The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
– Alexis de Tocqueville (attributed to…)
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayAugust 20th, 2011 |
 42 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
And of course there’s the roughly parallel and very poorly sourced apophthegm (Alexander Tytler seems to get the nod, mostly): “[…]A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.[…]”
Do we have a source for this quotation? No snark intended, I only ask because I’ve seen a similar sentiment attributed to various different people.
A good quote, though.
I suppose its corollary is that . . . . . “will endure until people become deceived (stupid?) enough to be bribed with their own money”.
The future has arrived!
Yup, well-established that Tocqueville never said it.
Oh? Explain.
Someone who did make the same point: Ross Perot –
They’re bribin’ ya with yer own money!
Aristotle, paraphrased
Well, I did a quick electronic search of “Democracy in America” (the most likely source) and couldn’t find this quote (or anything equivalent). Clearly the concept has found expression in a number of places over the years, which of course does nothing to detract from its validity. I’m partial to the version attributed to Sir Alexander Tytler (as noted by David Giles above), a more complete version of which is:
Except Tytler didn’t say it.
Who did then?
Who did then?
It’s discussed in the link I provided. Nobody knows for sure. But it doesn’t appear in any of Tytler’s writings. Tytler died in 1813 and the first documented version of the quote doesn’t appear until 1951.
I’m aware of that, Eric. That’s that the word “attributed” means, and why I used it.
The second “that” = “what”. Oops.
No one searches the source of rain, only the source of rivers
No one searches the source of rain, only the source of rivers
Does bribing the public with money borrowed from China count?
I’m not sure what the survival of democracy has to do with these quotes which, otherwise, make a very good point very well.
I mean if a democracy were constituted so that no one who is not a net taxpayer, or owner of land, for instance (the details of this can be difficult, ahem), had a vote, then I am inclined to think the problem identified by Tytler/Tocqueville/Huevva goes away.
In other words, I am not sure democracy per se is the problem, except as currently constituted.
Apart from the fact that the first acknowledged print of this quotation appears in 1951, it is also a problem of context.
The problem itself only seems to appear where there is universal suffrage. During Alexander Tytler’s time, universal suffrage was almost unknown, even in supposedly the worlds greatest democracy, women didn’t get the vote until the 1920’s.
Equally, the majority of the worlds democratic parliaments were primarily run by the rich for the rich. Even where there were liberal or social democratic parties these understood that giving largess to the general population in the form of unfunded welfare was the road to ruin.
It wasn’t until after the global depression in the 1920’s / 1930’s and the Second World War until this quote could be genuinely seen to be true, so the fact of it’s appearing in print in 1951 is appropriate as it could only have been held to be true since about 20 or 30 years prior to that and only in liberal / welfare oriented societies, primarily in Western Europe and to a far lesser extent the United States.
However, it does seem to describe the modern situation in the United Kingdom and probably most of Western Europe quite well.
Presumably, this is why it has been repeated quite a lot in recent years by those on the libertarian side of the fence.
For myself, I don’t think democracy per se is the problem. It appears to me that it is ‘representative’ democracy that is the problem.
Switzerland is the only country that really implements any real form of direct democracy and they seem to be doing pretty well.
Surely the important point is not who said it but simply that it was said.
Nick, I do agree, and it is the stupidity of the electorate to be so conned that seems to me to be the main issue.
You can’t really con a person who has seen and sees what is going on.
I hope.
John, can you explain how a direct democracy is supposed to alleviate the problem described in the quote?
Sorry, I was addressing “John Galt”…
That is a very interesting point.
But I still don’t see it…:-(
I would agree with Stephen Wilmer except for that fact that even if the franchise were restricted to those who actually pay for government, i.e., taxpayers (a position with which I agree, by the way), the problem would remain that the taxpayers with less would still be voting themselves largesse from the pockets of those with more. So while limiting the franchise would help, in the end this is a problem with democracy per se (and whether it’s the direct or representative sort is largely irrelevant).
@Alisa:
Let me try and explain why I think that it is representative democracy that is specifically the point here.
Since it would appear that the majority of the electorate are in favour of reducing or withdrawing from the EU, but the vast majority of parliamentary MP’s are in favour (or at least neutral) to the EU then it appears that there is a big disconnect between the electorate and their representatives.
There is also the matter the way that politicians are pushed through the parliamentary food chain is to become junior ministers->cabinet ministers->Big 3 ministerial positions (Home Office, Foreign Secretary, Chancellor)->PM which (lets face it), is the only thing MP’s go for the job in the first place. It’s the starting ladder to be PM.
