Democracy: Incompetence factory

in #libertarian3 years ago (edited)

Let’s have a democracy; wait a minute; sooner or later there will be a popular man of foolish moral principles with the need to take money from someone else’s wallets; this person will enforce some form of compulsory social system and redistribution; what consequences will inevitably come with it?


Have you ever thought, dear readers, about how do political parties actually get votes in a democracy? Surely, different politicians do that differently, the spectrum of intelligent ideas targeting on the intellectual elite of the nation is practically inexhaustible, starting somewhere near Michal David’s hit “We are the right team,” continues with the person, who has put our country into debt more than every other politician throughout the entire history, promising to fight against it (then he came, he saw, he conquered and put ourselves to debt even more) and ends with donuts and sausages (in the Czech republic, some political parties were giving these things to people right in the streets few weeks/months before election). True, everyone is different, but what do they have in common? They promise voters to protect them from something; whether it is gambling, usury, unemployment, poverty, or anything else.

As a result of various attempts to “protect the weak”, the gap between the moral values that we respect and appreciate in our private lives and between values we call for in the public is opening. On a personal level, we value the responsibility, diligence, intelligence, education, creativity, reliability, and generally capable people, while irresponsible, lazy, unreliable and incompetent ignorants... well, we tend not to surround ourselves by them, because interaction with them simply bothers and exhausts us (the more we come in contact with such individuals - whether as their costumers, colleagues, supervisors, subordinates, but in the worst case even as their children – the more our negative emotions are); however, in the social level we inverse this perception: we ask for the protection of unsuccessful people (who are mostly – but of course not every time – members of the second group) at the expense of those we value in our personal lives. The cause of this phenomenon I found in the misuse of human compassion by its institutionalization; to be sure of the right understanding, I definitely see nothing wrong with the compassion itself and the ability of empathizing, which to a certain extent also defines our humanity; I will write here about the institutionalization and misuse of this humanity.

Firstly, however, I will talk about something different. The amazing attribute of our world is its enormous predictability: you touch the fire, you burn yourself; you will do it again, the result will be the same. This allows all thinking creatures to learn and develop; if the world worked entirely randomly, this would not have been possible. However, this predictability doesn’t apply only to the physical laws; it works quite well in socio-economic relations, and also to almost everything. Do you work hard? Do you try to satisfy the needs of other people the best you can? Then you will probably be successful in life. Are you lazy? Can’t you convince yourself to work hard? Well, you will probably not be successful. Do you plan your future? Do you make responsible economic moves? This greatly reduces the probability of (unpleasant) surprise in the future. You don’t save money and you don’t think ahead? You may not end up well.

All these examples could be summed up into a profaned (but in its original – reasonable) slogan: “You do not think, you pay!” The very existence of such bonds is extremely important because they are the only reason why people are motivated to act reasonably. Who would work, plan, save and try hard if the consequences of such activities bring the same results as ignoring them? Probably not many of us. It can be said that the greater the difference between the consequences of responsible and irresponsible behavior, the more people will behave responsibly; every reduction of this difference will bring more irresponsible individuals. In other words, it is desirable that people pay for their mistakes.

Of course, not everyone who is in a bad life situation appeared in it by his own fault; especially children who do not choose their parents, but also adults can experience something they can’t easily influence. On the other hand, there are many people who either directly caused their miserable situation (laziness, addictions, etc.), or at least did not prevent it (meaningless over-reliance, carelessness, and so on), although it was possible. In any case, regardless of how the person fell into the unenviable situation, the chances of solving it by self-help are more or less directly proportional to how well a person can make good decisions, which is again related to his responsibility, diligence and other, in general, valued, attributes.

