Government is, generally speaking, the political system by which a body of people are administered and regulated. As George Washington noted, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence ~ it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master”. Barry Goldwater said that “government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away”. Ronald Reagan said that “the most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”.
Democracy, as George Bernard Shaw noted, “is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few”. Oscar Wilde said that “democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people”. More exactly, perhaps, Thomas Jefferson said that “democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”.
Perhaps we shouldn’t be too harsh, though; Winston Churchill did say that “democracy is the worst form of government we know of except for all the others“. (Still, Sir Winston also said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”.) Perhaps Voltaire was closest when he said that “an ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination” (probably not 😉
H. L. Mencken said, “Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.” Voltaire said that “in general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another”. George Bernard Shaw said that “government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul”.
But H. L. Mencken said it best when he said, about democracy, that:
“Government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can’t get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”
Thomas Jefferson noted the biggest problems with all this, as follows:
- “Most bad government has grown out of too much government.”
- “I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.”
- “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Simply put: there is too much state redistribution and regulation auctioneering going on. Our government steals too much freedom and pillage to reward panting and pining parasites who are unwilling to be responsible and work, at the expense of the labor of the responsible industrious. That will eventually kill democracy. Is that what we want?
So, as it is not likely that arguing against government or democracy per se are viable political alternatives in Canada for the foreseeable future, and that’s probably a good thing, the best available solution to our problems with government in Canada for the foreseeable future can be found by combining Mencken’s and Jefferson’s results into the following prescription:
In every election, each citizen should vote for the party or candidate that they think will be the least bad auctioneer, in the sense that they will do the least amount of auctioneering.
Unfortunately, too many citizens feel that because they must vote for the least bad alternative, because there is never a most good alternative, they should just skip the whole exercise, or to be extra dashing, make the extra useless effort to spoil their ballot.
Some liberals might say, for example: I’m not going to vote for the liberals because they want to lower income tax and raise consumption tax, and that is not liberal. Or some conservatives might say, for example: I’m not going to vote for the conservatives because they want to raise income tax and lower consumption tax, and that is not conservative. (As were the cases in the last election.)
And for bonus points, nowadays some of those people will run around in blog comments and stamp their little feet and insist that because the party they want to vote for didn’t do some particular thing they want or wanted, not only are they not going to vote, but that you are not a valid supporter of that party if you disagree with the little-foot stamper.
People who think like that are being irresponsible citizens; childish at best, evil at worst. In a well-functioning society, and Canada is a well-functioning society, changes happen at the margins. Under these circumstances, the responsible thing to do is to study the data, think carefully, decide who you think is the least bad selection (at the margin), and vote it.
Sure, if you care enough about it, go ahead, form a new party, get on the ballot, win a plurality in the auctioneer contest, and then you can be auctioneer. But you had better be ready to give the people what they want, not what you want, or you won’t win a plurality.
Until then, though, it is what it is. Plato said that “the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”. Until your personal political party is in power, it is your civic duty to study the alternatives and to vote for the one you think will do the least amount of auctioneering.
It’s the least you can do.
Vitruvius that’s a good summary of Part I of the problem.
Part II of the problem is how do we make government better.
I believe one way to start is to find ways to ensure that we get broader representation in government, i.e. fewer lawyers, and more engineers, scientists, artists, and so forth.
As for spoiling ballots I’ve never done it, but I don’t consider it a sin. In a democracy people should be able to choose “none of the above”, which is what spoiling a ballot amounts to.
When we interview candidates for positions in the company I work for we often choose “none of the above”. The thought that we would *have* to give a thumbs up to at least one candidate every time we do a round of interviews is absurd.
It is perfectly possible that at some given point in history *all* parties are equally awful. We’re getting close to that scenario here in BC.
Brilliant compilation. Timely. Excellent comment as well.
I do however wonder how long “Canada (can remain) a well functioning society”. We are not far from 1/2 the population producing the means to support the other half who win too many auctions.
I haven’t been enthusiastic about any political group since Preston Manning and the Reform Party. Since then I have been voting for the least obnoxious candidate in my riding and I’m getting fed up with the whole process. I want more direct accountability from my MP or MPP. I want my MP to actually be obliged to represent the will of the majority in my riding on each significant vote. I don’t think that is too much to ask for. I am considering declining my ballot for the first time in a long time of voting.
You are of course the voice of reason or at least the echo of my brother who made much the same argument today when we discussed the election.
