In the lead up to the US involvement in World War I, president Wilson claimed that we must go to war in order to "make the world safe for democracy". How did anyone buy this as the goal? Since then it appears that no one has questioned that democracy is a goal in and of itself, but is it? What does democracy provide that is so necessary? I'll answer these questions in a round about way so bear with me.
I have attended one John Birch Society meeting. The meeting leader shocked me when he said "democracy is mob rule, a republic is the rule by law". I dismissed the first part as something a crazy JBS member would say because I have been led to believe the democracy is the most just and necessary form of government. However, those words had a lasting impression and started the crack in my hollow statist philosophy.
Over the next couple years I looked at democracy differently. An argument on facebook about expanding Grand Rapids bus routes by increasing property taxes accelerated my disdain for democracy. How is it, that those that will pay less of the tax, but use the bus more, can force those who will probably not use the bus but end up paying for most of the increased costs? This was straight up bullying, and I was chided for "not wanting to help my community". Being anti-democratic is a blanket accusation to cover a multitude of sins (i.e. libertarian beliefs).
So what is the best democratic system, if we were to maintain it. In the bus case I figured only property owners should be allowed to vote since they would be the ones paying the taxes. In general elections, I figured there needed to be a barrier to entry where one would have to pay a small amount to show he was dedicated to politics. Not only would this barrier be arbitrary but the idea failed to recognize the inherent barrier of taking the time register, scheduling a trip to the polling booth, and paying for transportation to and from the booth. Maybe a test to show political competency? John Stossel asked the "Man on the street" simple questions like "How many senators come from each state?" Sure, most people know these answers, but knowing how many senators there are is superfluous in choosing freedom over serfdom.
Ultimately, the only way to prevent the non-payers from looting the payers is to give a voter as many votes as dollars he has paid to the government. But this is just capitalism, right? Vote with your wallet? Absolutely not, there is a huge difference between democracy and capitalism. Well, okay, one is a political system and the other is economic, but the important distinction can still be made. Voting with the power of your tax dollars would give you the power to exercise the political means (aggerssion). Capitalism is the accumulation of capital through voluntary, economic means. These two systems are conflated in the minds of the statists that I've encountered. When I propose capitalism, laissez-faire style, they quickly answer "but the rich would just control us." The rich would not control us anymore than Wal-Mart controls us today, and actually less so since Wal-Mart benefits from government regulations that push smaller stores out of business. They benefit from economies of scale that allows them to absorb the increased regulations and taxation, then benefit from government granted corporate personhood, and lobbying power that makes them far more powerful than they would be in a free market.
It is at this point I realized that democracy is unworkable so what about that republic thing the JBS guy was talking about? Well, it sounds like a nice idea but Tom Woods in a Lew Rockwell podcast pointed out that no piece of paper (e.g. the constitution) can restrain an organization who is also the sole regulator of this paper. Even our so called "checks and balances" are slanted since for example the supreme court is just a different head of the same beast. The 17th amendment was created to reduce the balance between the states and federal government, and the 10th amendment is considered quaint or inapplicable in our modern world. So now the federal government is a sovereign and unrestrained entity. It is a fantasy to think that the "rule of law" can restrain the powers of the institution that makes and interprets the rules of law.
To finish up, I need to answer the question, "what is the goal"? Well, this post was inspired by John Denson's speech at the Mises supporter's summit. He rightly says that liberty is the goal, democracy is only a means (and a piss poor one) at achieving that goal. Jeffrey Tucker says at the same meeting, "when we as a society are faced with a problem, wouldn't it be great if we said, 'what we need to solve this problem is more liberty'"(paraphrased). Intervention begets intervention and we so often fail to see the problems of the previous intervention and thus we infinitely repeat our mistakes. This makes us poorer, yet paradoxically our material well being is constantly increasing -- this is not because of the state but despite it. Our great benefactors are the geniuses of enterprise. It is a flat out sin against nature to not recognize their heroism but rather condemn them. It is equally unconscionable to exalt the political class who oppress us and destroy the great potential of social power.
No comments:
Post a Comment