for Hilary Clinton in
the Democratic primary in 2008, but settled half-heartedly for Obama
in the general election.
It is of no
use to object that the concept of "democracy" is nonviolent
by definition. The same used to be commonly said of the concept
of "socialism," which was also claimed to be nonviolent
by definition at least, that is, until the socialists’ death
count reached a point where it was too embarrassing for honest men
to ignore. The death count for democracies hasn’t quite caught up
to the impressive death
count of the socialists, but it is certainly large
enough that it should embarrass
anyone out of claiming that democracy is nonviolent by definition.
This is in addition to the fact that defining something as nonviolent
by no means makes it so in reality.
It is also
of no use to object that democracies sometimes have constitutions
to protect minorities from attack by majorities. This objection
overlooks the glaring fact that constitutions can be amended or
abolished by…majority vote! A constitution will thus only protect
minorities as long as the majority accepts the idea that minorities
have rights; a fact conspicuously highlighted by the American constitution’s
defense of black slavery. Should the majority change its mind about
minority rights, it always has the ability to amend, abolish or
simply ignore the constitution standing in the way of its intentions.
In other words, there is no reason why a majority in a given population
could not commit genocide with the explicit sanction of the democratically-created
fact, it is an intellectual error of gargantuan proportions to assume
that democracy and individual rights go hand in hand, or to assume
that democracy and genocide are antithetical to one another. Democratic
government, even representative democratic government, is merely
a means for the majority to impress its will on minorities. It is
mob rule dressed up in fancy legal livery. Genocidal bloodbaths
committed by majorities around the world may lack the legal finery
and the fancy ballot boxes, but they are thoroughly democratic nonetheless.
In fact, genocide approaches the ideal of "participatory democracy"
even more closely than the effeminate, representative form of democracy
practiced in the West, since the majority of people in a genocidal
bloodbath actually participate in the action.
If you happen
to believe that individuals have God-given or nature-given
rights that mobs should not violate, then you should have no business
defending a system of government that makes the law dependent upon
what the democratic mob happens to think from moment to moment.
In fact, if you believe in individual rights, then you should detest
the very idea of so-called "majorities" doing anything
whatsoever. For, acceptance that majorities can legitimately create
law or select "leaders" or do anything else is only one
step removed from acceptance of majorities deciding who should live
and who should die. Encouraging democratic mobs to do what they
will in one area of the law only encourages them to do what they
will across the board.
If you defend
democratic mob rule today when it suits you, on what grounds will
you object when its impulses turn ugly or murderous? At best you
will be rightly labeled a hypocrite for only defending democratic
government when it benefited you, as is the case with so many pro-democracy
types in Washington who weep about Rwanda’s democratic genocide
at the same time that they attempt to export democracy around the
world. At worst, you may find that you are one of the minorities
the democratic mob has its sights set on, and you may find yourself
rotting in prison or an unmarked mass grave. After all, the democratic
mob used to target the blacks just because they were black and it
currently has its sights set on drug-users, many of whom find themselves
up in cages because the mob doesn’t like certain plants, but
the democratic mob could just as easily change its mind and target
minority groups of which you are part.
the sake of intellectual consistency and of human civilization in
general it is critical that man lose
his reverence for democratic mob rule. He must come to appreciate
that his own rights and dignity should never be subject to majority
opinion, and that he should not participate in mob decision making
that robs other men of their rights through voting or any other
of human civilization comes not from arbitrary, mob-created democratic
law, but rather from voluntary contract, voluntary exchange, peaceful
coexistence, and private property rights. The defense
of the values and the creation
of law to support them does not require ballot boxes or of mob
decision making of any kind. It only requires that individual men
come to believe in peace, prosperity and property, and that they
reject individuals and organizations that destroy these values.
This includes, first and foremost, the taxing, war-making, regulating
and suffocating democratic state.
Crovelli [send him mail]
writes from Denver, Colorado.
© 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Best of Mark R. Crovelli