MCP wrote:
> http://www.npri.org/issues/issues04/i_b111504.htm
>
> Down with Democracy
>


I actually read the whole thing. I think it is surprisingly naive
and unbalanced coming from someone with academic pretensions. See, the
main question about a system of government should not be whether or how
much it is democratically chosen but how much the people running the
government are limited and bounded by laws. I believe that the goal
should be personal freedom to the max extent consistent with public
safety. This is what allows people to get their best chance to enact
their crazy dreams. A tyrannical elected government would be worse than
a constitutionally-limited appointed one, from that point of view. The
catch is, there is no practical way for a government to keep its
legitimacy (consent of the governed) without some sort of voting and
choosing by the real power centers of a society. Otherwise, government
inevitably ends up needing to use oppressive means to stay in power.
Democracy, therefore, ends up being necessary for the maintenance of a
limited government system.
But none of this is the least bit new. Every well educated person
should know this by heart.
The single best short exposition of these concepts appeared in F.
Hayeks THE ROAD TO SERFDOM written in 1944. I freely borrow his ideas,
I should occasionally give back some credit.
But I would agree that there is no good purpose served by granting
voting rights to folks who have no responsible role in society. They
should have to earn it.




> Expansion of the franchise to one-man-one-vote has set in motion a
seemingly
> permanent tendency toward wealth and income redistribution.
>
> By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
>
> Imagine a world government, democratically elected according to the
> principle of one-man-one-vote.
>
> What would the probable outcome of an election be? Most likely, we
would get
> a Chinese-Indian coalition. And what would this government most
likely
> decide to do in order to satisfy its supporters and be re-elected? It
would
> probably find that the Western world had far too much wealth and the
rest of
> the world, in particular China and India, had far too little -- and
hence,
> that systematic wealth and income redistribution is called for.
>
> Or imagine, for your own country, that the right to vote was expanded
to
> 7-year-olds. While the government would not likely be made up of
children,
> its policies would most definitely reflect the "legitimate concerns"
of
> children to have "adequate and equal" access to
"free" hamburgers,
lemonade
> and videos.
>
> In light of these "thought experiments," is there any doubt about the
> consequences of the process of democratization in Europe and the
United
> States since the second half of the 19th century? The successive
expansion
> of the franchise and finally the establishment of universal adult
suffrage
> did within each country what a world democracy would do for the
entire
> globe: It set in motion a seemingly permanent tendency toward wealth
and
> income redistribution.
>
> One-man-one-vote combined with "free entry" into government --
democracy --
> entails that every person and his personal property comes within
reach of --
> and is up for grabs by -- everyone else. A "tragedy of the commons"
is
> created. Majorities of "have-nots" will relentlessly try to enrich
> themselves at the expense of minorities of "haves."
>
> This is not to say that the redistribution will be uniformly one from
the
> rich onto the poor. To the contrary, it would be a sociological
blunder to
> assume that will be the sole or even the predominant form of
redistribution.
> After all, the "rich" and the "poor" are usually
rich or poor for a
reason.
> The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor
> typically dull, lazy or both. It is not very likely that dullards,
even if
> they make up a majority, will systematically outsmart -- and enrich
> themselves at the expense of -- a minority of bright and energetic
> individuals.
>
> Rather, most redistribution will take place within the "non-poor,"
and
> frequently it will actually be the better-off who get themselves
subsidized
> by the worse-off. Just consider the almost universal practice of
offering
> "free" university educations, whereby members of the working class,
whose
> children rarely attend universities, are made to pay for the
education of
> middle-class children!
>
> The key to an understanding of the present age is recognizing it is
> characterized by the conjunction of two fundamental principles: That
> democracy is a machinery of popular wealth and income redistribution,
and
> that one will end up getting more of whatever it is that is being
> subsidized.
>
> All redistribution, regardless of the criterion on which it is based,
> involves taking from the original owners and/or producers and
"giving" to
> non-owners and non-producers. The incentive to be an original owner
or
> producer of the thing in question is thus reduced, and the incentive
to be a
> non-owner and non-producer is raised.
>
> Accordingly, as a result of subsidizing individuals because they are
poor,
> there will be more poverty. In subsidizing people because they are
> unemployed, more unemployment will be created. Supporting single
mothers out
> of tax funds will lead to an increase in single motherhood,
"illegitimacy"
> and divorce. In subsidizing malingerers, neurotics, the careless,
alcoholics
> and drug addicts through insurance regulation and compulsory health
> insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism,
> carelessness, alcoholism and drug addiction, etc.
>
> Most importantly, by compelling private property owners and/or market
income
> earners to subsidize politicians, political parties and civil
servants
> (politicians and government employees do not pay taxes but are paid
out of
> taxes), there will be less wealth formation, fewer producers and less
> productivity, and ever more waste, "parasites" and parasitism.
>
> Businessmen and their employees cannot earn incomes unless they
produce
> goods or services that are sold in markets. The buyers' purchases are
> voluntary. By buying a good or service, the buyers demonstrate that
they
> prefer this good or service over the sum of money that they must
surrender
> in order to acquire it.