Part 11 – Flat tax. Or the elimination of all corporate taxes.
TJ; re BC, sadly so. The ‘less bad’ party keeps getting elected, until it too becomes unacceptable and we re-elect the one we just tossed out. I think I’d like to try Proportional Representation…in my lifetime.
Well said Vitruvius! Plato also said something to the effect that the man who has no interest in Politics has no interest in life.
I will vote and I will vote for the best Prime Minister Canada has ever been fortunate enough to vote into office – Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I have lived in fear of totalitarian Bolsheviks lurking in the Puffin/Dipper/Blochead dens for years. The last few years have given me breathing room – I have not been terrified for the Canadian people and my family. I trust the Prime Minister and most of his members to do the best thing for this nation. Actions speak louder than words – the Prime Minister has acted on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada – what more did we expect? He still has some mopping up to do in the public service and the entitled elitist type criminals who stole tax $$ for themselves and their friends and to reform or get rid of those trough sloppers in the Senate.
I am not cynical about this election – I am hopeful and enthusiastic .
Did I mention that I have read about the Communist takeovers in other countries and I visited Poland before they got rid of the Soviet masters? The fanatical anti smoking people and their hatred for all people who smoke tobacco was enough to enlighten me that we are one election away from Black Marias and midnight firing squads. The HRC’s actions against freedom of the press and freedom of speech have re enforced my apprehensions – Politically Correct legislation is death to Democracy and Liberty. Without Liberty life is meaningless.
Fair enough, TJ. After all, I too can find many holes in my essay. Rhetoric is like that. I’ll stand on my essay on argument though, after all, the title doesn’t say omnibus cyclopaedia on 😉
Food for thought, though, eh what? Perhaps we should modifiy our electoral statutes to always require a None Of The Above option on every ballot, though in some sense that’s kind of silly too: none of the above what? Perhaps we should require a write-in option, though I doubt the value of tabulating that. Perhaps we should allocate one vote for each $1,000 in taxes one’s paid since the last election (oh, oh, now the cat’s not rebaggable). Or perhaps we should say that if you don’t vote you don’t get to complain, though I hardly see how to implement that.
Or maybe we should try proportional representation, as DaninVan suggests, so that instead of having citizens electing representatives, flawed as that methodology may be, we have the parties selecting their own shysters, thus going directly to Shaw’s “appointment by the corrupt few”.
Nah, that’s cynical, I’m going with Jema 54: I’m voting for Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his merry band of pranksters. Keep hope alive!
Anyway, the floor remains open…
Bravo, Vit.
Jema 54:
I believe Patrick Henry was the originator of the statement; “give me liberty or death!”
You just know there is always some Schweinehunde who will offer you the latter.
Hessians back Patrick Henry for President!
In Canada, I like those 1837 Rebellion guys. William Lyon Mackenzie seems like a kick ass Scottish kind of guy. Is he on the ballot?
The Anti-Corruption team sounds good to me.
I want a maverick, kicking some corrupt keesters all the way from Atlantic to Pacific.
Why do we let these stupid jackasses blow off billions of dollars wastefully so they can gainfully laugh in the electorate’s faces?
Quietly loading my electoral musket, 150 grains of black powder, patch, ball, ram rod, firing cap.
Ready, Aim, FIRE !!
$500 billion written off in Asset Backed Commercial Paper? In Canada, billions missing not through mismanagement but simple LIEberal theft.
And then we had Karen Redman, once not so long ago, announce that the LIEBerals would not respect any future losses in confidence votes in the House of Commons. But then what does one expect from the representative of the former BERLIN, Ontario.
Sounds more like MY BIG FAT GREEK TRAGEDY!!
And this rabble of clowns want us to pay taxes for the privilege. I told them to send their proposition ‘straight to Hell’.
We should have been “Harpering” all along, but a hickory switch could be used for a good “McCaining”.
Now where did I put my can of “Whup Ass”?
Cheers
Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
Frankenstein Battalion
2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)
Knecht Rupprecht Division
Hans Corps
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
Yes but that’s the point, Hans, you may “want a maverick”, as you
say, yet unless your maverick garners a plurality, you get bupkis.
Re: maverick
Vit, wrong on points. Politics is war by other means. Winning exactly the same number of CPC seats is still a victory. Liberals will win or lose some seats, but be teetering on insolvency, if not bancruptcy. And given the fun on Wall Street, what’s the chance of them getting a loan after losing?
