Democracy is often sold as consent. In practice, it functions more like periodic permission.

[MrSmith]

Democracy is often sold as consent. In practice, it functions more like periodic permission.

Every 4 years, people are invited to choose which small group will exercise coercive power over everyone else. The structure itself never changes. The monopoly remains intact. Only the personnel rotate. This creates the appearance of choice while preserving the underlying system of centralized authority.

Economically, this matters. When decision makers do not bear the costs of their decisions, incentives skew toward expansion, not restraint. Political power concentrates because it is insulated from exit and competition. Voting does not introduce competition in the way markets do. It simply reallocates control within a closed cartel.

Historically, the outcomes are predictable. Government budgets trend upward regardless of party. Debt compounds across administrations. Emergency powers normalize. Surveillance expands. Regulatory advantages entrench large incumbents while smaller competitors are priced out. None of this requires bad intentions. It follows directly from incentive structures.

The deeper issue is not left versus right. It is monopoly versus choice. Consent requires the ability to say no without penalty. It requires exit. It requires alternatives. A system where refusal is punished and participation is mandatory does not meet that standard, no matter how often ballots are counted.

Voluntary systems rely on persuasion, competition, and accountability. Coercive systems rely on ritual, symbolism, and managed legitimacy. This image is uncomfortable because it highlights that difference plainly.

If power truly depended on ongoing consent, it would have to compete. And competition changes everything.