We live neither in a democracy nor an aristocracy, but in an oligarchy - rule of the few

Democracy means rule by the people. So far, so well known. But what distinguishes a democracy from other forms of government such as a monarchy? Most would answer: free elections. But what many do not know is that for the ancient Greeks, who invented the term democracy, the electoral process was not the means of democracy, but of aristocracy, i.e. the rule of the best.

Elections are used to determine who is supposedly the most competent in a competition. The method of democracy, on the other hand, was the drawing of lots. The principle of democracy is equality, and for the Greeks equality meant: everyone can rule and everyone can be ruled. Therefore, political positions were drawn. For positions in which competence and experience was required, eg military functions, the election procedure applied. With us, the lottery procedure is still used today for the selection of lay judges. In politics, on the other hand, we use aristocratic procedures. So we don't live in a democracy, but do we actually live under an aristocracy? Well, each of us knows that the selection process in our party state in no way leads to the selection of the best, but of those who hold their own in the party felt. In addition, the ability to garner votes is not the same as the ability to make good decisions. So we live neither in a democracy nor an aristocracy, but in an oligarchy - rule of the few.

Now to the question of why the state can exercise more power over individuals today than ever before. Many believe that a medieval king or early chieftain had unlimited powers with which to harass his subjects at will. That's true in principle, but the power of such rulers often only reached up to the outstretched arm: if I'm in the same room with an absolute ruler, he can have me killed at will. But as soon as the cat is out of the house, the mice dance on the table. In other words: If the ruler has no way of enforcing his will in a large territory, the power is not far off. The prerequisite for doing this is police and all-encompassing bureaucracy—things not always available to many rulers in the past. Today, on the other hand, every democracy, no matter how liberal, has the possibility of ultimately using violence to force citizens to always do things against their will in their everyday life, as can be seen from the corona measures:

It would have been almost impossible for a medieval ruler to comprehensively enforce such measures as wearing a mask. Only a modern police state can do that. Unfortunately, many (especially those on the left) forget that laws are ultimately ALWAYS enforced by force. Violence means: State-paid thugs (policemen) come who beat me up, drag me away and take me to a place where I don't want to be (prison). The fact that the totalitarian NoCovid fantasy is so popular with scientists shows that these professional groups are not clear about the connection between laws and violence: NoCovid can only be enforced in a police state that beats up people who, for example, break away from a red move into a green zone.

Those who describe critics of the corona measures as a danger to democracy are wrong in two respects: 1. As I said, we live in an oligarchy that is indeed threatened by its critics, but I see this as a positive. 2. What is actually an achievement of the «West» that is worth preserving is not «democracy», but the LIBERAL RULE OF LAW. It is the only thing that protects us from state arbitrariness and a dictatorship of the majority! He puts chains on the rulers.

Specifically, it is intended to prevent governments from imposing corona measures without good justification or from arbitrarily arranging house searches and arrests after terrorist attacks. Politicians like Mr. Weil may complain about it, but that only goes to show how great the need politicians have to be freed from the shackles of the rule of law and how important those shackles are. Last but not least, I would personally add another principle: No one has the right to force others to do something against their will - not even the state! One could call this principle libertarian or anarchist. However, my personal idea is not a night watchman state, but a radical democracy with anarchist principles. Explaining that would require another post.

Addendum to the role of the mass media: They also play such a manipulative role because the electoral process turns politicians into heroes of a competition, while we citizens are degraded to passive spectators. This turns politics into a spectacle staged by the media with a clear allocation of roles: heroes fight villains – Biden (good) against Trump (evil), Zelenskyy (good) against Putin (evil). The favor of the audience is then steered in a similar way as in the staging of wrestling matches.

In principle, I have nothing against people with no particular skills being put into political positions. Politics isn't about competence, it's about judgement. Let's take Drosten: Very competent, but not good judgement. If we were to select politicians based on their competence, i.e. only put experts in certain positions, we would have exactly what I really don't want: a total technocracy or expertocracy.

Here's a little book tip: Against Elections: Why Voting Isn't Democratic - David van Reybrouck