Ian
Given that I agree with you, Ian, I fail to see how I can be
wrong, on points or otherwise, unless you are wrong too 😉
My point remains: if Prime Minister Harper is to effect over time a change in the course of the ship of state of Canada, then at any given point during the time that takes, he must not be so maverick as to turn said ship so fast that the centrifugal force causes the ship to capsize.
That would certainly be less than optimal.
Why do I see an owl with an English accent when I read your posts there Vit. Excellent by the way!
I used to think more direct democracy was a part of the answer, but then, in the last election, my older sister told me she “couldn’t vote for Harper. He’s so scary.” I pressed her – hard – on what exactly made him scary. I asked her to name one policy, one platform plank, that “scared” her. She couldn’t answer the question. Then I asked her if she couldn’t name one aspect of Harper’s policies that scared her, why was she scared of him? I pointed out that the Liberals had stolen her tax dollars to pay their election expenses. She got all indignant, said she was entitled to her opinion, and stormed out. I don’t think we’ve spoken 20 words since.
She reads the Globe and Mail.
If there was a truth in advertising law for elections, most parties would be reduced to slight variations of “Elect us and we will steal everything and give it to you”.
Our present voting system is unfair. It tends to produce stable majority governments. We should change to a proportional system that will produce unstable corrupt minority coalitions where the hard left will have much more power and the top ranks of politicians need not beg votes from the ignorami.
“… the least amount of auctioneering”
A good summary.
Trouble is, I’m still not satisfied with the CPC’s attempts in this regard to cast a ballot for them with confidence and joy. I do it begrudgingly almost. None of the parties in Canada rate high on the small government scale nor does either party seem intent on ditching socialism. Yes, the CPC has made some inroads, cutting funding to various worthless enterprises that cannot stand on their own. Still there is much work to be done.
Let’s hope they make further adjustments following the next election.
In light of what’s being said by some around here, a very insightful and timely post, Vitruvius.
Two more thoughtful ancient Greek quotations:
“Democracy is a very poor form of government, but all the others are much worse.”
“Just because you’re not interested in politics doesn’t mean that politics isn’t interested in you.”
Are we talking about Canada’s Big Gov’t here, or just Indian Affairs?
Vitruvius:
Nicely put. It all mirrors the simple axiom I broadcast on several fora prior to the last Federal election: “My job as a voter is to optimize amongst a series of sub-optimal choices.”
Do I have a Land of Cockaigne optimal choice? Yeah, but let’s face it — ain’t gonna happen. (Come the millenium, perhaps…)
Well said, sir!
“It’s the least you can do.”
Disagree.
A properly functioning democratic system requires party supporters and movement supporters, the former to seek a plurality of votes, and the latter to make that worthwhile.
Functional, honest, governance happens when party and movement coincide.
On the merits of democracy tempered by assassination, see Piper’s definitive treatment: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20121.
Always good for a chuckle when one of the many self appointed Arbiter of All Things Conservative starts making pronouncements on what is or is not good, and what is or is not conservative.
Agreed, vitruvius – the focus is on the least amount of auctioneering.
Democracy is the best system because it is the only system which attempts to base its power, or right to govern, with the people. Rather than in a class or cabal of elitists. I certainly agree with you in rejecting proportional representation because it would indeed move into cabal power-broking and remove that direct accountability of the representative to the people.
There’s something else about good governance. It has to follow the rule of law. A number of people here ignore this – as evidence I point to the ‘hissing match’ I had with the individual(s) calling themselves Conservative..in yesterday’s Reader’s Tips thread.
These people seem to think that a PM/govt can walk brightly into the House on a Monday morning, and say -‘Hi, it’s me. Now, I’m in charge, and I’m revoking the HRCs, I’m cutting all taxes, I’m stopping this, and starting that and abolishing the Senate …and..’
Government – democratic govt – doesn’t work that way. Dictatorships do. They don’t have due process and the rule of law.
Harper can’t go into the House and declare His Will is The Law. It isn’t. The Peoples’ Will is the Law. And finding out, debating, collaborating on that multi-perspective Will Of The People takes time, due process and must follow the Rule of Law.
I’m voting for Harper – for his policies of slow, incremental governorship – a process that won’t overturn the Ship of State but will transform it. Greatly transform it. I’m voting for his decentralization of powers, his return of power to the people..away from the Liberal elitist circles in Ottawa-Montreal. I’m voting for his integrity and principles. I’m voting against the class based political system of the Liberals/NDP.
