0. Introduction — Why We Criticize Democracy
This text is not a manifesto for any specific political faction. It is a cold indictment of how democracy and statism crush the dreams of the Producer.
When the Left takes power, they use “welfare, equality, and human rights” as moral camouflage for the legalized looting of other people’s pockets. When the Right takes power, they invoke “national interest and industrial protection” to bleed the economy dry, funneling subsidies and tariffs into unproductive “zombie” corporations. Both are predatory systems that exploit the name of democracy to distort the market and slaughter the producer. Admittedly, the Progressive Left is often more insidious, masterfully wielding the “invincible shield” of morality and the binary of good versus evil.
A small, open economy cannot simply print wealth into existence. It must rely on a vibrant Commercial Capitalism. To achieve this, Producer Sovereignty must be restored. The only path forward is to revive the primal spirit of American Republicanism—the ethos of “Own it yourself, be responsible for yourself”—to check the tyranny of the masses. We must shrink the state. We must abolish the web of welfare, taxes, regulations, and minimum wages to create a society where it is more profitable to be a producer than a mere laborer.
The market is a system that rewards those who create value. We must strip away the shells of ideology, religion, and morality. The best governance is that which simply allows those who silently create value to survive. As Laozi suggested, the finest politics is that which is invisible to the people. Because the state can never redistribute resources more efficiently than the market, the harder the government “works,” the more capital is wasted, and the more economic dynamism vanishes.
Joseph Schumpeter foresaw that as capitalism matures, a class of “intellectuals”—those who produce nothing but demand morality and human rights—would manipulate public opinion to steer society toward socialism through democratic means. Friedrich Hayek, in The Road to Serfdom, warned that any nation deciding to abandon property rights and free markets through democratic procedures inevitably centralizes power into a totalitarian core. (See: Money Dysmorphia: Part 8 — Who is Looting the Wealth?)
This is the reality of South Korea today. Because the President lacks the power to dissolve the legislature, the National Assembly runs rampant with “legislative tyranny,” and no one can check it. We are witnessing anti-market regulations that border on madness: the world’s highest inheritance taxes, land transaction permits, price caps on new housing, and the forced restitution of “excessive” redevelopment profits. Violating these market interventions is no longer a civil matter—they send you to prison under criminal law.
A free market processes the decentralized information of millions to direct resources to their most efficient use. Beyond Hayek’s decentralized price mechanism, the ultimate strength of a free market lies in the fact that individuals, driven by ‘Skin in the Game,’ make the most rational decisions precisely because they are risking their own lifeblood and capital. This is because individuals always maximize capital efficiency while shouldering their own risks. In a state that refuses to protect property rights or tolerate wealth inequality, the ‘optimal strategy’ for the individual is to work lethargically, suck up minimum wage and welfare benefits, and eventually emigrate once they’ve accumulated enough Bitcoin or intellectual property.
Conversely, the moment a government steps in to redistribute wealth under the banner of “welfare and equality,” all information and power concentrate on the desks of a few elite bureaucrats. A massive bureaucracy is not, by nature, a value-creating entity. It is a parasitic organization that consumes and redistributes the blood and sweat of others. If I intend to feed myself by my own strength, why must welfare bureaucrats take my taxes?
The result is two separate worlds. For the silent taxpayer, there is only agony without reward: Yes Pain, No Gain. For the bureaucrats and welfare dependents who feast on the state, there are only rights without sacrifice: No Pain, Yes Gain. Hayek saw clearly that a bureaucratic state practicing this brand of democracy leads inevitably to “Democratic Totalitarianism”—the same destination as Nazism and Fascism.
Just as the path to hell is paved with good intentions, the road paved with “welfare” ends in a Hell where production leaves you with nothing.
1. Manufacturing Surrendered Sovereignty to Workers and Consumers—And Sowed the Seeds of Its Own Ruin
(1) The Birth of the Mass Proletariat and the Dissolution of Community
The golden age of democracy was the era of Fordist mass production from the 1950s to the 1980s. A single massive auto plant supported the livelihoods of 50,000 to 100,000 people. Manufacturing required a stable, large-scale workforce, and the state built a mass education system to funnel “industrial soldiers” into the factories.
