Using deductive logical-reasoning can be the first chapter to begin with, because it is the “only” method which helps an individual to decipher all these “mainstream” syntaxes which produce submitizens and freedumb.
Coming to the point, ask yourself; what is/are people? Wikipedia says: A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation.WordWeb says: any group of human beings (men, women or children) collectively. I guess they skipped “transgender” in their definition and that is why you see LGBT movement. Anyways. Then, you have your radio jockeys, teachers and politicians telling you that “people” is you or else “we are the people”. Sounds crotchety? Then, you will hear them telling that people have rights, duties, responsibilities, etc. My point is that how come “me” is forced to comply with the definitions set by “we”. How moral it is to do involuntaryism and lay down social contract on the new born?
My another crux is that how come there can be “collective rights”, when the definition of people “intrinsically” conveys that it is ‘the body of citizens of a state or nation’? If people have rights, then there is nothing called individualism because a tyrannical group is unlikely to welcome your individuation processes. If people decide what is best for you, then how contradistinct is democracy from mobocracy? Even if “democracy with individual rights than with human rights” is perfect, then how virtuous it is still to have government in the society to vouch your rights and protection when the government itself is a limited body enjoying unlimited monopoly on defense, taxation, discrimination, etc?
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Those words are the primary reason I consider democracy to be a greater enemy of freedom than overt dictatorships. Dictatorships are obvious – we can all understand their coercive nature. We can see our freedoms taken away from us, and we never feel like we have a real say in it. The enemy of freedom is clearly delineated, and no matter how much propaganda a dictatorship may throw at its subjects, they’ll never completely extinguish dissent.
Let’s consider how democracy allegedly functions. I don’t just mean the mechanics of voting, which obviously differ from country to country and throughout time; but the alleged transfer of power behind that voting. When the individuals comprising a nation-state go to vote, we could consider what they’re doing to be a transfer of power – similar to a letter of attorney. Now insofar as we are able to give other people power in an apolitical context, we can only give them powers that we already have. If we have the power to receive parcels, or collect documents on our own behalf (because we are legally of age to do so), then we can reasonably transfer that power to someone else. If we don’t have a certain power, we can scarcely transfer it to another. This is simple logic. If I don’t have a bicycle, I can’t give it to you. And yet this illogical transfer of powers individuals do not themselves possess is what the entire concept of democracy hinges on. Read my piece: Anatomy of voting.
When voters participate in an election, they are (supposedly) transferring to their government the power to:
1) Murder people in wars of aggression. This includes: Innocent civilians (called collateral damage).
2) Kidnap and cage people (called imprisonment).
3) Enslave people (euphemistically called conscription).
4) Rape people (governments forcefully putting people into environments such as prisons, where they will be raped. Also government soldiers systematically committing rape during times of war).
5) Steal from people (euphemistically called taxation).
6) Tell adults what they can and cannot do (regulations and malum prohibitum laws). This includes everything from damaging your own body through substance abuse, to zoning laws that restrict what you can and cannot do on your not-so-private property.
7) Proclaim a legal monopoly on a certain activity, such as creation of currency. Then use legal tender laws to force everyone to use a currency that is subsequently devalued through perpetual counterfeit.
Before you pose me any undemocratic question, I suggest you to read my article: But, who will build the roads?
If “constitution” is now the answer, then what makes you to disagree from the conventional social rules set by your ancestors and makes you believe on the other front that constitution isn’t conventional? If still it is unclear at your end that “trusting people with freedom than with power” is an imbecilic suggestion, then I have no tonic to emancipate you from the chains of slavery which you radically revere and even impudently impose your ideas upon others who aspire to dissociate from your ruthless obduracy. Do not suggest me my own article to me i.e. join politics or else go to Somalia. Suggest yourself to do away with “power over others” like ideologies because it is nevertheless an attempt to empower statism and nothing else.
My idea is conjectural and laughable to you, but to your knowledge anarchy cannot be tried because it is not a sociopolitical “system”. Anarchy is the fundamental state of nature into which you’re born. Remember that anarchy exists every single time you voluntarily interact with other people. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold endemically to you over generations, anarchism will seem utterly preposterous and its advocate a raving lunatic.