I keep running into the same annoying argument by the (pro-democracy) left that democracy will work, but we just need to get the “good” people into office.
Now, the argument itself is so abysmally naive that my brain usually shuts down when I run into it. There are so many approaches to dismantling it. But my problem is that I’d like to have a simple and destructive argument against it. Long-winded arguments just don’t seem effective enough and I keep thinking there should be a very simple argument against it.
Tell them that politicians always screw up, e.g. Obama getting the most donations from trial lawyers, Fannie & Freddie, and Big Labor. Say that the best government is the one that rules least, and that therefore, electing the “best” guy won’t do anything.
Since I turned anti-democracy I have ran into this problem a lot. Tell people you refuse to vote for president and they think you’re some sort of nutjob.
I usually respond along those lines. But it just isn’t as effective and witty as I’d like the response to be. Also, it’s not theoretically impossible to vote in a guy who will make things marginally better and the pro-democracy crowd seem to base their irrationality on this. The fact that this logic, at best, makes democracy a crapshoot with truly terrible odds for the people, doesn’t seem to phase their stance.
What’s worse is that people you would usually consider to be good patriots throw the idea of “overthrow of the state” out of the equation when they think we can actually elect someone who can do a good job.
I use that basic argument for everything. If the minimum wage works, why isn’t it a living wage? If the government can control unemployment, why are there still people without jobs? If the government can manage the economy, why are we in a recession? If the government printing money (increasing liquidity) can pay off bad debt, why doesn’t it print a bunch and pay off all debt?
The best argument against democracy IMO, is not one of philosophy. The average meat head doesn’t have a clue about Rothbard or Rand, Aristotle or Long. It would take weeks to bring them up to speed, assuming they would even be willing to make that investment between stuffing their faces and text voting on American/Canadian Idol.
Quite simply, if democracy works, then why isn’t the government responding to issue X, Y and Z? Why hasn’t it been able to solve A, B or C despite have the power [sic] and mandate for the last X years?
It’s important to remind people. Taxation is theft. Democracy is tyranny. War is murder. These are simple, fundamental truths.
To which they will reply “because we have the wrong people in the government”. Its the Democrats or Republicans (depending on who you ask) that have stood in the way of progress on “fixing” things.
To which you reply, then it has never worked, because there have never been the right people in government, which begs the question, is it even possible to get the right people into government?
Democracy suffers from a major problem, and it is in this regard it differs from the market: voters have no incentive to educate themselves on matters they vote on. They are too distant to them, and even if they weren’t, the effects of social policy are difficult to trace, so informed decisions are hard to make. Not only that, but there’s little incentive to become informed. One does not bear the costs of their stupidity, but rather society as a whole does. Also, by allowing one control over the property of others (by ballot), democracy suffers from an inherent moral hazard. Throw in the fact that democratic custodians are nothing but short-term caretakers of the resources entrusted to them, and you have a recipe for disaster. In short: democracy socializes the costs of bad policies, leaving only what little good they do to remain obvious. It’s the institutionalization of ignorance and moral hazard.
Unfortunately, I think you’ll find plenty of libertarians who buy into the same notion (only more hypocritically, since many critisize democracy out of the other side of their mouths), except it’s a libertarian government that they envision. So maybe it’s the libertarians who need convincing first before they can continue on trying to convince others about this.
But who are the “good” people ?? If you’re talking to a leftist he’ll say the commie politicians should be elected - it’s self-evident they are the good people. And if you talk to a neocon or other right-wing nut he’ll tell you bush should be elected. So, there seems to be no “good” people that the ‘citizens’ would agree should rule them ?
Right, so in this sense doesn’t the concept of democracy self-destruct anyways, rendering a truly pure democratic state impossible (due to both the inherently exclusive nature of the state and the vast diversity in preferances among the masses)? Yea, me thinks that the diversity of human traits and preferances kind of nullifies the whole concept, unless one maintains a right of individual secession, at which point it’s anarchy, not democracy.
This is the stuff of Arthurian legend. If only we had “the true king,” then we would have only blue skies every day, and flowers would blossom, and gold would flow in the rivers and streams. This gives the political leaders undeserved glory. In reality, they produce absolutely nothing for society. Anything they promise to give you is something that they are actually going to take away from you.
Wow. I was just going to express a similar sentiment, but you beat me to it.
When somebody talks about the “right” kind of politician, they mean a politician who would say and do and think exactly as they themselves would say and do and think. Basically, he is saying, “everything would be just great if I were in charge”.
I notice all politicians think that anything the government does is wrong, unless they are the ones doing it. For example, you might hear a Democrat talking about how wrong it is to intervene militarily, and then later describe where he would intervene militarily. Or you might hear a Republican talking about how she promises to get rid of the lobbyists, and then later on admit to hiring a lobbyist to petition for federal funding for Alaska. In either case, “it’s wrong–unless I’m doing it.”
The problem is most people are naive enough to think that under a democracy the people really are in control and the “right people” are going to turn up.
But seriously though, Rothbard mentions somewhere* that to rise through the political ranks you have to be cunning, devious and a good liar. The system ensures that the best people are brought to power. The best at deception, that is.
*I think it was Rothbard but I have no idea where he said it
I always say, “For what reason do you need to vote”. If they are mildly smart they may ponder over it. But for simple people I just say " How long are we going to try the same failed solution ( government, democracy) expecting something different"
“All politicians are corrupt, it is just getting the least corrupt one in” they say. I say " If they are all corrupt, why do you support giving the corrupt power
"
That might have been Hayek in Serfdom, but all the same argument
“We just need to vote the right people into office”
The fact that this doesn’t happen should be a good enough argument against “democracy.”
There, that simple.
Actually, that’s a horrible argument. For one, we don’t have majoritarianism, which is these people really mean by democracy, I suspect. And two, it’s more of an argument against representative government or electoral dictatorship, the former which might also be called “democracy.” So whatever, all government will always fail to live up to its ideal. I think people should just abandon the naive notion that The People™ make up the government, or government works for The People™, and see politics in a more realistic light, mainly that of power and how that power is wielded over others. It’s not comforting, but deal with it.