Now, vitruvius..how about some more thoughts on the Nature of Democracy?
I like throwing Washington’s quote into a political discussion.
Most Canadians have never heard of such a thing.
Re. Plato said that “the price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”
Indifference is not all bad, their is worse.
For example
Dips like manny and the entire MSM of Canada hold the “evil men’s” underwear while they dress, they are the slave-masters feebleminded errand boy.
If the weak-minded were only indifferent, it wouldn’t be such a high stakes game.
“None of the parties in Canada rate high on the small government scale nor does either party seem intent on ditching socialism. Yes, the CPC has made some inroads, cutting funding to various worthless enterprises that cannot stand on their own. Still there is much work to be done.
Let’s hope they make further adjustments following the next election.”
Mark Peters
If the worldwide credit crunch/economic downturn continues it’s march (It will), if oil and other commodities prices continue to tumble too, Canada will start going into deficit. We will then see what Harper is truly made of: A true patriot/man of the people with a real Conservative mind set (The hidden agenda?) or an oppertunist politician only worried about his party’s future in power (In essence, often the true weakness of a democratic system of governance).
Where I’m getting at here is in order for Canada to shed some ‘socialism’ it will have to be forced to do so by massive lay offs of bureaucracy and program cancellations: CBC should be first on chopping block.
A bad recession/*gulp!* depression seems to be the only trigger for this to happen…It would most certainly cost that democratic Government it’s power come the next election though as the thousands of unionized paper pushers would be screaming “I’m entitled to my job for life!”: Echos of Ontario’s Mike Harris era which after 10 years we can still hear.
Can democratically supporting the least bad alternative promote such ideals? Or must we find a democratic Aurelius or Augustus? Even great leaders like Churchill, Eden, Thatcher and Reagan had many serious flaws. They were certainly the least bad alternatives, but it was the qualities that made them the best choices that led to their triumphs and enduring legacies.
Vit – your insights are always interesting; however, I disagree with your dissertation on the “little foot stampers”. Is it necessary that in order to be a “good conservative”, that one must simply accept the whole package and not comment on something that, in my opinion, is very fundamentally and basically out of control – like the CHRC/CHRT.
The Harper gov’t has had time to make inroads on this issue and all they have done is either acquiesced to the current situation or actually approved of it – re the 50 page report that was issued and their appearance now as an intervenor in favor of the Section 13 Challenge underway in TO.
One marginal change you talk about would include a huge ideological change in mindset of Judges at all levels. It will take decades to make any headway here and few would expect a minority government to be able to do much in a short period of time. Bringing in new laws/minimum sentencing etc. is not going to help if the judges are unwilling (or “know better”) and do not support them.
When the fundamentals of law and order are out of control, a country is in trouble. We are in trouble and heading for worse. Remaining quietly docile for an event to happen that may not happen (a majority) will only make things worse.
When it comes to the quasi-judicial areas such as the HRC, The Immigration Refugee Board, the Parole Board etc., significant changes can be at least started, particularly in a time of minority government when the opposition is simply “not home”. This has not happened and to suggest that those who are unhappy about all of this as little foot-stompers as little more than spoiled brats who don’t support the “mother corp” is more than a little harsh.
Those who are critical of policies, operational choices, etc. that are/have been made by the Harper Government may or may not be willing to vote PC this time around for whatever reasons.
Have you ever noticed, when referees stand out in a hockey or football match that you’re watching a bad game. Conversely, in a sensational game, it’s as though there were no referees at all.
It’s the same with government. The less it’s noticed, the better society is.
How often have we heard “There ought to be a law…., ” or “Why doesn’t the government do something.”
No Thanks. I didn’t come to this game to watch the refs.
Of course, democracy is a rule of mob. As long as mob gets better educated as opposed to indoctrinated, things should improve on constant bases.
Among other things one should consider that in general sense everyone’s interest in wellbeing of numero uno. This will not change any time soon.
Christian writings have been encouraging people that listen, to look after others as one looks after oneself. With few monumental exceptions, nobody is listening.
Socialists that are really communists lite, do as we speak, take away from those that go to work every morning to make a living for themselves and give it to those that do not want to work. They successfully made the argument that since you have money due to your work they will relieve you of some; the idea being that an independent person is not capable of choosing the right way to spend their earnings, viz Clinton, Reid. The question is, how is it that educated people (Canadians in general are educated, though in large part also indoctrinated by certain dogmas) actually support this kind of looting by electing the looters.