From this point on, laborers became the absolute majority of voters. Since workers are economic agents who do not own the means of production, politicians began promising future welfare in exchange for current taxes. The bureaucracy actively supported manufacturing—not for the sake of the producers, but because it was an efficient engine for tax extraction. Mass democracy and giant manufacturing were a match made in heaven.
However, this expansion bore a fatal side effect: it homogenized the majority of voters into wage-dependent “workers” and “consumers.” As small business owners and independent farmers abandoned their livelihoods to chase high factory wages in the cities, self-reliant local communities and markets were decimated. In their wake, massive interest groups rushed in to fill the void. Individuals who once defined themselves as “the son of the local butcher” or “a third-generation carpenter” rebranded their identities as “a union member of the GM Korea branch.” This shift corrupted democracy into a field for legalized looting and shook the very foundations of Republicanism. In South Korea, where the state led the growth of manufacturing conglomerates, the entire citizenry was rapidly converted into employees, causing the labor movement to devolve into a toxic populism that began to devour the producers themselves.
[The Evaporation of ‘Skin in the Game’]
In a local community, you live face-to-face with the neighborhood butcher and baker. Reputation and accountability are the absolute conditions for survival. If you take 100 dollars but fail to prove 120 dollars of value, you lose your reputation and are purged from the market. This is a world where ‘Skin in the Game’—the classic craftsmanship of putting one’s name on the product—is alive and well.
But the moment an individual steps into a giant factory, they hide behind the massive anonymity of the union and the corporation. If I tighten a screw half-heartedly, the company doesn’t collapse today. If a strike causes consumer harm, it feels irrelevant to me personally. Responsibility is diluted to 1/30,000th, but rights are claimed with 100% certainty. It becomes the superior strategy to take zero final responsibility while demanding maximum entitlement.
[The Expansion of the Great Bureaucracy—From Spontaneous Order to Leviathan]
In a local community, residents have Ownership over their town. They invest with a long-term vision and accept current sacrifices for future gain. When a problem arises, they gather to compromise and resolve it themselves. The state has no pretext to intervene. This was the essence of the “Lodge Practice”—the private mutual aid systems in the US prior to the Social Security Act of 1935. The local wealthy took responsibility for regional employment and reinvested in the very soil they stood upon. These were the sturdy shields of Republicanism.
Interest groups are different. They do not solve problems. Lacking ownership of any specific place, they use their sheer numbers as a weapon to lobby and extort the central government. They cry, “Regulate that industry! Give us subsidies! Raise the minimum wage!” The bureaucracy seizes this conflict as an opportunity, expanding its budget and power by promising, “We will fix it for you.“ When the producers eventually flee and the city collapses, these groups simply move on to another city to start the looting anew. This is precisely why South Korea’s provincial industrial cities are dying. It began with mining towns, moved to tourism, and has now reached the manufacturing hubs. As of 2024, more than 50% of South Korea’s 228 municipal districts have officially entered the ‘extinction risk’ zone, with some former industrial powerhouses now seeing one in every five houses standing completely empty.
[Identity—From Production to Consumption]
In a place without a democratic welfare state, where local communities are alive, The core of one’s identity should lie in Production. For instance, saying “I am a third-generation carpenter” proves what value-add you provide to the world. Because such individuals take 100% responsibility for the final product, their political demands naturally converge toward liberalism: “Protect my property rights and leave me alone to forge my own path.”
Interest groups are the polar opposite. The identity of “I am a union member of the XX branch” is focused not on what I produce, but on what I am entitled to extract. They contribute nothing to the expansion of production, yet perceive themselves as “creditors of the system.” Because it is a “democratic welfare state,” their claims are validated. Consequently, they view seizing the largest possible slice of someone else’s pie as rational behavior.
(2) The Tragedy of the Commons and the 1990s Death Blow
Robert Dahl famously praised interest groups as the “flower of democracy.” But that sentiment only holds true when interest groups engage in healthy debate and mutual checks. The grim reality today—where elite bureaucrats from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries stand paralyzed by the threats of fisherman cartels demanding subsidies—proves his theory was a romantic delusion.
