Economic Selections, Not Democratic Elections

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS


Willie Stark
in All
the King’s Men
:
If you don’t vote, you don’t matter!

Do you want
to remain free to determine your own destiny? Do you want your
interactions with other human beings to be rooted in mutual consent
rather than unilateral coercion?

Then don’t
champion democracy, don’t participate in democratic elections.
Instead champion the free market and make only economic selections.

Democratic
Elections are both Deception and Self-Deception

"Democracy,"
as the National Endowment for Democracy informs us, "involves
the right of the people freely to determine their own destiny.
The exercise of this right requires a system that guarantees …
free and competitive elections."

"The
authority of the government in democracies," as Wikipedia
informs us, "derives solely from the consent of the governed.
The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental
authority is the holding of free and fair elections."

These characterizations
reflect the Conventional Wisdom regarding the role of elections
in modern democracies and other monopolistic states.

Unfortunately
they are both deception and self-deception. They are deception
on the part of the ruling elite, and self-deception on the part
of the ordinary citizen.

The notion
that "free and fair elections" actually reflect "the
consent of the governed," and that individuals must participate
in democratic elections in order to determine their own destinies,
has to be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on human race.

The Consent
of the Governed? Determining One’s own Destiny?

In fact,
so-called "free and fair elections," by their very nature,
can never reflect the consent of the governed, and the act of
participating in democratic elections will only ensure that one
is denied the right to determine one’s own destiny.

This is not
hysterical ranting. This is a straightforward statement of fact.

2004 Presidential Election: Did you determine your own destiny?

To better
understand why democratic elections can never reflect the consent
of the governed, and why participating in them will only ensure
that one is denied the right to determine one’s own destiny, we
must clear our minds of preconceptions, and ask ourselves a simple
question: What
does it mean to cast a vote in a democratic election, plebiscite,
or referendum, and how does it differ from making an economic
selection in the market place?

Economic
Selection Equals Self-determination

To make an
economic selection in the market place is to take part in a non-coercive
process in which one individual freely and willingly trades a
product or service with another individual.

At no step
in this process is either individual subject to compulsion. If
the proposed transaction is unsatisfactory, and either individual
reluctant, they are free to say, "Thanks but no thanks,"
and leave unmolested, taking away with them whatever they came
with.

 

 
The
Open Market Place: Where you really determine your own destiny

 
 

Making an
economic selection in the market place is an act of self-determination.
In fact, only economic selections in the market place are acts
of self-determination, and conversely, all acts of self-determination
are economic selections in the market place.

As the late,
great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises observed in his magnum
opus, Human
Action
:

With
every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all
production processes and the details of the organization of all
business activities. This state of affairs has been described
by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a
right to cast a ballot. It would be more correct to say that a
democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens
in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy
gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison
is imperfect. In the political democracy only the votes cast for
the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping
the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not
directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast
in vain.

As Mises
astutely noted, casting a vote in a democratic election is nothing
like making an economic selection in the market place.

Democratic
Elections Are Other-Coercion

Casting a
vote in a democratic election is an act not of "self-determination,"
but of "other-coercion."

To cast a
vote in a democratic election is to take part in a coercive process
in which some individuals compel other individuals to formally
sanction and financially underwrite measures that the latter oppose
and want nothing to do with.

The coercion
comes in two parts.

First, the
individual is coerced into allowing others to determine his destiny,
merely because they outnumber him.

Second, adding
insult to injury, the individual is coerced into financially supporting
others who are determining his destiny, merely because they outnumber
him.

Democratic
elections not only do not protect the individual from coercion,
they formalize, institutionalize, and normalize the coercion of
an individual by collectives whose only distinction from the individual
is not greater legitimacy, but superior numbers.

Some democracies
even go so far as to impose legal penalties on "qualified
voters" who fail to exercise their "right to vote."

It’s a peculiar
"right" that gets one punished by the monopolistic state
for not exercising it, is it not? One is reminded of an old joke:
"Attempted suicide is a capital crime, punishable by death."

These democracies
are terrified that low voter turnouts will show that they lack
the ostensibly voluntary mandate that democratic elections give
monopolistic states.

Boycott
Elections? Sure. Boycott Taxes? Dream On

Although
most democracies don’t go quite that far, and although most democracies
magnanimously allow “qualified voters” to boycott the election
process, no democracy allows “qualified taxpayers” to boycott
the taxation process.

Is it necessary
to point out that all democracies care far more about our status
as "taxpayers" than our status as "qualified voters?"

Is it necessary
to point out that all democracies care far more about counting
"their taxes" than counting your ballots?


Willie Stark
in All the King’s Men, extorting money from
"taxpayer/voters" and remaking the world in his own
image

The nomenklatura
of democracies and other monopolistic states care only about being
rubber-stamped as legitimate so they can get on with their real
business: extorting money from "taxpayer/voters" and
remaking the world in their own image.

Willie Stark’s
campaign appeal, "If you don’t vote, you don’t matter!"
is beside the point.

What is to
the point is the monopolistic state’s attitude, "If you don’t
pay, it surely does matter!"

Democracy
Is Feudalism

Package-dealing
"the right to vote" together with "the duty to
pay taxes" is nothing more than a con game. The "right
to vote" in democratic elections, with its attendant duty
to pay taxes, amounts to feudal-era corve, i.e., involuntary
labor owed to one’s lord or king.

The "right
to vote" in democratic elections is merely a veneer of progressive
modernity applied to this feudal institution.

