BrianGarst.com

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

democracy Archive

Friday

20

May 2011

2

COMMENTS

Should We Weight Votes Toward the Least Productive in Society?

Written by , Posted in Economics & the Economy, Taxes

This is what a terrible idea looks like:

America should implement weighted voting to make voting more objective and fair, and give the young more power, because the consequences of political decisions will affect them the longest. Weighted voting would restore power to twenty and thirty year olds, where it resided before the advent of medical science. With the aid of computers, it would be easy to give everyone a Voting Score, just like we all have a credit score.

Yes, let’s give the most ignorant, inexperienced and disengaged voting bloc extra political power. That sounds like an excellent idea.

Ezra Klein also highlighted the idea, though was careful to note that he did not endorse it, instead pointing out that we weight by other factors such as geography. We do this for a reason, as states are recognized as constituents with independent interests. Unlike voters, they have issues of sovereignty and their own rightful political authority to protect from federal encroachment. And we’ve seen what has happened with the erosion of their political input at the federal level by moving to direct elections for Senators, as the federal government has all but assimilated the states into administrative bodies which exist for no other purpose than to do its bidding.

The young, on the other hand, do not have an independent interest that is different from any other individual voter, they just have a longer time horizon. But does that necessarily mean they are more impacted by political decisions, as implied by the “decisions will affect them the longest” reasoning? I don’t think so.

As the government has become more and more an instrument of redistribution, I’d say it is taxpayers who are most impacted by political decisions, regardless of how much longer they have to live. As such, if we insist on mucking with voting weights, I agree with the suggestion of John Hawkins to weight by total taxes paid.

This would have the benefit of solving what is perhaps the biggest political problem of the day: the ability of non-tax payers to vote themselves benefits at the expense of an ever narrowing tax base. Voters are more likely to vote themselves benefits if they are not contributing to the costs.The burdens then fall on fewer and fewer productive members of society, which both reduces their productivity (and thus the funds available for such redistributions) but it also means a growing population of moochers. It’s a vicious, teat-suckling cycle. This is why James Madison warned of a need for “protecting the minority of the opulent.” His answer was the Senate.

Madison was not talking merely of the super-wealthy routinely attacked by leftists and redistributionists today, but of the productive sector in general, which we can largely equate to today as those who pay income tax. The point of his argument was to protect the minority interests against the majority that would abuse them. And when those who pay for and sustain government are the minority, while those who mooch off their largess are a majority, the end result can be only fiscal calamity. As younger people are less productive and carry less than the average burden of government, weighting in their favor would exacerbate this problem and hasten our headlong rush into national insolvency.

Friday

11

February 2011

0

COMMENTS

Egypt: Now Comes the Hard Part

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

With news that Egyptian President Mubarak has finally stepped down after 30 years in power, freedom loving people the world over rejoiced. As a vociferous proponent of human liberty wherever humans may reside, I share in that joy. However, it’s important to realize that this is but a first, tiny step down the path to liberty, one which may well be followed by two steps back. The question the Egyptian people now face is this: What government do we wish to make for ourselves?

The last shot in the Revolutionary War, where Americans similarly decided they had been ruled by the same tyrant long enough, was not the end of our struggle but the beginning. What came next, while not as costly in terms of human lives, was arguably far more difficult; I’m talking about the task of establishing a lasting government of the people, and which would be their servant instead of their master.

Representative governments are hard work. Tyranny, oppression and poverty are the natural state of human affairs and not easily overcome. It takes more, much more, than just an election. Despotic countries the world over hold elections all the time. True representative government requires democratic institutions and civic culture. The people have to  live, breath and feel freedom not just for a few days or weeks, but for every moment of every day. As Ronald Reagan observed, even in the U.S., “freedom is never more than a generation away from extinction.”

The American Founding Fathers proved uniquely positioned in both place and time to capture a moment for freedom. They exhaustively debated the form of their new government, drawing upon centuries of wisdom, and carefully crafted a tapestry of freedom from the innumerable threads of knowledge spun over the centuries in the wheel of human history.  They then took their ideas to the people, recognizing that no government, however well designed, can be legitimate without the consent of the governed.

Are the Egyptian protesters prepared to make this long slog? Is their society ready for more than just elections, but the real cornerstones of democracy, like  tolerance and respect for the rights of fellow citizens, and civic participation? Or will they quietly fall back into old routines, accepting the authority of whatever figure emerges to fill the power void? They, like the American Founders, have a moment. What are they prepared to do with it?

Monday

14

December 2009

1

COMMENTS

Leftists Decry Lack Of Dictatorship In America

Written by , Posted in Legislation, Liberty & Limited Government

Matt Yglesias is upset and considers America to be “ungovernable” because Obama can’t just wave his hand and have his agenda pass without opposition:

We’re suffering from an incoherent institutional set-up in the senate. You can have a system in which a defeated minority still gets a share of governing authority and participates constructively in the victorious majority’s governing agenda, shaping policy around the margins in ways more to their liking. Or you can have a system in which a defeated minority rejects the majority’s governing agenda out of hand, seeks opening for attack, and hopes that failure on the part of the majority will bring them to power. But right now we have both simultaneously. It’s a system in which the minority benefits if the government fails, and the minority has the power to ensure failure. It’s insane, and it needs to be changed.

No, it doesn’t.  What we have is a system that protects itself from the whims of fanciful, but ill-considered change.

The guardian has also taken up the cause of whining about America’s “broken” system, which just refuses to allow the immediate and thoughtless adoption of a sweeping, radical agenda.

