• The problem with democracy – Part One

Over the past ten years I have spent a lot of time walking around areas where the majority of the population is dependent on welfare and I have observed the following:

• allowing children to play on the road is a common practice and apparently it’s best to start them young: why else would toddlers be playing on the road?
• staying at home and playing a TV or stereo at full volume all day is also a common practice.
• sitting in a garage with a supply of beer and cigarettes is a popular pastime, especially when it includes the thunderous TV or stereo mentioned above and the garage is fitted out as a lounge.
• lack of respect for other people’s property rights is shown by the number of people who take supermarket trolleys home and/or apply graffiti to every available surface. Supermarkets regard vehicles designed for trolley recovery as essential equipment.
• the shopping areas are always filthy.
• the kids are usually deserving of a muzzle and leash. Certainly the shopkeepers wish that they were muzzled and leashed, not to mention handcuffed.
• most of the population smokes, despite the fact that they are supposed to be poor and cigarettes are expensive.
• shops that specialise in alcohol are a dime a dozen, despite the fact that alcohol is a luxury and these people are supposed to be poor.
• dishonesty is rife. In a welfare-dependent area I have seen two men enter a property at night and steal a pot plant. In a wealthy area I have seen a boat and equipment worth thousands parked beside the road. It was obviously there long term, it was undamaged, and there was no security (with the possible exception of a trailer lock). The mast, ropes, etc were all in plain view and I found this quite shocking because I am used to welfare dependent areas where such things would be destroyed or stolen in a blink.
• people have no hesitation when it comes to asking me for money, even kids munching on McDonalds (see my earlier post on that)
• it is common to see people who adopt (or natively possess) the thug persona and have antisocial body language. Think of a Black Power member without the patch and you’ll get the idea.
• personal safety is greatly reduced. I know a woman who was mugged in daylight in a welfare dependent area, but when I go to wealthy areas it is common to see woman out alone after dark.
• it is normal to see people standing around eating junk food. About five years ago I saw a woman feeding bananas to her four well-behaved children, and this combination of factors was so astonishing that the scene was seared into my memory. Mind you, she wasn’t your typical local.
• basic good manners are scarce. E.g., if you tell someone that they’ve left their car lights on they’ll just turn them off without even a nod of thanks and possibly without even looking at you [1].

I’ll get back to those observations, but first consider this: the problem with democracy – one of the many problems – is that it lets the majority steal from everyone else. How does this work?  Let’s say that the Purple Party desires power and they know that under a democratic system they have to woo the majority before they can have that power. So they do some market research and find out that what the majority of the population really wants is a free lollipop every day: this majority either doesn’t know or doesn’t care that someone has to pay for the lollipops, they just want “free” lollipops. So the Purple Party starts its electoral campaign and says “Vote for us and we’ll give everyone a free lollipop every day”. This strategy works because a great many voters are so stupid and selfish that their voting decision comes down to “Which party will give me the most lollipops?”. Election day comes around and, sure enough, the majority think only of themselves and vote for the party that will steal money from everyone else in order to satisfy their desires. That’s how the Lollipop Mob comes to rule the country. Democracy is mob rule, and the mob appoints a few people to go to Wellington and do their stealing for them because theft is legal if you’re a member of parliament [2].

New Zealand has long been a welfare state, and those policies have made so many people dependent on welfare that it is political suicide to not give them what they want. Therefore the rough, hedonistic, dishonest, rude, ignorant, uncaring and incompetent members of society that I have observed in welfare dependent areas (yes, some aren’t like that) are typical examples of the mob that is ruling New Zealand.

Furthermore, any politician that this mob votes for has to conform to that mob’s standards, so we get rough, hedonistic, dishonest, rude, ignorant, uncaring and incompetent members of parliament. That’s why we get rude, ignorant and dangerous ex-beneficiaries like Sue Bradford in parliament, not to mention slightly more polished ones like Paula Bennett.

Have a look at what Hans-Hermann Hoppe has to say about this (you can jump to the blue bit if you wish, but the preamble is well worth reading):

Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly “owner” (the prince or king) being replaced by temporary and interchangeable monopoly “caretakers” (presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament). Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values.

As the owner of the capital stock on “his” territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

Nor is it an advantage of democracy that free entry into every state position exists (whereas under monarchy entry is restricted by the king’s discretion). To the contrary, only competition in the production of goods is a good thing. Competition in the production of bads is not good; in fact, it is sheer evil. Kings, coming into their position by virtue of birth, might be harmless dilettantes or decent men (and if they are “madmen,” they will be quickly restrained or if need be, killed, by close relatives concerned with the possessions of the dynasty).

In sharp contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position as a result of their efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues [3] [who are willing to bribe the mob with lollipops bought with stolen money]. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government.

In particular, democracy promotes an increase in the social rate of time preference (present-orientation) or the “infantilization” of society. It results in continually increased spending and taxes, paper money and paper money inflation, an unending flood of legislation, and a steadily growing “public” debt. By the same token, democracy leads to lower savings, increased legal uncertainty, moral confusion, lawlessness, and crime. Further, democracy is a tool for wealth and income confiscation and redistribution. It involves the legislative “taking” of the property of some (the haves) and the “giving” of it to others (the have-nots).