Instead, the insight of Nobel laureate Elinor Ostrom hits the mark. Common resources like forests or tax pools are inevitably looted by selfish actors. However, Ostrom observed that in communities below a certain scale—where mutual monitoring is possible—these resources are managed without free-riders. This aligns with Nassim Taleb’s argument that decentralized, less anonymous autonomous organizations are inherently Antifragile. Without a rule stating that “if you want to claim a right, you must put your own life on the line,” the Tragedy of the Commons is unavoidable.
For the spontaneous order of a local community to survive, the market must be centered on small-scale economic agents who are mutually dependent and 100% responsible for their final output. This is only possible in nations where massive manufacturing not fully developed (Singapore, Georgia, Dubai) or where the constitution strictly forbids the looting of property rights (Switzerland, Singapore). Conversely, in nations where giant manufacturing dragged the economy forward by the collar, mass-producing an anonymous proletariat (South Korea, France, UK, US, Germany), this Republican shield has collapsed. The expansion of welfare, the rent-seeking of interest groups, and the bloating of a paternalistic bureaucracy have converged to make looting the state’s tax pool the ultimate “superior strategy.”
This system managed to limp along until the 1980s, fueled by explosive manufacturing growth. The true catastrophe began in the 1990s. Non-democratic nations from the former Soviet bloc and China joined the WTO, emerging as a global “manufacturing black hole” with young, cheap labor. Capital and manufacturing began to quietly slip across borders to escape regulation and high labor costs. Yet, democratic states burdened with bloated welfare systems and bureaucracies still required massive funding. With the giant value-creators fleeing, who did the state and the bureaucracy turn their blades toward? The producers who couldn’t run.
(3) Producers Who Cannot Escape — Small Business Owners and Local Manufacturers
To put it bluntly: those who failed to escape are the small business owners and regional mid-sized manufacturers tethered to the domestic soil. Why did they remain instead of exiting for better environments? (Monopolistic conglomerates often keep some domestic facilities as a “ransom” to guarantee their monopoly status; I will cover this in detail in a future article.)
According to Albert O. Hirschman, when an organization fails, individuals choose between Exit (leaving) or Voice (protesting). The most rational strategy is to exit without looking back. Those who remain usually fall into one of three categories: they have fierce loyalty, a sense of public responsibility (believing the system will collapse if they leave), or they simply have no alternative.
Small business owners and regional manufacturers didn’t stay out of loyalty or responsibility. They simply had no alternatives. Nor did they form powerful interest groups like giant unions to “Voice” their protest to the state. They sat in silence, neither exiting nor speaking, slowly drying up. Why did they remain so paralyzed?
To understand this brutal dilemma, one must grasp the concept of Asset Specificity. This refers to the degree to which an asset or skill is tied to a specific location or transaction—such that moving it elsewhere renders its value worthless. When the government and bureaucracy threatened them with taxes and regulations, saying, “If you have a problem with it, close shop,” the fates of economic agents were split down the middle by this very specificity.
[The Comparison of Asset Specificity]
| Category | Low Asset Specificity (The Flyers) | High Asset Specificity (The Hostages) |
| Main Actors | IT Developers, Digital Nomads, Global Professionals, Dropshippers | Small Shop Owners, Regional Factory Owners, Local Service Providers |
| Sunk Cost | Near Zero | Extremely High (Machinery, Land, Local Goodwill) |
| Mobility | Borderless; can move with a laptop | Physically bound to a specific territory |
| State Interaction | The state “invites” them with tax exemptions | The state “loots” them through regulations and taxes |
| Outcome | Exit within seconds of predatory action | Remain as hostages; slowly consumed by the system |
The problem lies with the small business owners and regional manufacturers whose capital and equipment are perfectly locked into a specific geography. Until the 19th century, these individuals monopolized local logistics and information networks, exerting strong political influence over the state. The state coexisted with these independent farmers and peddlers, tolerating certain price controls to maintain social stability.
However, with the introduction of railway capital, private logistics, and high-speed telecommunications, their monopoly over local information and goods was shattered. Left powerless and isolated, they became the prime targets for the state to offload its welfare burdens. When the time came to survive, they scattered like grains of sand—because the survival strategies they chose were fundamentally different.
