Excerpt:
"The irony about “democracy” is it isn’t even that.

Ostensibly, it is majority rule – which sounds superficially appealing, to people who’ve not given it much thought. After all, it seems fair that in any group of people, the wants of the majority ought to be determinative, since more want whatever it is that’s up for discussion and it would be unfair for the minority to decide.

Are we headed to that Chinese place for dinner? Or how about the Italian joint? In that context, majority rule is reasonable – because the minority isn’t forced to go along. Or rather, the majority hasn’t got the legal power to compel the minority that doesn’t want Chinese to eat Chinese – much less to pay for everyone else’s Chinese meal.

The minority that does not want to eat Chinese – that perhaps can’t stand Chinese – can say: “We – I – don’t especially like Chinese; you guys go ahead without us (or me).”

Everyone’s happy. Or at least, no one’s been harmed.

This is probably what most people who haven’t given much to “democracy” think about when they think about “democracy.” It seems reasonable; fair, even. And in contexts such as the above, it is – precisely because the element of physical coercion isn’t involved. Instead, individuals deciding among themselves what to do next.

This image of “democracy” is certainly what “democratic” demagogues rely upon when they urge “democracy” as the highest political virtue.

Because, of course, it is they who aspire to rule the majority – as well as the minority. Which they can – and will – because they have the power of physical coercion.

And here we arrive at the irony of what is styled “democracy,” which you are forced to submit to even when you don’t want to."