Socialists, Syndicalists, and other collectivist groups will often posture their system as one of worker supremacy. They will also characterize Capitalism as a system of employer supremacy. This is not the truth, as if a system had to favor either employers or employees. Capitalism is rather a system of consumer supremacy – for both employee and employer are alike in their office as consumers. Both employer and employee are ultimately subject to the demands of the consumer.
Democracy, on the other hand, is thought of as a system of voter supremacy. Yet it is not the supremacy of the individual voter, but the supremacy of a collective of voters: the tyranny of the majority. The voters are homogenized, and the preferences of the collective are forced upon the individuals of the group with all manner of regulations and prohibitions, restrained (usually) only by provisions of particular sacred rights. It is not only a static system but a coercive one, forcing that stasis upon the electorate through myriad public programs.
And as if this were insufficiently worrying, the reins of the collective are even indirect: though they may vote for or against representatives, once a representative is in, he has more or less free reign until the next election. And given that representatives are a package deal of issues, they may not even sufficiently represent the majority in all their decisions (for example, a politician elected on the basis of one issue who then thwarts the electorate on other issues). The incumbent representative has much leeway for caprice on all but the most inflammatory issues.
Democracy is often characterized as being compatible with (and sometimes even necessary for) Capitalism: one a political system and the other an economic system. This is, however, a false dichotomy – for what is politics now but economics? Both now act as systems of distribution; the difference is that one is also a system of production. Democracy is not necessary for Capitalism; Capitalism is necessary for Democracy.
The history of the past 80 years has been the Democratic system of distribution and redistribution gradually encroaching upon and displacing the Capitalist system of distribution. People are ceding their individual supremacy as consumers to the collective as voters. No longer is mutual agreement sufficient justification for an exchange; now mob rule has crystallized into a monstrous and ever-expanding regulatory and welfare state. The default of freedom has been replaced with obsequiousness to the collective – or at least those institutions which claim to represent it.
I believe in the supremacy of the individual realized through his office as a consumer. This is incompatible with any form of collective supremacy, including Democracy. It is for this reason that we are better off without a legislature – without an avenue for mob rule to encroach directly or indirectly upon the agency of the individual.

1
Joseph Sileo says: Feb 05, 2010 at 12:35http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy
Hard pill to swallow.
I will agree that Jeffersonian Democracy is failing, But that doesn’t mean proportional democracy a kin to the type I propose in TUPOE can’t work. In that it is a lot easier to peacefully overthrow the government.
2
Ben Triplett says: Feb 06, 2010 at 2:29Socialism is tons of fun.