What's So Great about Representative Government? --- they can fill the USSC with 3 jews and 6 catholics?
On Dec 9, 11:53 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > What's So Great about Representative Government?Tuesday, December 07, 2010 > byStephen Mauzy > "Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" -- a clever metaphorical > descriptor of pure democracy sometimes attributed to that wellspring of > clever metaphorical descriptors Benjamin Franklin. Other founding fathers > were less clever and less metaphorical on democracy than Mr. Franklin, but > just as damning nonetheless: > "A simple democracy … is one of the greatest of evils." -- Benjamin Rush, > signer of the Declaration of Independence > "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders > itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John > Adams > "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have > ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of > property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have > been violent in their deaths." -- James Madison > Thank goodness for representative republicanism, then. If not for the > moderating oversight of deliberative, sapient representatives, the insatiable > plebeians would reduce life to a rent-seeking orgy -- continually pillaging > one contrived minority group after another for the putative benefit of the > commonweal.Facts ruin -- as they so often do -- a perfectly good theory. A > cursory vetting of the evidence reveals that elected representatives are no > more deliberative, nor sapient, nor any less rapacious than the plebeians > whose vote they seek. It is understandable, really: the plebeians, > theoretically and in fact, are the ultimate judge of all ideas and the source > of all power; thus, they demand a representative who excels in nullity and > mediocrity in order to best reflect majority opinion.[1] The plebeians demand > a mirror, even if it is cracked. > Indeed, the representatives, whose very charge is to deliberate the issues as > agents, have long ago abdicated their charge to the labor-saving wonders of > delegation: our elected representatives employ tens of thousands of > bureaucratic committees and myrmidons to consider and enforce that which they > either cannot or will not consider and enforce. The consequence -- intended > or not -- is a government able to invade every crevice of private life while > allowing elected representatives to live an unaccountable, leisurely, > gerrymander-assured existence.If our elected representatives at least trudged > their own water, physics would serve as a limiting agent: 535 elected > representatives and 24 hours in a day set a natural boundary on legislative > shenanigans. And for all the pooh-poohingof pure democracy by our founding > fathers, a pure democratic vote would only tighten the boundary. Even if the > plebeians know nothing about everything put before them, time, logistics, and > costs would attenuate the number of legislative afflictions.[2] > As Hans-Hermann Hoppe has so pointedlynoted, democracy is owned by no one. > But neither is representative government. Both are marked by infantilized > societies: time preference shortens, and current consumption trumps > wealth-producing capital formation; hence, tax burdens increase, government > debt swells, and inflation persists. Lower savings, legal uncertainty, moral > relativism, entitlement, impulsiveness, and obesity are the corollary. The > commentariat pensively asks why our government cannot save or plan. It simply > can't. > What are the alternatives?Montesquieunoted three main forms of government, > each supported by a social principle: monarchy, supported by the principle of > honor; republic, supported by the principle of virtue; and despotism, > supported by the principle of fear. Montesquieu added that governments > decline and fall as often by carrying their principle to excess as by > neglecting it altogether. > Representative republicanism long-ago exhausted virtue. Meanwhile, Kim Jong > Il, Idress Déby, Fidel Castro, and Robert Mugabe have proven that despotism > renders countries uninhabitable. And a monarchy? It always provokes a laugh > and a rote recital of the Revolutionary War slogan "no taxation without > representation!" But is a monarchy really so laughable, and is > taxationwithrepresentation superior to taxation without representation? > The king demanded a tribute, but not much of one. During the monarchical age, > the share of government revenue remained remarkably stable and low. Economic > historian Carlo Cipollanotes,All in all, one must admit that the portion of > income drawn by the public sector most certainly increased from the eleventh > century onward all over Europe, but it is difficult to imagine that, apart > from particular times and places, the public power ever managed to draw more > than 5 to 8 percent of national income.As for the level of tyranny, it could > ebb and flow with the king's whim but it mostly ebbed. > Tocquevilleobserved,There was a time in Europe in which the law, as well as > the consent of the people, clothed kings with a power almost without limits. > But almost never did it happen that they made use of it.Sure, the king could > have decreed that you not smoke, not ingest too much salt, not cut hair > without a license, or not use more than1.6 gallonsof water to dispose of > human waste, but he simply did not give a damn, unlike today's elected > representative, who is moreGladys Kravitzthan statesman. > The king was a capital owner in his domain, and he acted like one. Only an > idiot would risk lowering the value of his property while raising the > possibility of regicide over mindless minutia. And if the king was an idiot, > plenty of courtiers and sundry relatives were in waiting to set him straight. > Admittedly, the legitimacy of monarchical rule has been lost to Western > societies' insurmountable belief in the common man, but, unbeknown to Western > societies, so has the legitimacy of representative republicanism (at least it > has been lost to anyone who values freedom and liberty). The West has been > too inculcated in the corrosive ways of egalitarianism to rebuild itself. > Today's government-funded geneticists and sociologists are keen to prove, > with an impressive array of data and formulations, that all men are naturally > equal and if some are more equal than others, then the difference is > attributable to nurture, not to nature. > How untrue. Men are naturally unequal, as a casual conversation with any > neighbor, acquittance, or business associate soon reveals. The natural order > of a free society predicated on voluntary private-property transactions is > hierarchical and elitist. Diverse human talents (we are unique, after all) > dictate that a few individuals rise to the status of an elite. But elitism > always conjures jealousy in the mediocre majority, so the elites and their > natural talents are tamped down by the tyranny of egalitarianism.Instead of > repressing the talents of the elites to assuage perceived slights, we should > let them flourish, as we should all flourish, sans the stifflingly political > rigmarole of democracy and representative republicanism. No more of this > "get-out-the-vote" nonsense for inchoate, ungracious 18-year-olds and > multigenerational welfare recipients whose only purpose for voting is to vote > themselves more of someone else's property. Only a system directed, as Frank > Chodorovso eloquently put it, by "men of high purpose [who] give of their > talents for the common welfare, with no thought of recompense other than the > goodwill of the community," can sustain prosperity and freedom.[3] > Benjamin Franklin not only turned a sharp eye on democracy; he kept a wary > one on representative government as well. "When the people find they can vote > themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic," he is said to > have warned. > The truth is, we have been heralding the end of the republic since the > republic began, but the pace has quickened to a gallop in recent decades. It > has never been a question of if Western-style representative government will > collapse, but only a question of when. We need only to peer east toward > Western Europe to see that when is no longer a distant conundrum left to > torment unborn generations. When is very much upon us today. > Stephen Mauzy is a CFA charterholder, a financial writer, and principal of > S.P. Mauzy & Associates.Notes[1] The recent sprouting of "brave" politicians > standing against the TSAis hardly a coincidence.[2] It is also much more > difficult to lobby a divergent body of voters than a convergent body of > representatives.[3] I'm somewhat ambivalent on elites of high purpose, > because of the problems of transferability of expertise. For example, Bill > Gates was a brilliant businessman and software developer, but he has proven > to be a statistbuffoonin philanthropy.http://mises.org/daily/4871 -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
