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.
RCGZ @ 1.42 (AM!!!!?)
Flat tax. AND the elimination of all corporate taxes.
There; corrected.
Well, this seems to have gone quite well. Thanks to all those who appreciated my essay. A few folks seem to have taken my position to be rather more negative or pro-mediocrity than I intended, which is always a danger with any rhetorical essay; sorry I wasn’t clear enough. And as expected, it was not the case that there were no people who deliberately misinterpreted my rhetoric, because that’s their nature. Alas, I can’t apologize for them.
I would like to clear up one misconception though, with Tenebris. At 9:03 above you wrote, in response to my “it’s the least you can do” phrasing: “[I] 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.”
The problem is: I agree with you Tenebris, ergo I fail to see how we are disagreeing. I am sometimes a party supporter, and sometimes a movement supporter; sometimes I have even worked for campaigns. However, that would be more than the least you can do. My thesis is rather that at a minimum, that is to say “the least you can do” (assuming you do no more), and still be a responsible citizen, is to vote for the selection who you think will do the least amount of auctioneering, at the margin.
Anyway, some folks disagree with me on the non-voting option, and that’s fine, after all, this is just an essay, food for thought as it were, and, of course, I might have to change my mind on my own position some day, if I’m ever presented with such a completely unpalatable ballot as some seem to feel they currently face. Fortunately that hasn’t happened to me yet (and I’ve never missed an election), but I can certainly appreciate the abstract possibility thereto.
ET: It’s been a few weeks since I read Hayek’s amazing essay, but I don’t think he referred to courage to have a utopian vision. I think he was referring more to salesmanship, and how it would be much easier to “sell” the concept of liberty/free markets, etc., if a utopian vision could be outlined — one that would demonstrate how much better our society would be, and how much more prosperous our children, and grandchildren would be had we much smaller “mightwatchman” government and much greater personal autonomy.
As I sometimes put it, vis-a-vis free markets and prosperity, we conservative/libertarians tend to think that the “proof is in the pudding” whereas the great majority of the citizenry lack even the most rudimentary understanding of economics and therefore don’t understand the source of the prospertiy we have achieved; and that this achievement is despite, not due to, modern interventionist governance.
I’m probably not being very clear here, but I guess what I’m saying is: idealism, utopianism has its place in the sense that our reach should exceed our grasp. Certainly, to be a libertarian today would have to be considered wildly utopian if not downright insane.
But a mature person can have a utopian vision and at the same time a pragmatic termperament and be happy with the gradual, incremental change to which you referred earlier. As they say, “politics is the art of the possible”.
it was NOT the case that there were NO people …
(caps mine)
Come now, Vitruvius, George Orwell would give you a bit of a spanking over that awkward construction. Did you ever read his great essay on language with its humourous examples? The “sophisticated” double-negative was in there, I believe.
Bully for George; I did it on purpose to express an effect.
me no dhimmi – not to disagree with you, but to clarify. I quote from Hayek:
” “speculations about the possible ENTIRE (my emphasis) reconstruction of society give the intellectual a fare much more to his taste than the more practical and short-run considerations of those who aim at a piecemeal improvement of the existing order. In particular, socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character; the very courage to indulge in utopian thought is in this respect a source of strength to the socialists which traditional liberalism sadly lacks”.
So, I don’t think that the utopian images are merely a strategy for sales of the ideas in that utopian world. I think that the utopian vision appeals to someone who actually believes or wants a ‘entire reconstruction’ of society. And furthermore, who believes in a kind of perfect endstate of society.
Now, ‘idealism’ is different from ‘utopianism’. Perhaps we are quibbling only about terminology. But, to have an ideal of democracy as the most workable political system isn’t to have a utopian vision of democracy. The latter promises perfection of life; the former only suggests a ‘best practice’ of that life.
an elected 4 year term monarchy, no opposition, no burocracy, ultralow taxes, rule of law, and it’s only function would be the military,
Other than that, I want the hrc abolished.
Exactly, ET. It’s like an engineer can have an ideal for a bridge, and can work toward that ideal, but before the end of the project the engineer can’t just stamp his little utopian feet, he must work with the available best practices of the time, else the bridge will not be built at all. In the case of this election, the project ends on October 14th, so ya gotta build er outa the ballots at hand now.
the ultimate lieberal or dipper society where everything is
entweder verboten oder obligatorische
Bully for George; I did it on purpose to express an effect.
Yeah, I know, like when something goes over like a lead balloon, ya say, “Heh, I was being ironic”. 🙂
ET: I’m sure we’re on the same page, but notice Hayek, a very pragamtic incrementalist, expresses regret; this is what I meant by the the salemanship of the utopian vision …
“courage to indulge in utopian thought is in this respect a source of strength to the socialists which traditional liberalism sadly lacks”.
another word for democracy
COMPROMIZE
I may not be as well versed as Vit, and others, I see things in a nut shell.
Vote for the lesser of the 2,3,4 or 5 evils.
Love your country, but fear your government. (especially the bureaucrats)
Communism is a fine form of government in theory but it is the human element that screws it up. Come to think of it, any form of government can be screwed up because of the human element.
When a country caters to the needs of the individual before its own, eventually the country will not be able to cater to the individual.
Well that’s my 2 cents worth.
Vitruvius: ” … 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.”
Probably a dead thread now … but. The ship is completely fouled now. You gotta knock some of the barnacles off before she steers true.
Battling The Barnacle
http://tinyurl.com/3vclqk
“RCGZ @ 1.42 (AM!!!!?)” posted by RW @ 7:15 pm
Hahahaha. What gives me the idea you live in the centre of the universe where Canadian time zones don’t need to be taught in school.
Thank you for the correction though RW. I agree with you of course. I’ll only say that I wanted to keep my wish list just a titch realistic. Given that the mighty Ontario voting viciously defends the progressive tax system.