Whenever criticism of democracy comes up, the fall back position for liberals playing at opposition (AKA libertarians, the alt-right, neoreaction etc) is to claim that if only democracy was constrained to a small size, or a single segment of the population, then it would all be fine. The example of Switzerland is often put forward, despite in the grand scheme of things Switzerland demonstrating alarming signs of being completely degenerate.
The problem is simply that the advocates of such measure as franchise restriction and/ or geographical restriction do not understand what the problem with democracy is. The problem is very simply that in society there is an elite, which is over and above the rest of society. The elite are the rightful governors of society, and if you have any mechanism in place to limit what they can do (such as through elections) they will subvert those elections without breaking into a sweat. In fact, it is worse than this, because not only will they subvert it, they will be antagonised against those who wielded the vote/ “sovereignty binding.”
Once antagonised and incentivized into this game of “screw the voter” you will see the elite encouraging franchise enlargement, machine politics, demographic replacement etc. Now, if you want to tell me Switzerland has found a way around this, you clearly haven’t got a clue and are just repeating a comforting mantra without research, which is OK, because why would you research about what you are talking about, that’s not how political discussion works in democracy. Rhetoric subsumes analysis and logical investigation. But for those interested in realistic analysis of political structure and power, a realistic analysis of anthropology and of the way in which power incentives operate within society is of utter central importance. Frankly, if you advocate democracy, or binding mechanism in any way shape of form, you are advancing a conception of society that is purely communistic. You are subsuming a conception of society in which all aspects are equal without even examining the ramifications of your position. Imagine society was comprised of 80% children and 20% adults – do you really think the children could bind and control the adult’s decisions and actions? Because that is the implication of all theories of sovereignty fragmentation and binding.
If you advocate democracy, and any other form of sovereignty fragmentation and binding, whilst also promoting “realism” in the form of HBD, then you are failing in logic pretty badly by your own standards. You want an organised, and resource holding group of people, with IQ 130+ to be constrained by an unorganised amalgam of people with IQ sub 100. OK. Sure.
Even worse than this failure of logic in relation to difference in humans (which I think go way further than simple Liberal IQ fetishism) is the failure in logic vis a vis the functioning of democracy and sovereignty binding. The following quote from Carlyle really cannot be quoted enough times, and it is utterly impervious to coherent response by sovereignty binders of any stripe:
“Not towards it, I say, if so! Unanimity of voting,—that will do nothing for us if so. Your ship cannot double Cape Horn by its excellent plans of voting. The ship may vote this and that, above decks and below, in the most harmonious exquisitely constitutional manner: the ship, to get round Cape Horn, will find a set of conditions already voted for, and fixed with adamantine rigor by the ancient Elemental Powers, who are entirely careless how you vote. If you can, by voting or without voting, ascertain these conditions, and valiantly conform to them, you will get round the Cape: if you cannot, the ruffian Winds will blow you ever back again; the inexorable Icebergs, dumb privy-councillors from Chaos, will nudge you with most chaotic “admonition;” you will be flung half frozen on the Patagonian cliffs, or admonished into shivers by your iceberg councillors, and sent sheer down to Davy Jones, and will never get round Cape Horn at all! Unanimity on board ship;—yes indeed, the ship’s crew may be very unanimous, which doubtless, for the time being, will be very comfortable to the ship’s crew, and to their Phantasm Captain if they have one: but if the tack they unanimously steer upon is guiding them into the belly of the Abyss, it will not profit them much!—Ships accordingly do not use the ballot-box at all; and they reject the Phantasm species of Captains: one wishes much some other Entities—since all entities lie under the same rigorous set of laws—could be brought to show as much wisdom, and sense at least of self-preservation, the first command of Nature. Phantasm Captains with unanimous votings: this is considered to be all the law and all the prophets, at present.”
This criticism of the logical implausibility of sovereignty binding is never raised, and never addressed, as it is utterly lethal. Democracy and any advocating of sovereignty binding is premised on there not being an outside to society, or a reality to which singular action is required. It is a purely degenerate theory that is a sign of total decadence. When such an issue does arise (such as war,) sovereignty binding is halted in a fashion which is not talked about openly as it lays open for all to see the idiocy of democracy. This is Schmitt’s theory of the exception.