Political Democracy vs Economic Democracy
President Woodrow Wilson wanted to “make the world safe for democracy” when he went before a joint session of the US Congress on April 2, 1917 to seek a declaration of war against Germany.
Of course US Presidents don’t seek “declarations of war” from Congress any more – so I guess the world was made safer!!
But what did he mean by the term “safe for democracy”? What is so good about democracy? What is democracy?
Personally, I don’t see anything good about democracy – and certainly do not support the notion of making the world “safe” for it. For what is democracy after all, if not a euphemism for mob rule?
Was it not democracy that brought Hitler to power?
Democracy is majority rule. If 60% of the population want to tax 10% of the population at the rate of 90%, then the 10% so targeted have nothing to complain about – because it’s the will of the majority of people.
Democracy cannot be moral. Morality is not determined by the counting of heads. Can it be moral that people vote for a policy that steals money off their neighbours in order to fund their personal choice of lifestyle?
I recall many years ago, in New Zealand, when the Domestic Purposes Benefit was introduced (DPB). This was to be a financial payment made to young unmarried women who had children.
In other words, the majority of New Zealanders voted in a policy where young women could get pregnant then be paid to stay at home (minus any husband), using money collected off other tax payers.
I can tell you, it wasn’t long before young married couples, those who did not yet have children, were asking questions like, “Why are we paying for other single women to bring up children when we don’t even have children of our own?”
Think of it this way. If say a young woman neighbour of yours was to get pregnant, would you think it moral that she demanded that you support her and her child? And would you think it any more moral if the woman in question instead asked the government to take the money off you (tax) and pay it to her? Would her using a third party (government) to get your money make it more moral?
Of course not. The truth is democracy is simply majority rule, and there is nothing inherently “right” about the majority. However, if such a majority uses its power to abuse any minority (including the minority of one), then such a democracy is nothing more than the application of the idea “might makes right”.
Political democracy turns out to be thuggery in disguise.
But there is another form of democracy in which nobody is abused, where no one is forced to do anything they don’t want to, and where freedom reigns. I’m talking about economic democracy – the voluntary voting that goes on every day in the market place.
The market place is an economic democracy, a haven of freedom in an otherwise unfree world. In this economic democracy you vote with dollars. Every time you spend some, you are voting for whatever you have purchased.
If you buy a BMW car, then you are voting with your dollars for the BMW company. If BMW does a good job and pleases all its voters, then it gets to make a lot of money. If it fails to satisfy its voters, then it will lose money – in lost “votes”.
If you buy a McDonald’s burger, then you are voting for McDonalds – and registering your preference for their burgers over those of another company.
Every time you choose to buy something, or choose not to buy something, you are voting in the democratic market place. You are deciding which companies are profitable and which are not. You are deciding who will be rewarded and who will not.
In an economic democracy you can become rich by gathering the most votes. You can also lose your shirt, should you fail to impress the voters.
Your dollar is as good as any one else’s. The dollar is a dollar, no matter whether it is in the hand of a child, an old woman, a black man, a Chinese woman, a gay nightclub dancer, a Democrat or a Republican. Each dollar carries the same voting power.
When you vote with your dollars you are doing so to get what you actually want. And the good news is, when you exchange your dollars this way, the person selling you the goods or services is also getting exactly what he or she wants. In other words, economic democracy is a win/win situation – unlike political democracy, which is decidedly win/lose – or even lose/lose.
Next time you “vote” by buying anything, consider what you are doing. You are participating in economic democracy. And next time you vote in an election, also consider what you are doing. You are participating in political democracy – where what you get is bound to be at the expense of someone else, and what you spend (taxes) never gives you what you want.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Hey David…do you think it’s possible to create a kind of “Democracy 2.0″, whereby an internet-based infrastructure is created, wiring everyone’s homes with internet access, creating regional hubs that handle and coordinate a given regions citizens political activity, then feeding to a central hub that tallies all of the information gathered into actual values or votes for and against particulars of how the governmental body operates?
