The Left's crusade against "inequality"—i.e., against
liberty—takes many forms. Oxford University professor Stein Ringen has one.
In Is
American democracy headed to extinction?, Ringen argues that Athenian
democracy collapsed because the rich gained too much political power, and
American democracy is headed for the same fate:
It took only 250 years for democracy to disintegrate in ancient
Athens. A wholly new form of government was invented there in which the people
ruled themselves. That constitution proved marvelously effective. Athens grew
in wealth and capacity, saw off the Persian challenge, established itself as
the leading power in the known world and produced treasures of architecture,
philosophy and art that bedazzle to this day. But when privilege, corruption
and mismanagement took hold, the lights went out.
Ringen starts with a false
premise: While Athens was a democracy, America is a constitutionally limited
republic (not a "representative democracy," as Ringen describes it).
What's the difference? In a republic, the power of the majority is limited by
the principle of individual rights. Not so in democracy, where the majority has
absolute power.
I'm not too familiar with
ancient Athens, so I can't judge Ringen's claims about what caused its
collapse. But I will say that under the original conception of America, in
which rights are inalienable and the government's only purpose is to protect
those rights, the term "the people" means something entirely
different from what it means under democracy. "The people", in
America, means qua individual.
In a democracy—representative, direct, or otherwise—"the people"
means qua the majority; the
group; the mob.
In America, to "rule
themselves" means for the people to live their individual lives by their own judgment, free of
coercive interference by other people, including people in their capacity as
government officials—i.e., as representatives of the electoral majority. In a
democracy, the individual exists at the pleasure of the electoral majority (or
its representatives), and has no rights, only "privileges." The
people "rule themselves" as a gang dominates its members. In America,
the "just powers" derived from the "consent of the
governed" is limited to rights-protecting functions. In a democracy, the
powers granted by the governed is theoretically unlimited.
Ringen ignores these
distinctions, and in fact doesn't even mention individual rights. That's because
he doesn't have a problem with gang rule. He just has a problem with which gang rules. The problem, he asserts,
is “concentrations of economic power that have become politically unmanageable”:
In the age of mega-expensive politics, candidates depend on
sponsors to fund permanent campaigns. When money is allowed to transgress from
markets, where it belongs, to politics, where it has no business, those who
control it gain power to decide who the successful candidates will be — those
they wish to fund — and what they can decide once they are in office. Rich
supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as
donors. Others have only the vote, a power that diminishes as political
inflation deflates its value. It is a misunderstanding to think that candidates
chase money. It is money that chases candidates.
If Ringen were concerned
about the future of American "democracy," he would recognize his own
implications. Yes, money belongs in markets, not politics. And what
political-economic system separates money—i.e., economics and business—from
politics? It's not democracy, but its antitheses; laissez-faire capitalism. If
money chases candidates, then why? Because the government has so much power
over the economy. True, money doesn't belong in politics. But politics
doesn't belong in markets, either. The problem is not "politically unmanageable" economic power. The problem is politically managed economic power, as such.
When politics "is allowed to transgress
into" markets—e.g., redistributionist taxes, regulations, anti-trust laws,
etc.—money is drawn into politics. The consequence of that transgression is
that economic interests have a triple incentive to seek political power:
to gain economic favors from government at the expense of other economic
interests; to hamper or destroy competitors through regulations; or to protect
themselves from the first two. Politics, not economics, is the impetus for the
deterioration Ringen laments.
Keep
in mind that economic power
is the benign and life-lifting power of production, attained through
voluntary trade.
Political power is the power of physical force. Economic power is not a threat,
but a benefactor. Political power is a threat, when and if it is used for any purpose
other than eliminating criminals, repelling foreign enemies, or mediating
domestic disputes; i.e., protecting individual rights.
A mixed economy provides a
path to turn economic power into political power. The problem is not economic
power, whatever the concentration. The problem is coercive domination by
political power of one economic power over others. A mixed economy features a
revolving door of dominators, based on the politics of the moment—or, as Ayn
Rand put it a cold
civil war of pressure groups. Ringen isn't against domination, as
such. He's against domination by the rich—as against, domination by whom? The
poor, the needy, or the "proletariat"? Not anymore. Apparently, those
are obsolete. Today, it's democratic rule by envy.
Of course, by Ringen's own premises, "democracy" in
America has worked just fine. Just look at the size of the welfare state,
government spending, and the national debt, which keep growing under both
Democrat and Republican administrations. Apparently, for Ringen, democracy
doesn't work well enough. Since free markets foster economic inequality—by
virtue of human nature, which is to the moral credit of free markets—our
markets are still too free.
And this gets to the essentials of Ringen's article. Ringen's
concern is not for the poor. His real target is income and wealth inequality.
His crocodile tears over democracy is really a camouflage for a call to cut
down the "rich"; i.e., the productive, self-reliant citizen.
Apparently, Ringen can't stand democracy when the vote goes against his
egalitarian designs; i.e., when the American voter doesn't exhibit a level of
envy and resentment sufficient enough to elect politicians to cut down the
rich. So he tells us that we're doomed—not because we tax, redistribute, and
regulate enough—but because we don't attack achievement viciously enough.
Is American democracy headed to extinction? Let's hope so.
Related Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment