Democracy -> loose fiscal policy -> bondage
Janette Eldridge
Janette:
Historian and Zulu War expert Peter Quantrill sent this to The Mercury today:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequences:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From great courage to liberty;
From liberty to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
Question: How far down the road are we?”
An interesting opinion. I was hoping that this time round modern technology would help us move forward from democracy and thus saving us from returning to bondage, but I am beginning to have my doubts.
Leon Louw (gmail)
Janette:
Historian and Zulu War expert Peter Quantrill sent this to The Mercury today:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover (All existing democracies have not only lasted well beyond that point, which is presumably early on, but out-perform other forms of government in every indexed criterion) they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits (No, many elections give 'conservative' and 'liberal' parties majorities, especially in regional and local elections - everyone can think of examples) from the public treasury with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship (This is a bald assertion - what's the source/evidence?).
The average age of the world’s greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been 200 years (No, as everyone knows the Egyprion, Inca, Roman and Greek 'civilisations' - depending on what one means by the term - lasted much longer as did others such as China, India's 'golden bird' era, the Incas, Ireland's 800 yrs of virtual anarchy etc. Anyway, what's the supposed lifespan of 'civilisations' got to do with the supposed lifespan of 'democracies"?). During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequences:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From great courage to liberty;
From liberty to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
Question: How far down the road are we?”
An interesting opinion. I was hoping that this time round modern technology would help us move forward from democracy and thus saving us from returning to bondage, but I am beginning to have my doubts.
( Like Julian Simon, I note that nothwithstanding perennial predictions by doomsayers that the sky is about to fall - been so since Neanderthal I assume - most things get better most of the time for most people in most countries.)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "LibertarianSA" group.
To post to this group, send email to li...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libsa+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libsa?hl=en.
Garth Zietsman
Janette Eldridge
Whew! Thank you for restoring my faith in the future Leon.
Now I am back to hoping we will move on to something better than democracy.
On Behalf Of Leon Louw
(gmail)
Janette Eldridge
On Behalf Of Garth
Zietsman
I agree with Leon.
Modern political research has shown that people don't in fact 'vote their narrow selfish economic interests'
Well that should surprise politicians who are forever appealing to the voter’s self interests, economic or otherwise!
For example the ANC was voted in out of loyalty,
In 1994 that would have definitely been true
in spite of not delivering on redistribution or welfare,
after 1994, I presumed, it was not so much `loyalty’ but `the guilt at voting for an opposition party’
and the hope that this time they would keep their promise (the battered wife syndrome)
and (secure) old people are less likely to vote for social security
because they don’t want to waste their retirement funds on youngsters?
But surely insecure/poor old people would still hope to benefit from social security?,
women are more likely to oppose abortion on demand, etc.
Wow! I find that difficult to accept
Voters have also shown anger at financial mismanagement or greed by politicians and their supporters
In that case are you predicting that the ANC (the main culprits by far) are going to be out of office in the next election! ??
- look at the reaction to the British members of parliament misusing public funds.
Well the British voters are then in a dilemma as all three of the major parties and the House of Lords have been found to have misused public funds. Will this cause a lower voter turn out?
These are interesting points Garth – anymore where these came from?
Trevor Watkins
All existing democracies have not only lasted well beyond that point, which is presumably early on, but out-perform other forms of government in every indexed criterion)
Leon Louw (gmail)
----- Original Message -----
From: Janette Eldridge
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:34 PM
Subject: RE: [Libsa] Democracy -> loose fiscal policy -> bondage
On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
I agree with Leon.
Modern political research has shown that people don't in fact 'vote their narrow selfish economic interests'
Well that should surprise politicians who are forever appealing to the voter’s self interests, economic or otherwise!
I'm tempted to rewind to the quote that started this, on which I just want to add my old favourite point about the binary imperative, and the point John Hsopers used to make: that ‘it ain't so simple’.
Democracy, like most things, is a complex mix of good, bad and random. This was explored with sopgisticated mathematical and logic models by Gordon Tullock. Making the points I did - mainly concerns about impirical veracity - doesn't imply I'm for whatever democracy dishes up. I assume no one is, that everyone would like it to deliver their precise set of preferences.
I'm mindful and scared of the mob rule, plunder andcontrol democracy (crudely defined) implies. Yet, as Churchhill siad, it's the worst form of government except for all the others. Jim would have agreed, and argued (I think) that we may not need any 'form of government'.
Propery defined, democracy entails elaborate checks and balances such as a bill of rights, independent courts, rule of law etc. Remember that every provision other than the right to vote in a majority is a constraint on democracy. One might even cal checks and balances anti-democratic (ie anti-majority rule).
For example the ANC was voted in out of loyalty,
In 1994 that would have definitely been true
in spite of not delivering on redistribution or welfare,
after 1994, I presumed, it was not so much `loyalty’ but `the guilt at voting for an opposition party’
and the hope that this time they would keep their promise (the battered wife syndrome)
and (secure) old people are less likely to vote for social security
because they don’t want to waste their retirement funds on youngsters?
But surely insecure/poor old people would still hope to benefit from social security?
One of the anomalies of majority rule is the universal favoured treatment of farmers. They're a tiny monority in all countries and unable to secure a majority even in a small country town, yet electorates (and their representatives) always pander to their needs by voting subsidies, protection etc. The mere fact that is such a thing as a depeartment of agriculture is anomalous. They’re simply an enterprise and should be treated like any other.
Other curious outcomes of democracy are government support of the arts and pandering to diverse munite interest groups. The favoured treatment of academics is also curious.
women are more likely to oppose abortion on demand, etc.
Wow! I find that difficult to accept
I suppose it depends on who demands it. Just joking.
This may not be anomalous. Most women in most countries apparently regard abortion as murder - they aren’t so much anti-choice (with taxpayer funding) as pro-life (ditto). They support government programs to care for voteless inigent children, and laws forcing parents to care for children.
Voters have also shown anger at financial mismanagement or greed by politicians and their supporters
In that case are you predicting that the ANC (the main culprits by far) are going to be out of office in the next election! ??
If anything is counter-intuitive about democracy, Garth, it’s the degree to which voters accept government incompetence and corruption. For me, this is truly astounding. It may be some deep-seated thing about leaders and rulers – ‘the king can do no wrong’ idea.
Take a recent conversation with educated sophisticated people where someone noted that Gautrain looks headed to costing 4 times the original price and generating half the original revenue. That surprises no one – they expect it. Now imagine a conversation to the effect that this was the case regarding the latest Pick n Pay branch or Anglo mine. Everyone would be astounded, Including Vavi, Malema and Cronin. Yet voters want monuments build for politicians, never for entrepreneurs. They stand when heads of state enter, not when heads of corporations. And they invest incredible amounts of time and money getting governments into power, and devoting their lives to keeping them there. It’s weird!
- look at the reaction to the British members of parliament misusing public funds.
Well the British voters are then in a dilemma as all three of the major parties and the House of Lords have been found to have misused public funds. Will this cause a lower voter turn out?
These are interesting points Garth – anymore where these came from?
Garth
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Leon Louw (gmail) <leon...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is interesting but full of fatal errors (below).
2010/1/19 Janette Eldridge <ray...@iafrica.com>
Janette:
Historian and Zulu War expert Peter Quantrill sent this to The Mercury today:
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover (All existing democracies have not only lasted well beyond that point, which is presumably early on, but out-perform other forms of government in every indexed criterion) they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits (No, many elections give 'conservative' and 'liberal' parties majorities, especially in regional and local elections - everyone can think of examples) from the public treasury with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship (This is a bald assertion - what's the source/evidence?).
The average age of the world’s greatest civilisations from the beginning of history has been 200 years (No, as everyone knows the Egyprion, Inca, Roman and Greek 'civilisations' - depending on what one means by the term - lasted much longer as did others such as China, India's 'golden bird' era, the Incas, Ireland's 800 yrs of virtual anarchy etc. Anyway, what's the supposed lifespan of 'civilisations' got to do with the supposed lifespan of 'democracies"?). During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequences:
(This is an old favourite I used to quote with zeal in my twenties but, on reflection, it's no more than elegant twaddle based on flimsy evidence long ago - without the benefit of observing modern democracies Alexander Tyler - if it was he - expected the imminent demise of democracy in 1787. See eg Snopes on the origin of the email currently doing the rounds. When I first encountered this supposed quote it probably referred to Harold Wilson.or Jimmy Carter. Since then the electorate voted in Reagan, Vaclav Klaus, Thatcher and Roger Douglas.)
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From great courage to liberty;
From liberty to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
Question: How far down the road are we?”
An interesting opinion. I was hoping that this time round modern technology would help us move forward from democracy and thus saving us from returning to bondage, but I am beginning to have my doubts.
Like Julian Simon, I note that nothwithstanding perennial predictions by doomsayers that the sky is about to fall - been so since Neanderthal I assume - most things get better most of the time for most people in most countries.
--
Garth Zietsman
On Behalf Of Garth Zietsman
I agree with Leon.
Modern political research has shown that people don't in fact 'vote their narrow selfish economic interests'
Well that should surprise politicians who are forever appealing to the voter’s self interests, economic or otherwise!
I'm tempted to rewind to the quote that started this, on which I just want to add my old favourite point about the binary imperative, and the point John Hsopers used to make: that ‘it ain't so simple’.
Democracy, like most things, is a complex mix of good, bad and random. This was explored with sopgisticated mathematical and logic models by Gordon Tullock. Making the points I did - mainly concerns about impirical veracity - doesn't imply I'm for whatever democracy dishes up. I assume no one is, that everyone would like it to deliver their precise set of preferences.
I'm mindful and scared of the mob rule, plunder andcontrol democracy (crudely defined) implies. Yet, as Churchhill siad, it's the worst form of government except for all the others. Jim would have agreed, and argued (I think) that we may not need any 'form of government'.
Propery defined, democracy entails elaborate checks and balances such as a bill of rights, independent courts, rule of law etc. Remember that every provision other than the right to vote in a majority is a constraint on democracy. One might even cal checks and balances anti-democratic (ie anti-majority rule).
For example the ANC was voted in out of loyalty,
In 1994 that would have definitely been true
in spite of not delivering on redistribution or welfare,
after 1994, I presumed, it was not so much `loyalty’ but `the guilt at voting for an opposition party’
and the hope that this time they would keep their promise (the battered wife syndrome)
and (secure) old people are less likely to vote for social security
because they don’t want to waste their retirement funds on youngsters?
But surely insecure/poor old people would still hope to benefit from social security?
One of the anomalies of majority rule is the universal favoured treatment of farmers. They're a tiny monority in all countries and unable to secure a majority even in a small country town, yet electorates (and their representatives) always pander to their needs by voting subsidies, protection etc. The mere fact that is such a thing as a depeartment of agriculture is anomalous. They’re simply an enterprise and should be treated like any other.
Other curious outcomes of democracy are government support of the arts and pandering to diverse munite interest groups. The favoured treatment of academics is also curious.
women are more likely to oppose abortion on demand, etc.
Wow! I find that difficult to accept
I suppose it depends on who demands it. Just joking.
This may not be anomalous. Most women in most countries apparently regard abortion as murder - they aren’t so much anti-choice (with taxpayer funding) as pro-life (ditto). They support government programs to care for voteless inigent children, and laws forcing parents to care for children.
Voters have also shown anger at financial mismanagement or greed by politicians and their supporters
In that case are you predicting that the ANC (the main culprits by far) are going to be out of office in the next election! ??
If anything is counter-intuitive about democracy, Garth, it’s the degree to which voters accept government incompetence and corruption. For me, this is truly astounding. It may be some deep-seated thing about leaders and rulers – ‘the king can do no wrong’ idea.
Take a recent conversation with educated sophisticated people where someone noted that Gautrain looks headed to costing 4 times the original price and generating half the original revenue. That surprises no one – they expect it. Now imagine a conversation to the effect that this was the case regarding the latest Pick n Pay branch or Anglo mine. Everyone would be astounded, Including Vavi, Malema and Cronin. Yet voters want monuments build for politicians, never for entrepreneurs. They stand when heads of state enter, not when heads of corporations. And they invest incredible amounts of time and money getting governments into power, and devoting their lives to keeping them there. It’s weird!
- look at the reaction to the British members of parliament misusing public funds.
Well the British voters are then in a dilemma as all three of the major parties and the House of Lords have been found to have misused public funds. Will this cause a lower voter turn out?
These are interesting points Garth – anymore where these came from?
Janette Eldridge
Garth: . . . Hence they sometimes vote for protectionist policies or farming subsidies (delusionally thinking these things are good for the whole) even when they know? they will end up paying more for the product.
Janette: I don’t think they do know this. Why should they – when were they ever taught this – when was this ever explained to them? Certainly not in schools, and very like not even in economic classes in most universities.
The FMF can only do so much. It is up to us “we few, we happy few, we band of brothers” (who make up probably .005% of the population) to explain. But how. If we could, if we would, I think they (the general public) would be receptive. J
Leon . . . Making the points I did - mainly concerns about impirical veracity - doesn't imply I'm for whatever democracy dishes up. I assume no one is, that everyone would like it to deliver their precise set of preferences.
I'm mindful and scared of the mob rule, plunder and control democracy (crudely defined) implies. Yet, as Churchhill said, it's the worst form of government except for all the others.
Janette: Wasn’t Churchill talking about democracy in a generic form.
Certain forms of democracy are more likely to lead to dictatorship – `Wisdom of the Crowds’, mob rule, 51%-gets-all, and even proportional representative.
Other forms of democracy such as a canton/referendum mix (as Frances so valiantly tried to explain for 1994) are a much better species of democracy.
There are just too many forms of democracy. People are muddled. They see all species as one and the same thing. I think if we had completely different names for these different species whole new movements would gravitate to their preferred choice (for better or for worse). The situation would become understandable. A separation of the different named forms of democracy would encourage clearer thinking.
Garth: I am in favour of democracy and I say that in spite of recognising its deficiencies and risks. I think it has major 'Wisdom of the Crowds' advantages but whether democracy functions to produce balance and sense, or descends to mob rule, depends crucially on the checks and balances in place, and on the openness Soros (Popper) is so fond of.
. . .