Nation states have abandoned all pretense of representing their publics, or even any ideology. Lenin violated a fundamental Marxian precept that a society should pass through a stage of developed capitalism before jumping into socialism. Later he abandoned his own goal of communism for that very reason—Russia hadn’t yet passed through developed capitalism. In the end, the Soviets ended up with overt totalitarianism.

Developed economies can afford a softer version of totalitarianism. They buy compliance rather than force populations into it. Only those who don’t wish to be bought are forced. The purchased choice could be called free because the people freely chose money over principles or freedom, except that their consent is manufactured. When Americans adopted Obama’s healthcare bill some provisions of it were delayed by four years. Prominent Democrats then discussed a looming problem: in the next election Republicans would trumpet the bill’s expenses while the public wouldn’t have yet tasted its benefits. The idea was to push the bill’s implementation closer. Though not explicitly deceitful, this approach definitely shapes public opinion in a manner acceptable to the government. This might be a legitimate policy for a theocratic, aristocratic, or meritocratic state in which the rulers presume to know the truth better than commoners, who must thus be educated—either for their own good in a meritocracy, or for the greater good in a theocracy. But in democracy government is only allowed to represent its citizens’ wishes, rather than shaping them. That is analogous to attorney’s duty to represent his client rather than mislead him, even if misleading the client would eventually benefit him. The truth is, the ruling establishment views itself as a meritocracy entitled to lead the masses, and to that end entitled to educate or even mislead them.

Implicit taxes are an important way the elites lie to their subjects. Universal healthcare quickly becomes a major tax, second only to the minimum wage. People who exercise due care for their health subsidize McDonald’s customers because insurance companies are barred from refusing bad risks. Everyone subsidizes terminally ill patients, each of whom becomes a multimillion-dollar burden on his insurance company before passing away. The uninsured—reportedly 10% to 20% of the population—have become a direct public burden, taxpayers again subsidizing those who refuse to take available jobs, though the influx of illegal immigrants is the best testimony to the eternal availability of jobs.

The United States bans trans-fats because citizens allegedly cannot make informed choices about their use, even though it affects their health and others’ Medicaid resources. Some cities require fast-food restaurants to print calorie values on their menus because citizens are too lazy to gather information independently. That country applies “sin taxes” to cigarettes and alcohol because citizens, though they allegedly know the harmful effects of these vices, lack the will to drop them. In such an environment, it is unrealistic to expect citizens to gather information and form opinions on foreign policy matters, which are removed from them infinitely farther than their health, or to gather the will to oppose government policies which are less harmful than smoking.

Democracy creates pressure for redistribution, and democracies evolve into welfare states. To boost welfare, such states embrace paternalism. But paternalism is the opposite of democracy. If citizens are childishly incapable or irresponsible even in basic matters, then surely they cannot choose political candidates based on arcane differences in their platforms.

Most people do not want or need democratic rights. They do not understand political, economic, or ecological issues, or any other matters of state. Drop the sham of democracy in favor of a meritocratic arrangement. In such a state, people would be still able to vote out an oppressive government, but would be spared routine elections. A similar system in Egypt allows citizens to vote periodically whether they want presidential elections. As long as there is no supermajority in favor of the change—which would indicate the regime’s oppressiveness—the authoritarian ruler retains his power. Any other voting arrangement will fulfill Marx’s prediction that the historical norm is for capitalist societies to slide into redistributive socialism.