Restoring Liberty Step-by-Step: Striking Down Democracy

  • Mar 13, 2007 at 12:45 PM

Often you hear or read how the United States is meant to be a Republic and not a Democracy. This is terminologically true back when the constitution was written. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government was founded, he answered; “A Republic, if you can keep it.” It is less true technically. A republic is still a semi-democratic state because principally it has some kind of open entry. It is also still publicly owned. In a republic, the government, unlike a monarchy, is not privately owned.

These two things have an effect on the course a republican (democratic) government will take, as the brilliant paleolibertarian Hans-Hermann Hoppe has written and lectured extensively on. Open entry will stir up competition in the production of governmental functions and activates. Competition to try to improve government’s functions and activates is to improve government’s evils. Publicly owned government is a government that cannot rationally calculate and therefore leads to ever increasing deficits and irrational economic behavior.

As I wrote in “Are ---We--- the Government?”:

[E]ven a democratic form of government is not “us.” Like a monarchy it is detached and separated. The difference is that one has a kind of “open” entry, which produces competition to stir up the masses in habitual wealth redistribution and destruction.

Now to quote Hans-Hermann Hoppe on redistribution in democratic governments:

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." This is not to say that there will be only one class of have-nots and one class of haves, and that the redistribution will occur uniformly from rich to poor. To the contrary. While the redistribution from rich to poor will always pay a prominent role, it would be a sociological blunder to assume that it will be the sole or even the predominant form of redistribution. [Democracy - The God That Failed, p 96]

*[Footnote 4: The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the overutilization, waste, or depletion of resources held in common (as publicly owned goods).]

Here are some suggestions that all paleos (paleoconservatives and paleolibertarians) should be able to support:

  1. All politicians running for office should not be allowed to vote in elections. After all, why should they vote in elections they are running in? They are our, at least in theory, our employees. (Please note that I emphasis in theory, even though it really does not work out this way.)
  2. Extend this to all government workers and politicians of all stripes who live off the taxpayers. They make their living by working for us. This is why, for the same reason as number one above, they should not be grated the "right" to vote. This includes government workers from public government school teachers to social welfare workers.
  3. People that receive welfare handouts. They too live (fully or partially) off the taxpayers. Taking away their "right" to vote may help get some welfare recipients off the welfare system. But, this even more so, would also cut down on all welfare since those voters wishing to vote for welfare for themselves would be taken out of the political system. This would be a great boon to the cause of Liberty.
  4. As in the past, only allow those who actually own actual land property to vote.
  5. I mention this because there have been reports of this happening. All illegal immigrants should not be granted the "right" to vote. (A side effect being that by allowing the vote to illegals, increases their movement to the United States artificially. It is a recipe for disaster.)
  6. I admit my ignorance on the next extension of number five. I am not exactly sure what the process is for (new) legal immigrants when it comes to voting. But what I will say is this: extend the waiting process several years. Actually, no, take voting privileges away completely.

Here is what Hoppe says about early democracies in "Natural Elites, Intellectuals, and the State":

There have been exceptions [to the fact that mankind has been more subject to monarchical rule then democratic], of course: Athenian democracy, Rome until 31 B.C., the republics of Venice, Florence, and Genoa during the Renaissance, the Swiss cantons since 1291, the United Provinces (the Netherlands) from 1648 until 1673, and England under Cromwell. But these were rare occurrences, and none of them remotely resembled modern, one man-one vote democratic systems. In Athens, for instance, no more than 5 percent of the population voted and was eligible for positions of rulership.

Extensions to even more severe discrimination of the requirements to vote would help put more shackles on government. However, it is hard to at this point suggest trying to allow only “natural elites” to vote, whereas only five percent of the "top" would get to vote. This is due to the fact that the wealthiest people today owe their wealth less on productive efforts and more on unproductive governmental efforts. But it is time for paleoconservatives all the way to (real) libertarians to support restricting voting access. Yes, it may be some kind of "mechanical solution." Normally I am against mechanical solutions in general, but this is a step towards some kind of decentralization and depowering people with Leviathan. So I believe it is in a different category.

(It will never happen, but it would be a wise step to take.)

Reading Material:

Tags:

Next Posts

Previous Posts