As they evolve through the ranks of ministers they are programmed by their civil servants to:
1. Push through the recommended agenda of that department.
2. Ensure that budgets are increased year-on-year in real terms.
3. Ensure that resource levels (primarily civil servants) are maintained and expanded in line with the budget as this is the way that the senior civil servants justify their own roles and salaries.
All of the above ensures (to a certain extent) that government policy remains pretty much the same never mind which party is elected. Civil Servants don’t really care about what direction individual ministries are pushed in (Centralisation / Decentralisation, Nationalisation / Privatization, etc.) as long as the 3 principle points above are maintained.
Even the supposably radical government of Mrs. Thatcher in 1983 – 1987 did not change any of the fundamentals of either the growth of the state or EU intrusion to the extent that the electorate as a whole would have preferred.
This is why I say that a form of direct democracy would lead to a more liberarian society as the automatic inflation of the state would lose its primary supporters – MP’s looking for rent seeking appointments in government departments.
To my recollection, the Swiss vote four times a year, on or around the quarter days. In addition to specific proposed legislation, propositions can be placed upon the ballot box as long as they have sufficient backing from the electorate in the form of a signed petition.
There are some negative effects to this (such as the introduction of legislation banning minarets), but overall the people get the legislation that they demand.
From a UK perspective, this would probably mean the reintroduction of hanging, but it would also probably mean the repeal of vast swathes of legislation that the general population are fundamentally at odds with (EU, Health and Safety, etc.)
Since a new finance bill would need to be passed each year, then I strongly suspect that a lot of the tax increases we’ve seen during the New Labour period would never get passed. This alone would be a great limiter on the state.
In summary, that is why I think that Representative Democracy is the problem rather than Democracy in it’s pure form.
What seems to be missing here, with all the references to democracy, electorates and representation, is a qualification: What are the functions of government in the particular social order?
Deal with that qualification first, and the rest of the issues of the forms of participation of the members of a social order (church, state, guild, council, federal) tend to fall in comprehensible (even if not desirable) patterns.
One does not have to be much of scholar to observe what has transpired with the functions of the Federal government in the U S., particularly in the period from about 1907, with accelerations in the first half of the 20th century (my cognative lifetime); with roots back into the changes in state government functions and other movements after the maturation (about 1890) of the last expansions.
In the U S we have witnessed (are witnessing) fundamental changes in what is actively sought as the function of our legal system, in what has come to be accepted as functions of our Federal system, and in reduced or subordinated functions of state and local governments.
Social anthropologists may come with theories of how and why this has come to be so; such as urbanization and industrialization, mecahnization, regimentation in wartimes; but, it is what it has become. It is not “stupidity” of an electorate necessarily, it is not necessarily cupidity. It seems to be the result of that which enough of the members at various class levels favor, but for which there are not (yet?) adequate social mechanisms to achieve.
In most of the West, there seems to have been a movement away from constitutionalist determination of governmental functions to to one of “popular” experimentations.
Ah, me! as a slow typist I have ben smitten by the time sensitive smiter.
Stay tuned to this thread, it may be interesting – certainly different.
John Galt, thanks for your reply – I’ll have to think about it.
In most of the West, there seems to have been a movement away from constitutionalist determination of governmental functions to to one of “popular” experimentations.
The second part of that “Tytler” quote is normally something like this:
I think this is true, and I think it probably has more to do with the interaction of democracy and culture than the exact form democracy takes. People envision a certain social contract and vote for it. In turn the contract shapes conditions such that the culture changes and the next step seems reasonable or even inevitable.
John Galt, a question: why would civil servants and the agendas you describe them as having disappear or diminish with direct democracy?
Thinking about it, a second question: is there anything noteworthy of Swiss civil servants by contrast with their colleagues in, say, Britain? Noteworthy, that is, in terms of functionaries as you’ve described them?
As to direct democracy, we have the technology. Anyone for a virtual parliament?
Direct democracy? Yes. Virtual Parliament? No.
People need to be present for the vote, or someone who is present needs to be carrying their proxy.
How is assigning a proxy different to electing a representative? Easy, the proxy can be assigned or withdrawn at any time.
Rather than either direct democracy (which, frankly, would be a disaster given the quality of the current electorate*), or a virtual parliament, why not a virtual electorate? Assume that there is, on average, one representative in your legislative body (Parliament, Congress, Diet, whatever) for each 100,000 qualified voters. Simply permit people to self-identify with one particular group of their choice (which can be focued on any issue or defining characteristic it chooses), and every group which has at least 100,000 members gets to choose one representative. Why should representation be based entirely on geography?