[ Two Categories With High Asset Specificity]
① The Blind Sunk-Cost Hostages — Bound by Machines and Signboards
These are the pure self-employed: small restaurant owners, neighborhood cafe owners, and sub-contracting factory bosses. Their assets are physically shackled to equipment (interiors, kitchen appliances, industrial machinery) and specific locations (key money/goodwill). In the past, they held the keys to local commerce, provided jobs, maintained security, and served as information hubs. Today, all that authority has been stripped away.
The state, no longer needing to fear them, has criminalized their collective action. Any attempt by small business owners to set price floors, agree on business hours, or divide market territories is branded as a violation of Fair Trade laws. Their right to a “Voice” has been legally amputated.
The irony is staggering: when auto factory workers gather to demand a 10% wage hike, lead strikes, and block new labor from entering the market, it is celebrated as a Constitutional Right. Two identical collective actions, yet the producer’s demand for a price increase is a crime, while the laborer’s demand for a wage hike is a “human right.”
These producers cannot even afford to quit due to massive sunk costs. They have become ambiguous slaves—neither true entrepreneurs nor protected laborers. Even as the state mandates 52-hour work weeks, hikes minimum wages, and distribution platforms bleed them with fees, they survive by carving out their own flesh. They are the untouchables at the bottom of the democratic caste system.
② The Rent-Seeking Hegemons — Parasites of Regulation and Bureaucracy
When the government seized the monopoly on information and logistics, some “clever” actors chose to collude with the bureaucracy to build new networks of exclusion. Their assets are not machinery; they are Relational Assets—ties to local officials and politicians—and the very permits issued by the state. This group includes regional construction firms, waste management cartels, local transport companies, and nursing home operators. They do not survive through market innovation, but by inserting a straw into state subsidies, sole-source contracts, and administrative networks.
The most extreme manifestation of this is a region in Korea called Sinan. Here, local hegemons who own the means of production—the salt farms—engage in “forced labor” that is banned in every civilized nation on Earth. They lure disabled or homeless individuals, confine them, and subject them to modern-day slavery.
The U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Report has repeatedly pointed out the salt farm slavery issue in Korea. The report explicitly states that the police, the courts, and the local governors are all entangled through regional ties or marriages, effectively shielding these crimes. These people mobilize local votes and break bread together.
Even as I write this, the slavery issue remains unresolved. These predatory “small business owners” have formed a unholy alliance with the bureaucracy. They produce salt at near-zero labor cost, distorting market order to monopolize profits—all while vocally supporting the “Democratic” party. Is it not ironic? A government that preaches democracy, human rights, and equality turns a blind eye to this. When democracy erodes the rule of law, the bureaucracy ceases to serve the public interest and functions instead as a privatized force.
The Gwangju High Court released these salt farm owners en masse, citing “local custom.” Furthermore, the administration provides large-scale solar energy subsidies to these regions, allowing the slave-owners to now embezzle energy subsidies on top of their illicit profits.
2. Conclusion: Why Have They Become Grains of Sand?
In the “Millstone Mechanism” of Democracy + Bureaucracy + Welfare, power is defined solely by the “sheer numbers of a unified interest group.”
Small business owners and regional producers have been crushed by the weight of a bureaucracy that uses “the will of the people” as an absolute moral shield. Laborers and consumers shout, “If you don’t like it, close your shop!” But for those forcibly kept in the system by asset specificity, the strategies of survival have diverged:
- The Smart Ones: Those with low asset specificity (Digital Nomads, etc.) have already exited the country.
- The Silent Ones: Those whose political “Voice”—price-fixing, limiting supply, or dividing markets—has been criminalized, are merely breathing in silence. Many have closed their independent shops only to become vassals under franchise headquarters.
- The Corrupt Ones: Those who colluded with the bureaucracy as local hegemons now fatten themselves by embezzling subsidies while enjoying legal immunity for forced labor.
In the next article, we will examine why the democratic welfare state favors massive conglomerates, “zombie” small firms, and small-scale corporations, while systematically looting the ambitious individual who strives for true growth.
3. Related Articles
- The Death of the Producer: Why Democracy Needs You to Stay Small (Preface)
- Democracy Plunders the Productive Class (The Collapse of American Republicanism)
- A Geopolitical Autopsy of the Welfare State (U.S, U.K, France, Korea)
If you enjoyed this article, you can support the project – thank you!