This is not Latin America, where any colorful demagogue can rise to power and immediately reshape an entire nation in his imagine.  Where Matt Yglesias and the hard-left see a bug, those more concerned about the nature of American democracy than the ability to ram through radical legislation see a feature.

The Senate is the only body in the government which protects minority rights from the trampling of the majority. It was designed specifically for that purpose, and although the nature of how it does so has changed, it continues to serve that purpose today.  We should not undo our governing model on the basis of the dictatorial impulses of Matt Yglesias.

Friday

30

October 2009

1

COMMENTS

Leftwing Dictator Forced On People Of Honduras By Barack Obama

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

One of the most disgraceful episodes in American foreign policy has come to an end.  Intent on destroying Honduran democracy, President Barack Obama sided with fellow leftwing thug Manuel Zelaya after he was legally removed from office for trying to subvert his nation’s democracy.

Thanks to intense pressure and bullying from our contemptible government, along with the rest of the world’s thuggish dictators like Hugo Chavez, the interim government of Honduras, which sought only to survive until scheduled elections this month, has caved and allowed for the possibility of Zelaya’s return.

“Tonight I am pleased to announce that … I authorized my negotiating team to sign a final accord that marks the beginning of the end to the political situation in the country,” interim President Roberto Micheletti said in a televised address.

The agreement appears to soften Micheletti’s previous stance that the Supreme Court — which has already rejected Zelaya’s reinstatement — decide the issue.

Instead, the high court would make a recommendation, but the final decision would be left to a vote in Congress.

Sanity and the rule of law may yet prevail if their Congress, like their Supreme Court, rejects this bullying.  And bullying is obviously what led Micheletti into the deal, as his primary motivation is undoing the damage outside thugs are trying to do to the people of Honduras:

Micheletti called the pact a “significant concession” on his part. He also said that one of the provisions of the pact requires foreign powers to drop sanctions and reverse aid cutoffs imposed after the coup, and send observers to the upcoming elections.

This White House has done everything it can to restore the thug to power.  It has revoked the visas of all members of the Honduran Supreme Court, stirred up international pressure, revoked aid, installed sanctions and just generally opposed democracy. Micheletti’s primary concern appears to be the people of Honduras and democracy. The primary concern of Barack Obama is protecting leftist strongmen. Disgraceful.

TRINIDAD-AMERICAS-SUMMIT-CHAVEZ-OBAMAThugs of the world, unite!

Sunday

12

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

The Government's Cut

Written by , Posted in Taxes

While in Ghana, President Barack Obama had this to say:

No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves — (applause) — or if police — if police can be bought off by drug traffickers. (Applause.) No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top — (applause) — or the head of the Port Authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery.

I’m sure the businesses right here in America would love it if the United States government could limit itself to only taking 20% off the top.

Wednesday

8

July 2009

0

COMMENTS

Confusing The Leader For The Nation

Written by , Posted in Culture & Society

Although their exact characteristics vary from instance to instance, dictatorships tend to have a number of features in common.  One such feature is the confusion of the head of state for the nation itself.  In this view, the welfare and success of the country is inextricably tied to the welfare and success of the leader.  It is convenient for dictators to foster this belief, as it ties the well-being of the individual citizen to the success of the leader via the welfare of the nation.  The individual need not even consider what specifically the leader is doing.  Whatever it is, he must succeed.

I am saddened to see an elected official promoting such illiberal and undemocratic views right here in America:

“It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”

Barack Obama is a politician.  He is not the United States of America.

Monday

29

June 2009

1

COMMENTS

Did Honduras Have A Coup?

Written by , Posted in Foreign Affairs & Policy

The media says yes. Tales of the Honduran coup are all over the major media outlets.  They are cheerfully repeating the claims of leftist Latin America leaders like Hugo Chavez, that President Zelaya was ousted in a “coup.”  A superficial understanding of the fact, that the military removed him from office, certainly supports this claim.  A closer inspection of the events that led up to Zelaya’s ouster, however, suggests that what transpired was actually a defense of democracy against the assault of a power hungry populist leftist.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

The top military commander, Gen. Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, told the president that he would have to comply. Mr. Zelaya promptly fired him. The Supreme Court ordered him reinstated. Mr. Zelaya refused.

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court’s order.

The attorney general had already made clear that the referendum was illegal, and he further announced that he would prosecute anyone involved in carrying it out. Yesterday, Mr. Zelaya was arrested by the military and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

After the would be dictator was ousted, the military promptly stepped aside and allowed the political branches to follow the proper protocol in replacing Zelaya.  The Congress, after voting to remove Zelaya, subsequently replaced him in a manner “mandated by the constitution.” This is not the stuff of coups.

Dr. Palmer observes:

Imagine that George Bush, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or some other American president had decided to overturn the Constitution so that he could stay in power beyond the constitutionally limited time. To do that, he orders a nationwide referendum that is not constitutionally authorized and blatantly illegal. The Federal Election Commission rules that it is illegal. The Supreme Court rules that it is illegal. The Congress votes to strip the president of his powers and, as members of Congress are not that good at overcoming the president’s personally loyal and handpicked bodyguards, they send police and military to arrest the president. Now, which party is guilty of leading a coup?

Meanwhile, while Obama felt that even rhetoric would constitute “meddling” in Iran, his White House has put considerable effort into first defending and now restoring to power a would-be leftist dictator.  Where are his priorities?

Update: Heritage has more.