Probably the best article I have read on the subject of "democracy". Anybody who wants to know what's ahead of us (most likely) read it Just one paragraph: One-man-one-vote combined with "free-entry" into government democracy implies 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. It can be expected that majorities of "have-nots" will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of minorities of "haves." It's really scary but I cannot see the fault with the article. http://www.mises.org/story/2138
Like we Libertarians say: "Democracy is good, but freedom is better." From the article: "Suppose there existed a world democracy with one vote for each person in the population. Is it not obvious, as Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out, that the world would adopt a flagrantly favorable policy towards China and India at everyone else's expense? On the other hand, suppose two robbers break into a house and start ransacking the place. When the owner comes down to protest, the robbers, if abiding strictly by the rules of democracy, could simply hold an election to determine whose property the belongings actually are, and with their superior numbers, outvote the legitimate owner. These examples may seem theoretical, but our government today abides by this exact philosophy. As Murray Rothbard said, "On the free market, everyone earns according to his productive value in satisfying consumer desires. Under statist distribution, everyone earns in proportion to the amount he can plunder from the producers." Indeed, it is not capitalism that leads to exploitation as the Left contends; it is democracy. Government housing projects benefit well-connected developers, bureaucrats, and insurance companies while the poor end up in dilapidated, crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Business leaders support the Export/Import Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, farm subsidies, and war because these institutions insulate them from competition and provide them with lucrative contracts. Important congressional chairmen get the best roads and public works projects through their districts, regardless of actual need. In each case, taxpayers foot the bill. To those who say that this is not plunder, but compassion, I ask, is it right to pick-pocket your neighbor if you give that stolen money to the poor? To those who say that government is voluntary and that taxes are equivalent to rent, I ask, what will happen if you attempt to secede from the government and refuse to pay your income tax?" AND: "Only in a society where all services are provided through voluntary association, where consumers hold ultimate sovereignty by providing the most efficient producers of necessary and luxury goods with profits can rule of law, individual liberty, and property rights be upheld. Such a society is not in a state of anarchy; authority is simply decentralized to the lowest possible and most just level â the business, the community, the family." _______ The article states that it was written last week, but if you had just showed me the above material and told me it was all personally written by Ayn Rand herself- I'd have believed you. He even threw the word "statist" in there for good measure! Good to see a modern writer following so closely in Ayn's footsteps...
"Politicians elected to run the government for a set number of years have the incentive to cut taxes and increase spending because in the short term this seems to benefit everyone involved. But when debt piles up and the currency plummets in value, the politicians who enacted such destructive policies are not in any way responsible; they retire to their estates and congratulate themselves for a lifetime of 'public service.'" --------- Republicanism.
Yes, of course it is. Those nodding in agreement with Ayn- I mean Phillips' words, may think they 'lean to the right' in their political beliefs... but the essay isn't 'right wing' at all. It's pure Libertarianism/Objectivism.
Don't worry about "minorities of haves", they are doing just fine, as a matter of fact unlike most americans they are doing way better than ever before, the gap between the rich and the poor is huge and keeps growing. The rich have plenty of power, connections and [financial] resources to protect their interests from "majorities of have-nots", they own the media which is successfully brainwashing gullible and poorly educated public into voting against their own economic interests, they spend billions to get their favorite candidates elected, they collude and cheat, they hire best lawyers and accountants to find loopholes in the law, they hire lobbiests and buy politicians wholesale to create those loopholes in the first place. They actually pay for articles like this one portraying Warren Buffets and Michael Dells of the world as poor innocent victims of highway robbery. Don't worry about them, this democracy thing works much better for the rich than it works for the poor. The poor have one vote to elect a politician, the rich have one trillion dollars to corrupt them all. Who do you think has the upper hand? The right question is why in this country "have-nots" are a majority.
Sure you do but of course not as a rich individual but as a member of the class of the rich. Your interests are well represented by corrupt politicians, corporate media and lobbiests. Your argument frankly is a red herring, it's like claiming that republicans are not controlling the government because a rank and file member of the republican party has no power.
A true democracy could be approached by focusing on the use of the INTERNET... The elimination of the IRS to be supplanted by a 10%consumption tax... The elimination of legal largesse... The elimination of the two party system..... The elimination of medicine as a profit center... Education equal access to all children rich and poor via the internet... The open and complete use of the INTERNET as home base for tax based population decision making and communication.... ................................................................................................... The idea of politics is absurd...any country is an ongoing concern and should not waste its time with stop go political concerns....a country cannot approach solid long term objectives with the US two party crap based system... Good people should openly and competitively be placed in responsible positions and paid accordingly... The populations needs will be voted on by the population via internet... To place a country´s responsibility into the hands of a few is just plain stupid....outdated...and wrong...when there is now the INTERNET tool..... Capitalization is the best way to distribute wealth through competition... All firms that have mass and are going concerns should trade on the tube....Employees that want a piece of the action buy the shares they want....and performance on the job translates into money in the stock... ................................................................................ The current US political system is a joke compared to an INTERNET government...and the current US system is a far cry from being a democracy....it is run by money and the monied...