For example, let’s say that each week/month (naturally a modified system would have to emerge), pending laws or bills, initiatives in any/all of the respective ministries are published to a website, where citizens then vote on those things presented. Out of this would emerge a kind of “real-time democracy”, showing what the actual wants of the citizens are much more clearly and appropriately than the current “representative democracy”.
This information may not actually be the final decision, but could be used to make clearer and more informed decisions. It would certainly cut out the role of the middlemen that make up the bulk of the governmental bodies, consume too much of its resources, stall too much progress, and succumb to the allure of greed.
Another possibility is perhaps parallel to yours, but is done with tax dollars in a similar fashion to what I am exploring above. Imagine being able to distribute your tax dollars at your discretion, and the government would act within the constraints of what funding it had access to. Requests for funding could be put forth, lists of prioritized projects, and so forth; a more transparent and directly accountable government that, perhaps for the first time in history, functions entirely for the benefit of the people it serves.
I realize these are not well developed ideas I’m suggesting, more of a glimpse into possibility, and certainly open-ended as ideas. What do you think?
Interesting ideas Sean, but still a political arrangement – something I’d like to get away from. However, the internet does indeed provide an interesting insight into anarchic organisation. The internet has no “ruler”, no government. It is a self-organising social interaction environment, a virtual society/world. On the internet you have complete freedom to read, write, watch, interact, buy, sell, do business etc., all without any government regulation. What holds the internet together is a market mechanism – voluntary interaction.
The fact is, all the things the government does can be done without government. Just take one glaring example. Food is perhaps the most essential of human needs (after water) and yet we manage to organise its production, distribution and consumption without the need for government. It’s all done via the voluntary free market.
All that is needed for a truly free society to come into being is to model it on the economic democracy model – the free market – within a framework of 100% protection of property (your life, your actions, your possessions).
The police do not stop our houses being burgled, nor our being mugged in dark alleys. They only come along after, and attempt to catch the perpetrators. Whereas the free market can produce security solutions to protect us – like private security services for homes.
Private dispute/conflict resolution services could be set up instead of government courts. Within a framework of 100% protection of property (as all conflict is over property of one kind or another) such arbitration services could efficiently resolve such disputes.
I could go on, and on ….
There is nothing the government presently does that could not be done by the free market – and then you’d have a situation where you would pay what you want and need, and only that. You would not be forced to pay for something you didn’t need (via any form of tax).
Democracy is the means to an end – not the end. So, when Obama said: “Let’s get away from ideology . . .” What the hell was he saying? “Trust me, I’ll just wing it as we go along”. The problem is, if you do away with one system you have to have something better to put in it’s place – and for that to happen you will have to sell the idea to the majority. And when you sell something to someone you have to show them how they will benefit.
One of the things we are not taught at school (and certainly not by our parents) is the benefits of risk.
Why are we discussing Democracy? This malevolent system has been foisted upon us by the International Banksters to replace our Republican form of government based on the Common Law that said Banksters found so distasteful. Why did they find it distasteful? It is extremely difficult to enslave a population from within when the sole premise of the legal system is to keep men honorable about their agreements and to prohibit them from commiting torts against their fellow man. It has been said that Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on the evening dinner menu. The two wolves are the Banksters and all those whom they have enticed through handouts to vote for “leg of Lamb”.
My apologies for such a delay in replying, there was a death in the family that took some time and attention…I appreciate the comments. Good points about government…I agree that personal autonomy represents the highest functioning form of society possible, and in an effort to transition to that, I figure that this ‘Democracy 2.0′ I’m suggesting would be a way to quickly transform government from a political institution back to its original functional role as a means of organizing and distributing resources on behalf of the population.
Very quickly, the middlemen or “representatives” – MP’s, Senators, and the like – would become redundant as people addressed current issues themselves. Even to run it as a prototype in a smaller scale experimental environment, it would quickly become apparent that the will of the people is far different than the will of the few who represent the people. Eventually, as language is reworked to better represent the subjects that people would be voting on, the growth and development of society would become a kind of living thing.
At least, that’s how I see it in its idealized form.
Open source voting system being promoted in the US:
http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/