Once one’s
political consciousness is awakened, one realizes that "taxpayer/voter"
is not an badge of honor, but a sign on one’s back reading "Abuse
me!"

Unanimity
Equals Consent. Less Than Unanimity Equals Non-Consent

Any democratic
election in which the result is less than unanimous does not reflect
"the consent of the governed," but only "the consent
of some of the governed."

Obviously
those who voted against the outcome of the election did not consent,
they merely acquiesced.

Even a unanimous
election result reflects the consent of the governed only if every
individual impacted by the result votes in the election, not just
"qualified voters."

The fact
that no democratic election has ever met the above conditions
demonstrates that "champions of democracy" have never
given a damn about "the consent of the governed."

Champions
of democracy will argue that mere participation in a democratic
election constitutes willing acceptance of the result as binding
upon all participants.

Really? Do
"champions of democracy" actually believe that everyone
who participates in a democratic election considers it just that
the result is legally binding upon them?

How many
people feel that it is morally wrong for a mob, sorry, a "democratic
majority," to determine the destiny of sovereign individuals,
merely because "We voted on it!"

How many
people participate in democratic elections reluctantly, under
duress, because they fear an even worse fate at the hands of the
mob if they don’t participate?

How many
people consider voting in democratic elections a "Sophie’s
Choice," i.e., a tragic choice between two unbearable options.

Do "champions
of democracy" know? Do they care?

See: Sophie’s
Choice

The Consent
of Some of the Governed

The phrase,
"the consent of the governed" has an inspiring ring
to it. But lip service to "the consent of the governed"
within the context of a monopolistic state is nothing but Orwellian
Newspeak, i.e., saying one thing while meaning its opposite.

In order
to be truthful, the phrase "the consent of the governed"
would have to be watered down to "the consent of some of
the governed."

Imagine ambitious
politicians delivering ringing speeches in which they proclaim
that their government has "the consent of some of the governed?"

Now try it
without breaking into uncontrolled laughter.

Democracy
Is Mob Rule, In Every Sense of the Term

The
majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses
its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks
up the foundations of society.

~
Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816

When democracies
and other monopolistic states come knocking at our door, demanding
that we pay "taxes due," we must understand what is
happening.

What is happening
is that a "crime family with a flag" is demanding protection
money by "making us an offer we can’t refuse." We are
physically coerced into paying for measures we disapprove of.
We are physically prevented from spending our own money as we
see fit.

A shopkeeper
living under the thumb of a crime family is not free to say: "Thanks
but no thanks. Instead of making monthly protection payments to
you, I’ll buy a shotgun and provide my own protection against
vandals who would break my store windows."

 

 
Vito
Corleone in The
Godfather
, making people offers they can’t refuse

 
 

Likewise,
a "taxpayer/voter" living under the thumb of a democracy
or other monopolistic state is not free to say: "Thanks but
no thanks. Instead making annual tax payments to you, I’ll make
monthly service payments to a private security agency and provide
my own protection against thugs who would invade my home."

During the
18th century the term "mob" referred to "a disorderly
or riotous crowd bent on or engaged in lawless violence."

During the
20th century the term "mob" acquired another meaning:
"a criminal gang, especially one involved extortion."

The fact
that democracies extort taxes from "taxpayers" in precisely
the same manner that criminal gangs extort protection money from
shopkeepers gives new meaning to the well-known characterization
of democracy as mob rule.

The "Right
to Vote" Is an Oxymoron

We the Sheeple
need to get something through our heads.

Voting in
democratic elections is not a right. When we vote in a democratic
election, we violate other peoples’ rights. When others vote in
a democratic election, they violate our rights.

Voting in
democratic elections cannot possibly be a right, because logically
speaking there can be no such thing as a "right to violate
rights." Therefore "the right to vote" is an oxymoron,
a contradiction in terms.

The violation
is sufficiently indirect that most "voter/taxpayers"
have no difficulty blanking it from conscious awareness, but that
hardly makes the violation any the less real.

Voting in
democratic elections would not violate peoples’ rights only if
participation in both the election and taxation processes were
made voluntary.

But if participation
in the election and taxation processes were made voluntary, democratic
elections would no longer be democratic elections. They would
be proxy votes by shareholders of a corporation. They would be
economic selections in the market place.

The defining
characteristic of democratic elections is their involuntary, coercive,
and violative nature. Democratic elections, by their very nature,
necessarily violate the rights of democratic minorities. No amount
of rationalization can wish this fundamental violation of human
rights away.

Democratic
Elections Are the Problem. Economic Selection Is the Solution

Democracy
is the problem. The free market is the solution.

Democratic
elections are the problem. Economic selections are the solution.

The free
market is everything that democracy is supposed to be, but isn’t.
Making economic selections in the free market is everything that
casting votes in democratic elections is supposed to be, but isn’t.


King George
II: If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier,
just so long as I’m the dictator. [Actually this is a dictatorship,
that's why it's already so easy].

Democracies
are coercive dictatorships, and democratic elections are the principal
mechanism for translating that coercion into government authority
callously indifferent to the consent of the governed.

The free
market on the other hand is, to coin a term, "Manifest Liberty,"
and economic selections are the principle mechanism by which the
sovereign individual translates individual liberty into individual
destiny.

See: The
Founding Fathers’ Next Step

March
17, 2007

Bevin
Chu [send him mail] is
an American architect of Chinese descent registered to practice
in Texas. Currently living and working in Taiwan, Chu is the son
of a retired high-ranking diplomat with the Republic of China
(ROC) government based on Taiwan. His articles are published on
his website, The China
Desk
.

Bevin
Chu Archives

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts