SylviaB
Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Read: The following is by a friend of mine (who doesn't frequent bos).
Statists will often claim that democracy is an effective way of regulating the activity of the state.
The is entirely untrue, and the following explains why.
If you're not going to read the whole thing, don't bother responding.
------------------------------
One of the many reasons i reject minarchism and Randism (although the former is not necesarilly connected with the latter) is that, contrary to what many minarchists believe, and democratic state is not compatible with a limited state. And the socialists are correct in this respect when they say that socialism is the full expression of democracy, and note i define socialism as state ownership of the means of production; not simply a giant welfare state. Democracy DOES always tend towards socialism.
But this on its own it not an argument for socialism. Deontological morality is obviously bullcrap and democracy, be it defined as a government of, by, and for the people, or a government of majority rule, is not an unqualified good. 2 men robbing, raping, and murdering a woman is not a positive good in utilitarian terms simply because between the three individuals majority rule prevailed. Nor is this the case for groups, towns, civilizations, and states. (and civilization and the state are separate as far as i am concerned, although the two are often conflated). Even proponents of democracy can agree with this statement since democracy can just as easilly elect a GWB as much as they can elect a Barrack Obama or a Ross perot.
Why democracy tends towards socialism, though better defined, statism, is because public involvement in state affairs, is a public good with negative externalities, similar to smoking. This is called a market failure, but the term is deceptive because it applies to governments equally if not more so. In most situations, rational self interest leads to individuals doing what is best for society even if they don't intend to, but sometimes this doesn't happen. Note this is no excuse for a government because one will find, as i will demonstrate below, that this tendency is more profound in governments. This tendency, is when the rational self interest of individuals does not provide the best benefit to society. In the case of smoking, The benefits of smoking (Yes i know smoking is bad for you, but the intake of the drug is assumed to provide utility to the smoker) are concentrated but the costs are diluted amongst a population with little ability to restrain the smoker.
With respect to legislation, this means there is a general rule that guides virtually all laws and bills that go through a government. A tangible loss will always beat an intangible potential gain. If a particular interest group is benefited by a law that has a high cost to society, but that cost is distributed throughout society, the interest group has strong incentive to lobby the state for that law, (even if it harms the public good) but the public, since their loss from the bill is either unknown (ignorance of government caused by rational ignorance, (look up google for definition of rational ignorance)) Or if they're smart they will know what the costs are but the costs to them from the law are less than the costs to them of mobilising a campaign to oppose the interest group.
Let me use a mathematical illustration. The steel industry wants a steel tariff, an obvious economic harm to society (few economists, even fairly statist economists, support tariffs) and the harm to society is greater than the benefit to the smaller steel industry. let us say that the steel industry stands to gain 50mil a year from the tariff, but society stands to lose 200mil, the interest group is therefore willing to spend up to 50 million in lobbying to get the tariff passed, let us assume that they only have to lobby for 200,000 dollars to Senator "George Barrack Bushama".
Let's say the relevant population is 50 million, therefore, each individual stands to lose about $4 from the tariff. (The values in this example relative to actual laws that have harmed the economy are underestimated, my guess is congress costs individuals hundreds if not thousands of dollars indirectly through laws lobbied by corporations) Well, society outnumbers the lobby group, so according to proponents of democracy, this bill would be killed because the people would rally against it. Well, not really. Even though society loses 200 million as a whole, each individual has little personal incentive to actually work to lobby against the tariff because in order for the lobbying to have effect they have to unite forces with total strangers. Even if people understood that they stood to lose from the bill, prisoners dillema would cause them to assume that they may find themselves being the only one opposing the bill if people don't join forces with them, which again is difficult because the costs are so dispersed amongst a large population which cannot be easily rallied. And i leave to to look up what prisoners dilemma is, (it's very similar to rational ignorance in terms of human behaviour)
So naturally, the bill would pass.
But there is more, this line of reasoning can also show us why it is more common for interest groups to want to have their own special government privileges, than to simply revoke the privileges that are causing them pain, prisoners dilemma. Each person wants to hold on to their pet project and society is so large that we can't expect people to all agree to revoke their own privileges so that society as a whole would benefit from a more efficient and equitable economy. If we try and revoke bad privileges, the benefits to us of getting rid of it are dilute to us becase they benefit all of society, which will not necessarily therefore join forces in a mass political movement, but it will harm a small group of people who would then be poliically inspired to lobby to protect their privilege. However, if society that is hurt by the priviledge, decides to get the government to give them a special priviledge, the tables have turned, society that is harmed from it has no incentive to oppose it, and your small group is now more motivated becase they stand to gain all the more. Also, congressman, eager to increase their power, are far more likely to endorse bills that increase their power rather than ones that reduce it. Doctors defend the AMA, old people defend medicare, lawyers defend the BAR, Corn farmers defend their subsidies, etc. etc.
Since the population, due to rational ignorance, is ill informed about politics, we cannot expect that the people will ever vote out their corporatist representatives, and even if they could, present laws with regards to elections make incumbency rates insanely high, which keeps the system isolated from any resistance movements that COULD arise. It makes more sense to fund the campaign of an imcumbent who has already given priviledges to favored companies and thus would lose that money if you asked said rep. to revoke them, so he obviously won't revoke them.
This is why a democratic society tends towards statism. In order for these priviledges to be revoked, you need a political climate in which people reject the legitimacy of the state, or, you need states that are so small that these kinds of priviledges would have negative consequences on a population concentrated enough to oppose it when the bills are clearly not in society's interests.
This is also why government laws which clearly caused the health care crisis were never even discussed.
Of course this system is unsustainable, as are any states which are inherently unstable and will collapse, eventually.
But yes, democracy leads to 'socialism' because Democracy is, quite simply, a market failure that cannot be corrected by the government.
Statists will often claim that democracy is an effective way of regulating the activity of the state.
The is entirely untrue, and the following explains why.
If you're not going to read the whole thing, don't bother responding.
------------------------------
One of the many reasons i reject minarchism and Randism (although the former is not necesarilly connected with the latter) is that, contrary to what many minarchists believe, and democratic state is not compatible with a limited state. And the socialists are correct in this respect when they say that socialism is the full expression of democracy, and note i define socialism as state ownership of the means of production; not simply a giant welfare state. Democracy DOES always tend towards socialism.
But this on its own it not an argument for socialism. Deontological morality is obviously bullcrap and democracy, be it defined as a government of, by, and for the people, or a government of majority rule, is not an unqualified good. 2 men robbing, raping, and murdering a woman is not a positive good in utilitarian terms simply because between the three individuals majority rule prevailed. Nor is this the case for groups, towns, civilizations, and states. (and civilization and the state are separate as far as i am concerned, although the two are often conflated). Even proponents of democracy can agree with this statement since democracy can just as easilly elect a GWB as much as they can elect a Barrack Obama or a Ross perot.
Why democracy tends towards socialism, though better defined, statism, is because public involvement in state affairs, is a public good with negative externalities, similar to smoking. This is called a market failure, but the term is deceptive because it applies to governments equally if not more so. In most situations, rational self interest leads to individuals doing what is best for society even if they don't intend to, but sometimes this doesn't happen. Note this is no excuse for a government because one will find, as i will demonstrate below, that this tendency is more profound in governments. This tendency, is when the rational self interest of individuals does not provide the best benefit to society. In the case of smoking, The benefits of smoking (Yes i know smoking is bad for you, but the intake of the drug is assumed to provide utility to the smoker) are concentrated but the costs are diluted amongst a population with little ability to restrain the smoker.
With respect to legislation, this means there is a general rule that guides virtually all laws and bills that go through a government. A tangible loss will always beat an intangible potential gain. If a particular interest group is benefited by a law that has a high cost to society, but that cost is distributed throughout society, the interest group has strong incentive to lobby the state for that law, (even if it harms the public good) but the public, since their loss from the bill is either unknown (ignorance of government caused by rational ignorance, (look up google for definition of rational ignorance)) Or if they're smart they will know what the costs are but the costs to them from the law are less than the costs to them of mobilising a campaign to oppose the interest group.
Let me use a mathematical illustration. The steel industry wants a steel tariff, an obvious economic harm to society (few economists, even fairly statist economists, support tariffs) and the harm to society is greater than the benefit to the smaller steel industry. let us say that the steel industry stands to gain 50mil a year from the tariff, but society stands to lose 200mil, the interest group is therefore willing to spend up to 50 million in lobbying to get the tariff passed, let us assume that they only have to lobby for 200,000 dollars to Senator "George Barrack Bushama".
Let's say the relevant population is 50 million, therefore, each individual stands to lose about $4 from the tariff. (The values in this example relative to actual laws that have harmed the economy are underestimated, my guess is congress costs individuals hundreds if not thousands of dollars indirectly through laws lobbied by corporations) Well, society outnumbers the lobby group, so according to proponents of democracy, this bill would be killed because the people would rally against it. Well, not really. Even though society loses 200 million as a whole, each individual has little personal incentive to actually work to lobby against the tariff because in order for the lobbying to have effect they have to unite forces with total strangers. Even if people understood that they stood to lose from the bill, prisoners dillema would cause them to assume that they may find themselves being the only one opposing the bill if people don't join forces with them, which again is difficult because the costs are so dispersed amongst a large population which cannot be easily rallied. And i leave to to look up what prisoners dilemma is, (it's very similar to rational ignorance in terms of human behaviour)
So naturally, the bill would pass.
But there is more, this line of reasoning can also show us why it is more common for interest groups to want to have their own special government privileges, than to simply revoke the privileges that are causing them pain, prisoners dilemma. Each person wants to hold on to their pet project and society is so large that we can't expect people to all agree to revoke their own privileges so that society as a whole would benefit from a more efficient and equitable economy. If we try and revoke bad privileges, the benefits to us of getting rid of it are dilute to us becase they benefit all of society, which will not necessarily therefore join forces in a mass political movement, but it will harm a small group of people who would then be poliically inspired to lobby to protect their privilege. However, if society that is hurt by the priviledge, decides to get the government to give them a special priviledge, the tables have turned, society that is harmed from it has no incentive to oppose it, and your small group is now more motivated becase they stand to gain all the more. Also, congressman, eager to increase their power, are far more likely to endorse bills that increase their power rather than ones that reduce it. Doctors defend the AMA, old people defend medicare, lawyers defend the BAR, Corn farmers defend their subsidies, etc. etc.
Since the population, due to rational ignorance, is ill informed about politics, we cannot expect that the people will ever vote out their corporatist representatives, and even if they could, present laws with regards to elections make incumbency rates insanely high, which keeps the system isolated from any resistance movements that COULD arise. It makes more sense to fund the campaign of an imcumbent who has already given priviledges to favored companies and thus would lose that money if you asked said rep. to revoke them, so he obviously won't revoke them.
This is why a democratic society tends towards statism. In order for these priviledges to be revoked, you need a political climate in which people reject the legitimacy of the state, or, you need states that are so small that these kinds of priviledges would have negative consequences on a population concentrated enough to oppose it when the bills are clearly not in society's interests.
This is also why government laws which clearly caused the health care crisis were never even discussed.
Of course this system is unsustainable, as are any states which are inherently unstable and will collapse, eventually.
But yes, democracy leads to 'socialism' because Democracy is, quite simply, a market failure that cannot be corrected by the government.
