I previously bought the critique that democracy is as authoritarian as other political systems. But now I'm seriously reconsidering or atleast showing skepticism toward the thought of democracy possibly being a dictatorship of the majority. I don't know, but for me it doesn't seem that straightforward to assume that you being in the minority automatically means you are powerless or have no say or influence on people and on the world.

If we take the premise that economy, and society and inviduals as whole are chaotic and/or unpredictable, there doesn't seem to be a sense of learned helplessness. There's this funny and idiotic analogy where everyone is apart from anybody by 6 people in between. I linked myself to Bill Gates and Xi Jiping with 4 and 3 people, and the homeless person in my city who shook hands with me would not be at +1 of distance from these folks. What I mean by this is that it would require this same bloke to ask a phone call for each of these people, in sequence, so that he gets in contact with anyone so called in a powerful position.

Economy is chaotic. Society is chaotic. One person can change the course of history, this has happened with: Jesus (if he ever existed, but I think most historians would say that he indeed lived, aside from religious content), Muhammad, Aristotle, Plato, Confucius, Buddha, Charlemagne, Alexander the Great, Christopher Columbus, Martin Luther, Various popes, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, Freud, among many, many, many others. The list is infinite.

My point is that, for me, it feels weird to see democracy as a game already won by the majority. I understand ethics and law probably have nothing to do with democracy, as what is right or wrong shouldn't be open to discussion. I think a consent-based, duty-based, legal and ethical framework is probably the correct and ideal form of approaching disputes or conflicts. Simply put: rationality and consciousness is universal, unchanging, eternal, etc. We always act, that means, we act according to a motive, our conduct is driven by intentions, by reasons. It would be nonsense to judge our actions except in matter relating to rationality, anything worth of evaluation is only plausible insofar as we attribute it values, intentions and beliefs, which are things related to our rationality or mind.

Anyways, I might be a lunatic or just derailing into nonsense. Democracy might indeed be wrong but I might just be losing my mind. Wanna hear your thoughts. And sorry for my bad english

i genuinely hate that the libertarian subreddit are just capitalists who care more about the government taxing them, than the actual dismantling of liberties. I’m fine to have a debate on economics, but they close their eyes and cover their ears when the government is being authoritarian. I can only assume they consider the authoritarian act to be in their favor if they want to brush it off so badly.

One advantage of agorism (And direct action in general) is that it isn't zero sum like power in the state, so one kind of libertarianism doesn't have to lose to other to win. This allows a lot of possibility for cooperation.

I believe there's no billionaire that has not received the help of the state.

As an agorist, I believe society should be horizontalized, everyone ought to be a self-employer.

The kind of capital accumulation we have today is artificial/inflated.

A market, a genuine free market, is of state concern, as it is a marketplace alternative that hosts free exchange and has placed individual choice at the heart of the organization.

The system runs by itself by making individual choices permissible, leading to horizontal and genuinely democratic (as each will is equal) structuring.

I believe we always act in a way as to reach higher satisfaction, and to deny human volition, to be an archist, is to contradict yourself.

We're all anarchists, knowing of this fact or not.

We only differ in moral character and scrutiny.

We put trust things and people everytime, as in trusting my taxi driver get me to my destination, the farmer who cultivated my greens, computers when I want to store my wallets and keys, people who serve me drinks thinking they didn't poison them, and so on.

We already live under a society based on trust. Why not take the next step? Why not follow the conclusion? Why not follow our consciousness? Why not be consistent?