Democratic ambivalence

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

More anarcho-capitalistic thoughts:

If the majority is wise enough to make decisions on behalf of all people of a nation, why do we need the state?

Note that the argument simplifies. It doesn't take into account that by voting, the system is averaging out extreme opinions. It also doesn't take into account that if the majority forces all people to be charitable, then that does cause a net loss if we move to a voluntaryist system, because 'only' said majority would pay to charity. This would presumably be offset in part by that charity is more efficient than welfare by a significant factor. (No citation at the moment, bear with me, I'm link-dumping -- but it should be trivial to find one, the dichotomy isn't disputed even by most serious statists.)

Nonetheless, the point remains, and is a core point in much of anarchy:

If man is inheritely wicked, no state will be able to save him from himself.
If man is inheritely wicked, a state by its nature, consisting of men, will also be corrupt.
Whereas if man is inheritely good, no state is necessary to govern him.