Communists came with this idea that everyone should work for common good. They will make you do it if they have to kill you.
Democracy, in order to fulfill its promise of good government requires good people in charge. There are enough good people, seems though they will not sink their ethics to contest the low lifes. One only needs to look at the blogpost just above Vitruvius.
All in all, Churchill got it right. Human nature is what it is. Unless there are reeducation camps ordered by the human rights commissions, we are in for a mob rule.
You get more of what you reward.
I’m still looking for the first example of choosing the lesser evil resulting in something other than evil.
The only thing voting in Canada produces is a $1.75 credit for the lucky party.
calgary clipper – what ‘significant changes’ on the HRCs can be started in a minority govt?
The govt already has a Motion – and it was the right move to encourage/allow..whatever..that motion to be put by Keith Martin, a Conservative turned Liberal.
Others have openly supported it – including Jason Kenney.
The groundswell for significant change has to come from two sides: the people…and this is happening in the blogs and the MSM.. and the House. This is also happening.
Meanwhile, the undemocratic Liberal left are fighting back against this freedom of speech. They are determined to control our speech. Remember, they are also Citizens of Canada; they have a voice, unwelcome as it is to us, in this debate.
I think what Vitruvius was referring to were those people who are refusing to vote, UNLESS and UNTIL Harper has stopped the HRCs. As I said, Canada is not a dictatorship and therefore, unwelcome as it is, due process has to be followed.
Well articulated post Vit – shame it is the scree of the professional apologist. Demand mediocrity: and that is exactly what you’ll get.
The sycophants and sophists will cling to you with the urgency of the damned, as you have been able to reconcile the nihlism of the modern age, with the slacker ethos of the underachiever.
Well done.
Since we as a race have aspired as far as we need to, let all who desire better ethics, governance, and equality be subservient to the reality of mankind, and be muted or ignored.
As it appears your impending senescence has defined a ‘palliative care’ approach to the responsibilities of a Citizen, I don’t think you’ll be troubled by reflection.
hardboiled – do you know the difference between a utopian and a pragmatist?
You are a utopian; you demand ‘the best’. Fine. Demand it all you want; have you succeeded in obtaining such a result?
What some of us are talking about is pragmatism, where you acknowledge that reality isn’t a fictional empty space. A no-space that you can fill with your ideals of ‘the way it ought to be’.
Reality exists outside of you and me. It’s not empty space; we can’t fill it with our ideals. Instead, we must acknowledge what exists, and work, gradually, incrementally, to change that reality..as much as it can be. We must acknowledge that reality may reject our efforts that it will certainly fight back; that it may even have other ‘ideas’ about what is best or right or just.
Therefore, the pragmatic approach, rather than the utopian one that you promote, works step by step. It’s called in some areas ‘bricolage’..a step by step incremental approach..and..guess what. The pragmatic approach doesn’t have Pure Ideals of The Perfect World. Nope. No Pure Forms.
The pragmatic approach doesn’t have such a future agenda! It tries to make life better..but there’s no final goal. Whether that final goal is conservative or liberal or..it’s still utopian.
You, hardboiled, and the other Real Conservatives here..are utopian. I don’t think that’s a conservative value!
ET – I understand that ‘utopia’ is unrealistic, as the world continually remains in flux, and moreso, everyone’s vision of utopia is different. Since we all have to get along, and all citizens are equal, well, you get the idea.
But I don’t roll with the idea of accepting less, especially from an ideology espoused that purports to take a higher moral and philosophical ground.
Despite the soothing, ‘pragmatic’ tones of Vit’s lively version of ‘Don’t Worry Be Happy’, the reality is you are nothing in the electoral process but a resource. To the political party, the citizen is livestock, to be fattened, and culled at election time.
It is up to the Citizen to decide whether to be the livestock, or an independent contributor to society, by espousing and adhering to their value structure. This includes interfacing with politicos (or preferably, independent representatives of the contituency), and holding them to account when and where personal interest eclipses that of the people represented.
The very measure of character revolves around the individual and their consistency as people. And withholding assent, money, or votes to ANY individual or party is a vital and correct contribution to society by the citizen.
To argue against that notion seeks nothing more than the continuation and perpetuation of mediocrity and ambivalence.
one of the most pertinaent extrospective posts I’ve seen here in quite a while Vitruvius…thanks.