To distinguish when a person gets into trouble by his fault (or lack of foresight), from cases in which one gets into trouble without being guilty, is both very difficult and, in addition, heavily subjective (different situations we judge differently and the degree of fault, too) but certainly there cannot be any universal algorithm (or set of rules) that would determine in some way who actually deserves – and how big – help; and that does not matter at all if the people have the freedom to decide whom they will help, and especially whom not. We have no such freedom for generations; a major state-runner, a robber, a socialist, a morally rotten politician, made a very serious attack on it about a century ago; in today’s perverse period of time, glorified for his “morality”, the president “Liberator” Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk who advocated the following:

“In the Czechoslovak Republic, there will be no place for the old charity that has always been considered as a grace that has always humiliated the poor man and limited his human consciousness. Instead of humiliating grace, we are building a social duty today.”

Why am I talking about nearly a hundred-year-old events? Because the greatest evil of social duty, we prefer before the humiliating grace, the principle of obligatory help to everyone needy, lies in its combination with two factors: time and democracy. How does it work? Let’s have a democracy; wait a minute; sooner or later there will be a popular man of foolish moral principles with the need to take money from someone else’s wallets (note that Masaryk was definitely not alone); this person (or someone after him) will enforce some form of compulsory social system and redistribution; what consequences comes with it? According to the above principle, the number of irresponsible people increases (because the consequences of irresponsible behavior will not be so bad), which means that in the next generation that number will be even higher (irresponsible parent has a higher probability to raise an irresponsible child than a responsible parent); once this vicious circle begins (which is only a matter of time in democracy), it becomes very difficult to stop it, because as the number of irresponsible (and dependent on the help of others) grows in the society, they will vote for even more support and redistribution, which again demotivates people to try to make right and responsible decisions which de facto, in the long run, predetermines every democracy to become socialism.

Another problem is the inertia of this process: the redistribution ratio, which at some time would be considered to be totally absurdly high and unacceptable, will be perceived as acceptable by the next generation, because they will simply get used to it; just look to the US, where taxes started at tenths of a percent, and initially there was a lot of emotion around each increase (in tenths of percent or in a small units of percents). If anybody in that time came up with the idea of taxing in tens of percents, his political career would probably not end up well; and look what is happening in the US now, a few generations later: who talks about taxation at just a few tens of percents is considered as an extremist (unfortunately, that is completely reversed situation in concrary to the past).

Many will say that the problem is in the electorate, talking about sheep, ignorants, and so on; others say that we are experiencing the crisis of the elites and they are blaming politicians. Of course, each of us carries his share of guilt, someone bigger, someone smaller, I do not deny it. However, the fatal problem lies in the fact that the principle described above is inherently contained in the very essence of democracy (the one we know now) and cannot be removed without changing the current form of social order. It is not my opinion, it is not a feeling, it is a simple fact: every increase in redistribution creates more addicted to the state who logically want more redistribution and they are also bringing their descendants to the same; if we insist on democracy as we know it (I mean, in particular, its property that the recipients of redistribution have the same voice in the elections as the donors), socialism is simply inevitable. After all, just look around; it is no coincidence that all democracies of today’s world are walking on this way (some of them slowly, some of them faster, but all of them inexorably).

The best way to start this vicious circle is to appeal to compassion; to declare that whoever refuses to support all the weak without any distinction is a monster unable to empathize with people in need. However, in the long-term, redistribution has a negative impact on practically everyone, in addition to the fact that society is getting poorer (or less wealthy), so the poorest ones would do, in the long-term, better even without the redistribution, a strong state with extensive social policy creates much more poor people (who are truly innocent in the matter of their poverty), by who, paradoxically, the supporters of these practices argue for more protection of the poor. And what is the best instrument for attacking the feelings? Kids; they are innocent. We must, therefore, support all, so their innocent descendants will not suffer; but what have we shown above? The more support for all, the more poor and irresponsible; and logically, the more poor and irresponsible, the more children they will raise.

The frequent argument against the abolition of social policy is then popular: “Well, responsible people can handle it but look at those totally incompetent, you cannot deny the support for them otherwise they will not make it.” On the one hand, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of them will be forced to act responsibly, there is nothing else they could do and they will learn how to take care of themselves, but even if that is not the case, the more it is necessary to reduce (or at least not to increase) the redistribution rate, because the constant increasing causes more and more people to get into these situations.

