"Ineptocracy" is not a word that has found its way into dictionaries. It appears to have been created recently as a means to describe the nature of the democratic electoral process and its ultimate logical (or possibly illogical) result. Its definition is:
"A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."
Readers of this publication will no doubt sympathise with the frustration that led to the creation of this word and will no doubt agree that the individual who coined it has done a fine job of limiting a complex concept to a minimum of words.
Anyone who perceives himself to be a net producer will understandably bristle at the concept that he may well be living in an ineptocracy, as it means that he is in for a lifetime of being in the minority and will spend his life, to one degree or another, enslaved to the provision of goods to others who are "least likely to sustain themselves."
For some who reach this conclusion, the immediate reaction is to say, "Well, then, let's change the system." Most will recognise that this cannot be done by one person, so they instead join whatever group seems to have the most like-minded people as its members.
The truth, I'm afraid, is that those who hope to "change the system," to make it more equitable, will not succeed, as those who are not net producers tend to be in the majority. Therefore, democratic change for the better, by definition, cannot take place.
We may seek to "fix" the system by joining with others in groups that are intended to effect change, but, ultimately, whether we choose to join the Tea Partiers, the Wall Street Occupiers, the John Birch Society, or the Symbionese Liberation Army, the result will be that the majority, who have already been defined as those who are least likely to succeed, will not, under any conditions, accept any change which diminishes their position. Quite the opposite. The system, by definition, assures that, over time, the position of the majority (those least likely to sustain themselves) will steadily strengthen.
The Destruction of Democracy
On previous occasions, I have made reference to the progression of a democracy, as credited to Alexander Tytler, who ostensibly wrote it in 1797 to describe what he believed to be the likelihood of success of the new American republic.
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. …"
"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations always progressed through this sequence:
From Bondage to Spiritual Faith;
from Spiritual Faith to Great Courage;
from Great Courage to Liberty;
from Liberty to Abundance;
from Abundance to Selfishness;
from Selfishness to Complacency;
from Complacency to Apathy;
from Apathy to Dependence;
from Dependence back again to Bondage."
I first encountered this quote back when most of the First World was passing from Selfishness to Complacency and have observed over the years that the pattern has been followed steadfastly. Back then, it was difficult for me to accept that the very last stage was possible. This was not because I did not accept the logic – I most certainly did. However, the mind recoiled at the thought that it could actually happen.
The Inevitable Outcome
Today, of course, it is quite easy to accept the likelihood of this final stage, as we are living in that period. We are watching the transformation into bondage as, with regularity, ever-more draconian measures are taken by First World countries to implement the final phase – the logical outcome of democracy.
Can this be stopped? Can the process be somehow reversed?
History suggests to us that it cannot. It is the inevitable outcome. And this makes sense. After all, the majority of voters would be net losers if they were to vote for a reversal. And the politicians? Even if a white knight were to enter the field (as seems to have happened recently in the US with Ron Paul), the majority of voters would never support him. And the other politicians would do all in their power to destroy him. After all, they are the foremost recipients in the culmination of the logical outcome.
If we take the time to review and absorb the natural progression of a democracy, we are left with three possible choices:
- Accept that we are, and will continue to be, victims of the system, and accept that, increasingly, our wealth will be confiscated and our lives will be diminished.
- Seek to destroy the system and begin again. (Careful, here – Revolutions sometimes result in a political "cleansing," but, more often, they give rise to even greater oppression.)
- Exit the system for another existing system that is not in its declining stages.
For the great majority of people who have spent their lives living in the First World, it is extraordinarily difficult to consider, let alone accept, that, whilst they were once in one of the very choicest of countries, the party is now over.The great majority will actually end up with choice #1, as a result of their own apathy. A small number may choose option #2 and, as a result, may well be rewarded with a premature exit from the earthly plane, courtesy of their governments.
A small number will choose option #3. As the Great Unravelling progresses, we shall see increasing numbers attempt to do so, but many will underestimate the term, "bondage" and will assume that they can leave the decision "until it really starts getting bad." They will be likely to find that the windows have been closing steadily, in the form of ever-more restrictive laws. The time to move is prior to the passage of such laws.
There is a progression that countries historically follow with regard to the expatriation of their citizenry as they become increasingly dictatorial:
Stage One: Occasional citizens exiting:
"Let them go and good riddance to them."
Stage Two: Net producers worried and beginning to leave in increasing numbers:
"Let them leave, but exact a tax on them to assure that they pay for the privilege of leaving."
Stage Three: Net producers panicking and attempting to leave in large numbers:
"They are traitors. They are to be stopped and stripped of their wealth."
A mere five years ago, the First World was still in Stage One and generally regarded the likelihood of Stage Two as an absurdity – the thinking of unrealistic alarmists. Today, Stage Two is not only possible, but is well under way.
It is left to the reader to consider whether Stage Three is the thinking of unrealistic alarmists, or whether the historical outcome will again prove true.
Here is a more visual example of the present condition:
Imagine that you are travelling on a bus at 60 kph with a number of other people. The driver is in his own compartment and you cannot communicate with him. You look out the windscreen and see that, in the distance, the road leads off a cliff. There are no side roads and the driver shows no inclination to deviate from his speed or direction. As the other passengers become aware of the situation, some choose to ignore it and hope for the best. Others become agitated. Human nature being what it is, most will become more alarmed as the bus gets nearer to the cliff. Some will attempt to jump from the windows. Others will panic and get in their way, but, again, human nature being what it is, all or most of them will decide to exit when it is already too late, and, like people exiting a crowded burning building, will, in their panic, assure their own deaths and those of their fellow passengers.
But, at the moment, there is still time. Your fellow passengers are concerned and confused but remain in their seats. You can jump out the window, but will look a bit of a fool to those passengers who have not yet figured out their fate. Additionally, you know that at 60 kph, you may well be injured if you jump. But very soon, it will be too late to jump.
Unfortunately, in the cases of both the bus and many First World countries, the decision to jump must be made prior to the knowledge that disaster is a certainty. This is a very difficult decision to make. It requires great foresight, and few will make it.