* Most people couldn’t be bothered to educate themselves on more than a handful of issues, which are numerous and which would require nearly constant referenda. As a consequence they either wouldn’t vote at all or would be easy prey for the loudest demagogue around.
Where’s my ‘like’ button? What Eric said.
That is an interesting idea, Laird – although in all fairness I heard it before in one form or other. Not that it would solve all of the problems, mind – but then what would.
I think Richard North coined the term ‘Referism’ as his way of controlling the growth of the State by the simple way of allowing the people control of the money. Everything else flows from the money. You cannot have a Big State if the people do not vote for the specific taxes and budgets to allow it to occur. If all State budgets (local and national) were subject to an annual referendum then you would soon see a reduction in the State. People would not vote for higher taxes year on year, and as the State requires higher than inflation rises in revenue just to stand still (as we are seeing with the current ‘cuts’) even stand-still budgets would cut a swath through the State sector.
Give the people power over the money and the rest falls into place. The State is so large now that taxes cannot be purely placed on the ‘rich’ because there aren’t enough of them. You have to raise revenue from the broad mass of the population. Give them a chance to say ‘No’ and they undoubtedly will.
@Stephen Willmer:
It has often been said that trying to push through civil service cuts is near to impossible as the only people that can implement cuts in the civil service are other civil servants.
By removing political support in terms of ministers and MP’s and returning control back to the electorate you would undermine civil servants as they would no longer be able to lobby the politicians to increase their scope, budgets and staffing each year.
You would also introduce a flat rate tax to prevent the current situation whereby those who contribute the most (higher rate taxpayers) can have their rates increased while those who contribute the least (nil and lower rate taxpayers) would have their rates maintained or reduced.
Having a flat rate tax would stop the worst excesses of this type of vote-rigging … sorry progressive taxation resulting in redistribution.
Ultimately, the only way that people are going to stop the ever increasing growth of the state is by having straight-forward ballots at regular intervals.
e.g.
1. Introduce new department for monitoring of the internet communications. Cost 20billion initially plus 5billion annual. Flat rate tax charge per year £130 per taxpayer.
2. Exemption of non-construction and heavy industries from Health and Safety Regulations, replaced by corporate insurance levy. Flat rate tax reduction per year -£214 per tax payer.
…etc…
Get rid of politicians and let the electorate decide where the money goes and you’d soon find that voters would vote to put money back into their pockets (all else being equal).
John Galt (btw, you must have got up early to nab that name!), I can see I’m going to have to reacquaint myself with Swiss democratic practice. I don’t feel qualified to comment further on your interesting observations, but they are interesting and I doubt I will be the only commenter to this thread who gives them more thought. I assume, incidentally, that it is implicit in your last comment that the character and formation of Swiss functionaries is, on your analysis, irrelevant.
Laird, “the quality of the current electorate”?
Time to elect a new people? (Brecht, of course)
I may not be a man of the people, but I am a man for the people (D Jacobi’s senator in “Gladiator”)
In those two quotes, I personally feel a world of schizophrenia. I mean, the essence of the individualist position is love of mankind, faith in his abilities, abhorrence of Hobbeseanism. Freedom doesn’t work unless we’re worth it.
Then again, I despair of England and consider that its lords and commons are getting their just desserts
“the essence of the individualist position is love of mankind, faith in his abilities, abhorrence of Hobbeseanism.”
I’ll give you that last one, but not the others.
I don’t mean “love of mankind” in the hippyish sense, so much as in contradistinction to what seems to me to be statists’ and collectivists’ basic loathing for mankind and, arising out of that, is “faith in his abilities”. But, as previously intimated, I too often find these precepts challenged by reality.
Better, Stephen, but still too overbroad for my taste. Assuming that by “mankind” you really mean the individuals which comprise it (who loves a mob?), I’d go with “acceptance of mankind and tolerance for its foibles” and “faith in the desire of each individual to maximize his own welfare.”
There, fixed it for you. No extra charge. You’re welcome.
So, “the essence of the individualist position is acceptance of mankind…”
Makes me uncomfortable, does that one, Laird. It’s either evasive, like Chris Smith bleating on about Bob Dylan’s “validity”, or sinister, like a Kommissar with an over-developed sense of the importance of his own signature. Mankind may, does, often, disappoint. But what a piece of work, no?
But I’ll join you in tolerance of foibles (and more: many of the best people are the foibliest) and desire to maximise welfare.
Close enough for me.