Although I have only talked for simplification just about redistribution in the last paragraphs, the same principle, unfortunately, applies to any other law with the goal of protecting people from the consequences of bad decisions; all consumer protections, laws against usury or gambling, prohibition of alcohol and other drugs, the whole Labor Code, and probably most of the laws produced by our Parliament in recent years. Any regulation aiming at protecting someone from his behavior is an evil even if it does not have any other negative effects (but in most cases it has other negatives); if we, by a flat-rate, alleviate the consequences of bad decisions of individuals in any society, the number of individuals who do such decisions will increase, which in a democracy will lead to other regulations of a similar type with the same consequences that will continue to accumulate and that leads to socialism, ergo even to poverty and suffering.

And here at the end, I have to say that I definitely have nothing against compassion as such and voluntary charity; I myself, in fact, devote a great percentage of my income and time to people who, I think, need a help because of adversity. I do not tell anyone how to invest their resources, who to help (if anyone) or how much. I criticize here a “social obligation” and forcing anyone to sacrifice their resources in favor of mass mitigation of impacts of people’s bad decisions, when they made their choice; this principle is not only immoral (because at the beginning there is a violent coercion), but also absolutely destructive for donors and recipients. Its inherent and inevitable presence in all the democracies of today’s type, in my view, necessarily calls for either a vigorous change (aimed at removing the decision-making power of the recipients of the help, but this path has many fatal deficiencies, but that would be on a different article) or the rejection of democracy as a system that has cruelly failed; I have to conclude a little pessimistically that with regard to how far the process has reached, it is likely that both the above-described solutions are almost unrealizable.

Other articles: Public goods in a democratic state, Gold standard, Increasing money supply or more


I've held for some time that democracy in practice is pathetic, but the idea is terrifying. A mob in power can do far more damage both to itself and the world in general than a simple autocrat. Even a manipulated mob is less malignant than one that guides itself.

I've heard for many times that a man can feel more free in monarchy than in a democracy... but it depends on the monarch. Still, both systems are based on violence.

I would say that mob is a definition of manipulated people.

This is true if you're refering to a pure Democracy. However, nations like the U.S don't have a pure Democracy. They have a Republic. There is a VERY big distinction. A pure democracy is simply majority rules. This is clearly dangerous as there's no real right and's simply dependant on how a majority of people feel on a given day.
In a Republic, the nation is NOT ruled by the majority, but by a governing set of laws. In America, that's the US Constitution. No matter what the majory says, the constitution can not be broken. This is a very important distinction. One that prevents many of the flaws a pure democracy would have.

Thank you for your comment.
If we are talking about this topic, I do not think that supporting the weak and growing taxes is something restricted by the US Constitution, although I have not read it. I think almost every democracy has a constitution but these documents just talk about the personal rights of individuals and about the state itself. The majority then can change anything else including reducing the consequences of bad decisions which is the right way to socialism.

Yes, many countries have their own constitution. I can only discuss the American Constitution as that’s where I live. You’re right, welfare and tax increases are not directly restricted by the US Constitution, although they are indirectly least they’re suppose to be.
The US Constitution only allows federal taxation for 2 reasons, the payment of US government debt and the defense/general welfare of US citizens. If you look back at the time it was written, this was obviously not meant to create a welfare state. Welfare was defined as “the good of all citizens”. The key word there is “ALL"...not just a select few.

Today, we think of welfare as money paid to a select few who don’t have it, or don’t have enough as defined by the federal government. This was NEVER the intention of the US Constitution. Unfortunately, far left politicians have appointed far left judges to reinterpret the US Constitution. Due to this, America finds itself with ever growing welfare paid to a select group of people in exchange for their votes. (of course this is never publicly acknowledged)

The beauty of the US constitution is, America’s founding fathers saw this corruption as a possibility. Due to this, they created and added Article 5 to the US Constitution. It basically allows an amendment to the constitution by the States...completely separate from the federal government. It’s called “A Convention of States”. To do this, 2 thirds of the States have to vote to make the amendment. So even this is not done by a simple majority. It requires a super majority of all the states. This is something American states are currently looking into with regard to a number of issues. One of the biggest being term limits for members of congress and federal judges.