>
> In contrast, politicians, parties and civil servants produce nothing
that is
> sold in markets. No one buys government "goods" or
"services." They
are
> produced, and costs are incurred to produce them, but they are not
sold and
> bought. This implies that it is impossible to determine their value
and find
> out whether or not this value justifies their costs. Because no one
buys
> them, no one actually demonstrates that he considers government goods
and
> services worth their costs, and indeed, whether or not anyone
attaches any
> value to them at all.
>
> From the viewpoint of economic theory, it is thus entirely
illegitimate to
> assume, as is always done in national income accounting, that
government
> goods and services are worth what it costs to produce them, and then
to
> simply add this value to that of the "normal," privately produced
(bought
> and sold) goods and services to arrive at gross domestic (or
national)
> product. It might as well be assumed that government goods and
services are
> worth nothing, or even that they are not "goods" at all but
"bads" --
hence,
> that the cost of politicians and the entire civil service should be
> subtracted from the total value of privately produced goods and
services.
>
> After less than 100 years of democracy and redistribution, the
predictable
> results are in. For several decades, real standards of living have
stagnated
> or even fallen in the West. The "public" debt and the cost of the
existing
> social security and health care system have brought on the prospect
of an
> imminent economic meltdown. At the same time, almost every form of
> undesirable behavior -- unemployment, welfare dependency, negligence,
> recklessness, incivility, psychopathy, hedonism and crime -- has
increased.
> If current trends continue, it is safe to say that the Western
welfare-state
> social democracy will collapse just as Russian-style socialism
collapsed in
> the late 1980s.
>
> The central task ahead of those wanting to turn the tide and prevent
an
> outright breakdown, then, is the "delegitimization" of the idea of
democracy
> and its recognition as the root cause of the present state of
progressive
> "decivilization." To this purpose, one could first point out that it
is
> difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of
political
> theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for
democracy.
> Even the Founding Fathers of the United States -- nowadays considered
the
> model of a democracy -- were strictly opposed to such a system.
Without a
> single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob rule.
> Considering themselves members of a "natural aristocracy," they
advocated an
> aristocratic republic rather than a democracy.
>
> More importantly, it must be made clear again that the idea of
democracy is
> immoral as well as uneconomical. Majority rule allows for A and B to
band
> together to rip off C; C and A in turn joining to rip off B; and then
B and
> C conspiring against A, etc. This is not justice but moral outrage.
> Democracy and democrats, rather than being treated with respect,
should be
> treated with open contempt and ridiculed as moral frauds.
>
> On the other hand, as for the economic justifications often offered
for
> democracy, it must be stressed relentlessly that it is not democracy
but
> private property, production and voluntary exchange that are the
ultimate
> sources of human civilization and prosperity.
>
> Lastly, in order to approach the goal of a non-exploitative social
order,
> the idea of majoritarianism should be turned against democratic rule
itself.
> Under any form of governmental rule, including democracy, the "ruling
class"
> (politicians and civil servants) makes up only a small proportion of
the
> total population. While it is possible that 100 parasites may lead a
> comfortable life on the products of 1,000 hosts, 1,000 parasites
cannot live
> off of 100 hosts. Based on the recognition of this fact, it would
appear
> possible to persuade a majority of the voters that it is adding
insult to
> injury to let those living off of other peoples' taxes have a say in
how
> high these taxes are, and thus to decide, democratically, to take
voting
> rights away from government employees and everyone who receives
government
> benefits -- whether welfare recipients or government contractors.
>
> In conjunction with this strategy it is necessary to recognize the
> overwhelming importance of secession and secessionist movements. If
majority
> decisions are "right," then the largest of all possible majorities, a
world
> majority and a democratic world government, must be considered
ultimately
> most "right" -- with the consequences predicted at the outset of this
essay.
> In contrast, secession always involves the breaking away of smaller
from
> larger populations. It is thus a vote against the principle of
democracy and
> majoritarianism. The further the process of secession proceeds -- to
the
> level of small regions, cities, city districts, towns and villages --
the
> more difficult it will become to maintain the current level of
> redistributive policies.
>
> At the same time, the smaller the territorial units, the more likely
it will
> be that a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their
> economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally
> impeccable personal life, superior judgment, courage and taste, will
rise to
> the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged elites and lend
legitimacy to
> the idea of a natural order of competing and freely financed
peacekeepers,
> judges and overlapping jurisdictions -- a pure private law society --
as the
> answer to democracy and any other form of political (coercive) rule.
>
> Hans-Hermann Hoppe is professor of economics at the University of
Nevada,
> Las Vegas; senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; and
editor of
> The Journal of Libertarian Studies. "Democracy: The God That Failed,"
from
> which the above article was adapted for the Nevada Policy Research
> Institute, is his eighth book. His website is www.hanshoppe.com.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/12/05 11:06:57 AM