And since it is presumably something valuable that is being redistributed–of which the haves have too much and the have-nots too little–any such redistribution implies that the incentive to be of value or produce something valuable is systematically reduced. In other words, the proportion of not-so-good people and not-so-good personal traits, habits, and forms of conduct and appearance will increase, and life in society will become increasingly unpleasant. (I recommend that you read the entire article)

So, if democracy is a rotten egg, who can lay a better one? I believe that there aren’t any fresh eggs, i.e. all systems of governance by humans stink abominably, and therefore all we can do is pursue the least of the evils [4]. As you can see from the quote above, Hoppe gives some very good reasons for believing that you and I would be better off with an absolute monarch rather than the mob rule of democracy. When I first heard this idea it melted a few of my cerebral wires (I’m all for personal freedoms), but if you set aside your preconceptions and look at Hoppe’s article objectively you’ll find a lot of merit in his argument that absolute monarchy is a lesser evil than mob rule/democracy.

What are your thoughts regarding democracy and the alternatives?

~~~~~~~~~~

Related posts:

Poisonous are the fruits of welfarism

Slices of life from Auckland Hospital

I highly recommend the book Life at the bottom : the worldview that makes the underclass by Theodore Dalrymple.

~~~~~~~~~~

1. To be fair, these people are partially exculpated (freed from blame) by the fact that welfarism encourages such characteristics. Also, similar behaviour can be seen amongst those who are very wealthy and have a lot of free time, e.g. pop stars and those who have no need to work due to inherited wealth.

2. Very often the Purple Party will bring in policies that encourage welfare dependence in order to enlarge the mob that votes for them, both now and in future generations. It’s a symbiotic relationship: the Lollipop Mob gets the “free” lollipops that they want and the Purple Party gets the power that they want (although ultimate power remains with the mob).

3. Demagogue: a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob (Collins English Dictionary). “Passions” means desires or lusts, including lust for lollipops.

4. The anarchocapitalists say that we do not need a state, monarchy, or any other form of governance: I am not yet fully persuaded that such a system would be workable and stable. I suspect that human nature would lead to the formation of states or their equivalent.

~~~~~~~~~~

• Auckland gets Super City, govt cleans blood off jackboots

So, the government has rammed a jackboot up the the collective rectum of Aucklanders and passed a law bringing in the so-called Super City, under urgency no less (see my earlier post on that). Shortly before that the law banning gang patches in Wanganui was passed (yep, I covered that as well). Wanganui got a referendum on the spelling of their name, and Auckland got “bend over”.

When Herr Helen Clark was ousted last year I was hoping that we might have some relief from the dictatorial style of government. But National has clearly purchased Clark’s jackboots, and ACT has purchased her spare pair. I am particularly disappointed in ACT, who theoretically stand for freedom and choice.

The New Zealand government has absolute sovereignty and is no way accountable to the citizens. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The National Party is losing its rural roots

The NZ Herald describes the makeup of the new National Party Cabinet thus:

The last National Government could name at least six farmers in the Cabinet.

Or if they weren’t farmers, they had farming interests and concerns.

Men and women like Jenny Shipley, John Luxton, Wyatt Creech, Bill English, Lockwood Smith and David Carter.

Don McKinnon was into farm management, and even Clem Simich lists farming as a former occupation.

This time around law leads. We are now guided by eight representatives with legal qualifications, including Simon Power, Judith Collins, Chris Finlayson, Wayne Mapp, Kate Wilkinson, Richard Worth, Murray McCully and Georgina te Heuheu.

And some are very highly qualified. Ms Collins, Mr Finlayson and Dr Mapp have masters degrees in law, while Pita Sharples, Nick Smith and Lockwood Smith all hold doctorates.

The agricultural community is represented, but only just. Mr English and Lockwood Smith still list farming as their other occupation.

National has traditionally been supported by the rural sector, but this shift away from having farmers in cabinet won’t endear the party to famers, and nor will National’s overall move to the left. Favouring lawyers over farmers also has implications for you and the rest of New Zealand.

Lawyers tend to want use laws to fix problems, simply because that is what they know. Farmers tend to have an earthier view of life* (sorry) and are inclined to look for for practical solutions to problems. Allow me to illustrate.

What will a farmer do if he has a cow that kicks him during milking? Will he call for a law banning the breeding of cows that kick? No, he will consider the options for a practical solution, e.g. restraining the cow during milking, culling, and removing the cow from his breeding programme. Compare this with the judge who cut his finger on a staple holding legal papers together and thereafter required that staples be applied upside down (this was related to me by a lawyer who prepared my will and applied the staple in the required manner).

Fewer farmers and more lawyers in cabinet is likely to mean fewer practical solutions and more legal solutions for New Zealand: I don’t know about you, but I am more than a little tired of legal solutions.

I am particularly interested to hear comments on this from Samuel Dennis, Ele Ludemann, and other rural readers. Comments from city folk are also welcome, naturally.

**********

* I worked in the rural sector for a short time and I found that witnessing such events as the birth of calves, the shooting of sick calves, and a steer crushing a man on a loading ramp gave me a down-to-earth, realistic perspective on life that working in accounting never did.