“Lesser evil” partisan democracy. And so very apropos at this election time when we find ourselves again faced with a “choice?” of selecting the “lesser evil” in a kleptocratic quidnuc system rather than “the best fit” for maintaining personal and collective independence.
It reminds us that our democracy and political system has devolved to a single party state where the electoral choice is between 4 different velocities of collectivist statism.
Given the current state of Canadian governance there is a more apropos Menken quote.:
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”
Great essay Vitruvius, a keeper for my files with all those delicious quotes assembled in one place!
In defence of the foot stampers, I’m sure that when push comes to shove they vote the least bad alternative. However the childish foot-stamping cant kinda reminds me of those lib-lefters stateside who say they’re leaving the country if their fellow citizens fail to do the right thing. Doesn’t happen (see: Alec Baldwin).
Like you, I’m mystified by the logic of not voting. In not voting you are still voting really, in that you give a one-vote edge to the competition. Dumb!
And as you, and ET so eloquently re-affirm, yes, yes, yes, change occurs at the edges, incrementally, gradually. Hayek makes this observation too. In fact, along the lines of the the readers tips ET referred to, slow incremental change is a key component of conservative thinking — a reverence and respect for institutional infrastructures which evolved (and were NOT planned!) over a very long time.
In fact, it’s the safest way to bring about institutional change. Quick fast change without adequate sober second thought, reflection, and debate is highly de-stablizing.
RCGZ said:
“We are not far from 1/2 the population producing the means to support the other half who win too many auctions”
I would argue we’re way beyond that. The vast majority of the tax revenue comes from far less than 25% of the taxpayers. We already have the majority of Canadians winning the auction, which is why our tax system will never change to reward those people that are the economic drivers of our country.
ET / hardboiled
Hayek’s essay “The Intellectuals and Socialism” argues that utopianism is the key to success on the left and regrets that freedom advocates have failed to build a utopian view that would help “sell” the freedom philosophy.
sda readers: google and read this challenging essay. Hint: he has a much broader view of who “intellectuals” are, and intellectual doesn’t mean especially smart or skilled. He calls them “professional secondhand dealers in ideas”.
I like the post and comments. You learn something everyday on the SDA site. I look at it this way, the people who we are electing are working for the people. They should perform at the very best level of performance. If in the last parliament sitting that is what is expected for job performance, it is pathetic.
You have people [liberals] that would not vote on bills been passed by the parliament procedural steps. If this is the case of democracy it is no wonder people decide that the politicians are not worth voting for.
Democracy is supposed to be the people. The parliament and bureaucracy is so entrenched with the teat sucking parasites it would take a very big hammer to dislodge them.
All I hope for is that PMSH is elected with a majority, runs it for the 4 years and is elected again for 4 more. This is the only way to even make small inroads in this entrenched society.
One of my pet peeves is people who do not answer the question being asked, but instead, they answer a completely different question and then try to tell you they’ve answered your question.
The choices on a ballot are clear and simple, and “none of the above” is not one of them. This is a childish request intended only to deflect responsibility. Some people think that since they didn’t make a choice on the ballot, they carry no responsibility; therefore, they can preach from a soapbox about why politicians are all corrupt.
Voting “present” or “none of the above” is not leadership or admirable, it is pathetic.
so elizabeth may was right. canadians are stupid. the inabality to understand that government does not create wealth only destroy it defies llogic. work or starve unless you are old and/or infirm.
ET/Hardboiled:
You are both right.
“The very measure of character revolves around the individual and their consistency as people. And withholding assent, money, or votes to ANY individual or party is a vital and correct contribution to society by the citizen.”
I agree, this is how you have a voice in the particular party you support and how you affect change in the parties platform; but, that doesn’t alleviate your responsibility in the “real world” to make a decision based on the information you have at hand.
Ideological and platform discussions have a time and place: during conventions and primaries. I don’t have a problem with cutting donations to a party during or prior to an election to affect this change; but, once the writ is dropped it is your responsibility to make the best choice available out of the available choices, for your country.
The last choice is to run yourself and vote for yourself, this is what makes Canada so great; with good ideas and some elbow grease YOU can change the country.
Interesting and thought provoking. Thanks Vit.