There's no perfect system because human beings are imperfect by nature. That said, I believe a Republic is the best form of government when you consider all things. Communism has never worked for obvious reasons. Socialism is simply a ponzi scheme that eventually implodes and leads to communism.

Great article by the way. Very well researched. Followed.

Thank you for your response.
Although the US Constitution has a strict rules for tax increases you can't deny the fact that the taxes are increasing throughout the time. By the way, I have to say that I am not the original author of this article. In the Czech Republic, we have very good writers about libertarian - libertarians want to reduce the power of the state (these are called minarchists = supporters of just a minimal state) or even to erase the state (anarcho-capitalists) by, of course, peaceful education because you can force people to "glorify the king" in monarchy, "build better tommorows" in communism, "vote" in democracy, but definitely cannot force others to be trully freedom so that cannot be done by revolution but by evolution. And because we have such a good authors of thousands of libertarian texts, I decided rather to translate and just slightly edit them it so I am satisfied with that. I, of course, got a permission from the authors, whose texts I translate. You don't really need to become an anarcho-capitalist (I would not say I am a true anarcho-capitalist either) but I am convinced that if you read my articles, you will definitely re-evaluate some of your opinions.

Hello my friend.
Thanks for your response. Which opinions do you think I will re-evaluate? I was basically just giving you facts about the US constitution. I'd consider myself a libertarian for the most part. I'm a STRONG believer in reducing the power of government. I also agree with you about U.S taxes being increased. This is NOT the way our constitution was originally created. That's why I pointed out how our politicians have decided to reinterpret (change) the meaning of the US constitution over time. This is also why our States are starting to rise up and exercise article 5 of the US constitution which allows the States to make amendments outside of the federal government. This will hopefully reduce the power of government back to the way our nation's founders originally intended.

It sounds like you (and the people that write with you) are in agreement with me. Government should not have the power to endlessly tax certain people in the name of "fairness". When politicians decided what is and is not fair, it always ends in tyranny.
Anyway, I'd be very happy to read some of your writing. In the mean time, I'd like to recommend a great book to you that outlines the dangers of massive government power, as well as the warning signs to look for. It's called "Liberty and Tyranny" by Mark Levin. I think you'll find it's an EXCELLENT book with a wealth of knowledge to be gained by reading it. Here's a link to it if you're interested. I wish you all the best.

Oh, I am probably just used to the fact that there are statists around me everywhere. Although it is true in the real life, I am still quite surprised that there are so many libertarians concentrated around the crypto (which is only reasonable, as the cryptocurrencies are reaction on the financial lack of freedom). So sorry for that assumption. I will definitely post about many more topics, especially those which are affected by the state (education, drugs, weapons, healthcare, army, etc.), but I am probably not ready for writing my own libertarian articles yet, because I translate these articles mostly to find out more about it and also to discuss it, not because I am an true anarcho-capitalist. I would definitely consider myself as a libertarian but not as an anarcho-capitalist.
Thank you very much for discussing this topic with me and also for the book recommendation (but I am probably not able to read it, because my English is not on a level that would allow me to read English books... by the way, improving my English is another reason I am translating these articles). But the author, who writes these articles which I translate, has also written a book called Anarcho-capitalism (in the Czech language) and that could be probably more suitable substitute for me. :)
By the way, is here, on Steemit, some libertarian communities or something? I tried to find some, but I wasn't quite succesful.

I honestly don't know if there are any libertarian communities on Steemit. If I find any, I'll let you know. I look forward to reading your posts. I followed you. If you ever want any input from me, please don't hesitate to ask. I'm happy to support and help you guys any way I can. Take care my friend.

You got a 6.75% upvote from @postpromoter courtesy of @samotonakatoshi!

Want to promote your posts too? Check out the Steem Bot Tracker website for more info. If you would like to support the development of @postpromoter and the bot tracker please vote for @yabapmatt for witness!

Congratulation samotonakatoshi! Your post has appeared on the hot page after 16min with 10 votes.

Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by samotonakatoshi from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.

If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.