The Debate on Democracy: Curtis Yarvin vs. The New Society
Introduction What is the best way to run a country? Should one strong leader make all the decisions, or should people have a say in their own future? This is the heart of a debate between Curtis Yarvin, a political thinker who supports monarchy (one strong ruler), and The New Society, which believes in democracy, shared decision-making, and fairness for all.
In this blog, we will explore Yarvin’s ideas, explain The New Society’s philosophy, and show how it connects to The New Lifestyle Practice, a way of living that promotes personal growth and responsibility.
Curtis Yarvin’s View: Why Democracy Doesn’t Work
Curtis Yarvin believes democracy is an illusion. According to him, the government is not really run by the people, but by a small group of elites who control politics, media, and education. This means that even when people vote, their choices don’t really matter because the system is controlled behind the scenes.
Instead of democracy, Yarvin suggests a form of neo-monarchy, where one highly competent leader—like a CEO of a company—makes decisions efficiently without getting stuck in endless debates and bureaucracy. He believes strong leaders like Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore and Deng Xiaoping of China proved that a centralized government works better than a messy democracy.
Yarvin argues that innovation, economic success, and order thrive under strong leadership. He compares this to companies like Apple, which flourished under Steve Jobs’ vision instead of being run by committee.
Key Points from Yarvin:
Democracy is an illusion because a small elite controls the system.
Strong, smart leaders make better decisions than large, slow-moving bureaucracies.
Countries like China and Singapore succeed because they are ruled efficiently, not through democratic debates.
The New Society’s Philosophy: More Democracy, Not Less
The New Society believes that democracy, while imperfect, is still the best system because it gives people a voice. Instead of replacing democracy with monarchy, The New Society suggests improving democracy by making it more participatory. This means allowing regular people to take part in important decisions through citizen assemblies, worker cooperatives, and shared governance models.
One key example of this is Mondragon, a worker-owned cooperative in Spain, where employees have a say in how their company is run. Another is Rojava, a self-governing region that operates through direct democracy rather than centralized power. These examples show that democratic models can work when designed properly.
Unlike Yarvin, The New Society does not believe that having one leader in charge is the answer. History has shown that monarchs can become corrupt or out of touch with the people. Instead, they argue for a system where power is shared, decisions are made fairly, and people work together to solve problems.
Key Points from The New Society:
Democracy should be improved, not replaced.
Power should be shared through local governance, worker cooperatives, and citizen decision-making.
History shows that unchecked rulers often become corrupt, while participatory systems create fairness and innovation.
The New Lifestyle Practice: The Foundation of The New Society
At the heart of The New Society’s philosophy is The New Lifestyle Practice. This is a way of living that focuses on three main ideas:
Mindfulness and Self-Awareness: People should take time to reflect on their actions and how they affect others. This helps create responsible decision-makers.
Community Cooperation: Society works better when people support each other instead of competing for power and wealth.
Sustainable and Ethical Living: The economy and government should not only focus on making profits but also on long-term well-being for all people.
By practicing mindfulness, making ethical choices, and participating in local governance, people can create a society that is both fair and efficient—without needing a king or dictator to lead them.
Conclusion: Which System Works Best?
Curtis Yarvin believes that democracy is a failed system and that a strong, central ruler would bring more efficiency and order. However, The New Society argues that while democracy has flaws, it is still the best way to ensure fairness and innovation. Instead of replacing it, they suggest making it better through local decision-making and community-driven governance.
The New Society’s approach is deeply tied to The New Lifestyle Practice, which encourages self-awareness, responsibility, and ethical governance. While Yarvin’s ideas appeal to those who want quick and decisive leadership, The New Society’s vision offers a more sustainable, people-centered alternative.
Which do you think is the better way forward: one strong leader or a society where everyone has a say? The future of governance depends on the choices we make today.