The only proportional representative system I could support would be in proportion to the taxes paid. (ie. everyone gets one vote, and one additional vote for every $X,000 paid in taxes.) If I am going to pay for it, I damn well better get a bigger say in how its run. Any other system will just worsen the already bad pandering that happens now.
In the current government, we need to strive the ideal (Utopian), but not expect it overnight (pragmatic). If you strive for mediocre, that is what you will end up with.
Good essay Vitruvius. I think that people need to be educated regarding the dangers of big government which I try to do every time I wear my “Guns don’t kill people, governments kill people” T-shirt. George Washington had the most prescient analogy and the current system of government is like a group of children playing with matches in an explosives warehouse; sure things have only blown up a few times like in post-Wiemar Germany, the USSR and China but politicians haven’t learned at all from those disasters.
To take the fire analogy further, when we use fire we surround it with layers of safeguards and have groups of individuals ready to respond at a moments notice when fire gets out of control What we need is the political equivalent of a fire department which, whenever assinine legislation was passed, would rush in and do what was needed to resolve the situation whether it involved hanging politicians from lamp posts or banishing them to the interior of Greenland until they came to their senses. There should be a section of government which would have no other purpose than to strike down laws as the effect of accumulation of laws in both Canada and US is eerily similar to the buildup of amyloid protein in the Alzheimer’s brain. Whether society has reached a level of senility from which it cannot recover remains to be seen but the last thing we need now is yet more laws to deal with the problems caused by too many laws.
The last time I was politically involved was with the Reform party when I thought there was finally a chance to reform government but I’ve gotten quite disillusioned since then. Living in BC, the only choices left to me provincially are the Marijuana party or Libertarian party as there is no way I’m going to vote for Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax and I certainly won’t vote for the BC Communist party. Federally, I’m still deciding what I’m going to do in October. I consider spoiling my ballot to be a valid choice and I only stopped doing this in 1988 when I was first able to vote for Reform (coincidentally Stephen Harper was the Reform party candidate in the Calgary riding where I lived then).
Right now I’ve dropped out of the political process and try to ignore government as much as I possibly can. Maybe a Harper majority might result in some decrease in the size of government but, based on what I’ve seen of the evolution of Stephen Harper’s policies from 1988-2008, I don’t have much hope for this as it seems that living in Ottawa causes irreversible neurologic damage in all those who attempt to do something about big government.
me no dhimmi – I see Hayek’s point – that one must have a ‘vision’ of the future. I agree with that, but, I can only visualize that future in the most minor terms: freedom of the individual, security, intelligence…
I don’t agree with Hayek’s suggestion that it takes courage ‘to indulge in utopian thought’. To the contrary, it requires nothing.
It takes courage to take action, and realize that action is met with reaction and that therefore change requires time, persuasion, overcoming.
Certainly, his description of the ‘intellectuals’, aka ‘the chattering class’ and their socialist ideals – is absolutely accurate!
Yes, a political ideology can’t be all reason; it must involve one’s emotions but I still think that this emotional attachment must be to rational and moral ideals. Not utopian scenarios.
dkjones, I like your idea about a system of proportional representation where the weight of a vote is a function of how much tax an individual pays. One way of making this more palatable to the population would be to have some form of direct democracy where any major government expenditure would be decided on income weighted votes. Those who paid no tax would not be allowed to participate in this process and this would be a nice way prevent those who pay very little or no tax voting to increase government handouts for themselves. We’ve got the technology now to do this but just not the will.
For electing politicians, I think the one person one vote process should stand.
loki – you are assuming that those who pay no tax are on welfare or whatever. A lot of seniors are in the low to zilch tax base.
I also disagree with having decisions made based on ‘income weighted votes’. Sounds rather similar to the old class-based system where only land owners and titled Lords had the right to sit in the House. And to vote. Ordinary citizens couldn’t vote or sit in parliament.
I’m against proportional representation because it politicizes representation. We, the people, don’t select the House member. We simply select a party – and the party then selects the member. Whew – is this open to corruption.
And, that selected member owes his loyalty and accountability to the party. Not to the public who pay him.
What this sets up is a system where the parties are in power; they ‘appoint’ people in their party to work in the House. The people who vote? Almost irrelevant.
Nope – that’s a class system and I’m against it.
Good post Vitruvius.
I want a government that promises to do nothing; even do less than it already is doing (which is too much).
As a libertarian, I see government as a necessary evil; therefore it ought to be restricted. Basically, good government is good sanitation: boring and smelly but necessary.
Nothing more than that.