Democracy: Trying to be God

I recently heard about R.C. Hoiles, a multi-millionaire newspaper tycoon, who said

school texts exposed the political "error" of the divine right of kings … they never explained the error in the divine right of the majority. [They] simply substituted the divine right of the majority for the divine right of kings."

Usually I approach political arguments Rothbard-style by applying natural rights.  But what other rights have been accepted as legitimate in human history?  The divine right is one.  Supposedly, God has the right to murder and it is just.  God has a history of (justly) withholding resources from his people even including night when the sun/earth stayed still for 3 days.  So when kings were looked upon as images of God, they could get away with murder, hoarding, and stealing.  Then we had the enlightenment and Kingdoms vanished (roughly speaking).  But what emerged was really no different as Hoiles points out.

No individual or groups of individuals can claim divine right.  Though this truth was known long ago, we remain in a dark age of political nonsense.  For obeying their god-king, we laugh at peasants of old, then we walk to the polling booth to elect our own human incarnation of divinity.  It is the ultimate sin to play God and so it is equally sinful to condone and participate in the political means.  All Christians should reject monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, etc. as the sin of acting as God.  But the serpent is crafty and so many will baulk at that conclusion.  The price for eating the fruit was death, and considering god-kings killed over 100 million people last century (not including war casualties), the threat is more than theological.

Democracy is not the goal

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.

How I perceive statists

Reading my previous post, one might assume that I actively spit on statists.  After all, racists are villified and despised, what would that make statists in my eyes?  One problem with the spitting approach is that I'd quickly die of dehydration due to the vast numbers of statist, the second problem is that I'm more tolerant than that.  I know, I know, liberals have already claimed tolerance as an exclusive trait they possess, but I'm afraid that's not true.  In fact, their "tolerance" isn't really tolerance at all, it's tolerance for the actions they already approve of.  Want to smoke dope and let a dude marry a dude?  No problem.  Want to keep the money you earn and give it to the charities and businesses you want?  Intolerable!!  Liberalism... true liberalism, the exercise of freedom, is true tolerance.  It's belief in social AND economic freedom.

So how do I perceive statists and how do I interact with them?  Well, very similarly to the way I interact with racists.  Racism and statism usually only make up a tiny portion of a person's character.  Many of hem are generous and kind, they raise families and hold jobs, they are great sources of knowledge and can teach me a lot.  However, they cannot be my moral authority.

To an anarchist, an adherent to the non-aggression axiom, any ethical philosophy espoused by a statist is contradictory or wrong.  For instance, it's hard to take the racist seriously when he tells you, "love your wife, give to the poor, and never talk to a nigger lovin' jew [yes that's a real and oft-used term]".  I might be able to take something away from that message, but it's only because I subscribe to a superior ethical authority with which I can filter.

When an ethical philosophy does not address statism, or if its logical conclusion is not statelessness, then it fails to be an ethical philosophy, and its institutions and followers fail to be ethical authorities.  This is why the church has stopped being a moral authority (more on this in a later post, and yes I'm using ethics and morality synonymously).  It can probably teach me a thing or two, but since its purpose is to be a moral authority, take that away and it's hard to see the purpose in joining (okay, really, I'll stop with the church stuff, more in a later post).

Most statists are great people, that do many great things.  I despise their wickedness, but love working with them and having peaceful, voluntary interaction.  I hope more come to realize that statism is an ideology, it is not a philosophy:

I'd Rather be a Racist than a Statist

Local news is the worst at using provacative titles to lure you into watching.  The reader is forewarned that my title is accurate.

What is a racist?  A racist is not per se violent, he believes that one or some races are superior to others.  And by labeling the one superior labels the other inferior.  This is different than saying one race is better at some things (by their genetics or social factors) than other races, which is a racial observation wrong or right.  It is the dehumanization of a race in the mind of a racist that identifies him as such.

What is a statist?  A statist, on the other hand, per se condones voilence and the threat of violence against peaceful people who have not violated natural law.

A racist will probably choose not to engage in certain activities with people of certain races.  Such activities are usually social since if a racist decides not to engage in business with another race his profits will be hurt.  The previous statement is not always true.  For example, a racist bar owner, who caters to racist patrons (or a non-racist bar owner who caters to racist patrons) would see his business hurt by the inclusion of the despised race.  The racist mechanic on the other hand who refuses to work on a truck owned by a person of a certain race will only be hurting himself.  We all discriminate.  Some stores find it detrimental to their business to include those who refuse to wear sox or shoes.  The NAACP unifies around the ability to exclude people of different skin color.  And Calvin College finds that they thrive by hiring professors who are members of the CRC denomination or are willing to undergo more frequent reviews if they are not.  The racist is simply exercising freedom of association, which is a consistent extension of our natural rights to self and property.

A statist will achieve his goals not by exercising freedom and respecting the rights of others, but by violating natural rights and aiming to destroy freedom.  Hyperbolic?  Not in the least.  To quote Nock, "every increase in political power is countered by a roughly equivalent decrease in social power".  The freedom to exercise social power, whether in commerce or charity, is taken away by any increase in state power.  How can we be said to be a free people when some are forced into supporting the will and convictions of others?

Our society is completely backwards on the issues of racism and statism.  This was typified recently by the hysteria over Rand Paul's comments about the Civil Rights Act.  If you don't know, when asked what he thought about the CRA he said that he abhors racism but he doesn't think we should be telling business owners what to do.  Paul was saying that what we needed in 1964 was to repeal mandated segregation, not mandate desegregation.  The government told businesses what to do before the CRA and they were telling businesses what to do after the CRA.  Desegregation was well on it's way as a revolt against Jim Crow laws, the best thing for freedom was to simply legalize desegregation.  The same can be said about slavery.  We didn't need a civil war, simply legalize freedom in some states, let the south secede, and slavery in the south would collapse as slaves fled to the north.  A fantasy?  No, slavery collapsed in all other countries around the world by the 20th century without violence.

It may appear that I've gone off track but both examples are very relevant: legalize freedom first, denounce the state's choke hold on us, and then deal with second order immoralities.  Yes I'm calling racism a "second order immorality" by which I mean there are first order problems.  State violence, which is a first order immorality, cannot be used to cure the "wrong thinking" of peaceful people.  Other first order problems would include violence of individuals against individuals so in no way am I saying the KKK is better than the state or any other violent racist group.  But they should be described in that order: violent, then racist.

I grew up learning how to be statist and a racist.  I'm sickened by this fact, but I believe my faith in the state had a much greater potential to destroy lives than my racism.  After all, I voted for Bush ... twice, who's responsible for the murder of innocents; I cheered on the Iraq war, and I believed in trickle down economics through subsidies to successful corporations.  My tendency to racism on the other hand never lead to violence or theft and always took a back seat when it came to commerce.  I defended the Rodney King beating because I trusted state law enforcement and my racism kept me blinded to the tragedy.  My time in College helped me to respect all people or so I thought, but I still defended the Rodney King police officers and officers of the DEA.  It wasn't until studying libertarianism that I truly came to respect all people, by which I came to respect their natural rights.  My eyes were opened to the atrocities derived from state monopolization of law enforcement, and of the selective and racist crack-down on the unjust war on drugs.

To summarize, in a free society you have the right to be an asshole, but no asshole has a right to loot from some and give to others or to initiate violence.