NationStates Jolt Archive

Democracy only works until the electorate figure out that they can vote themselves the treasury. Politicians effectively buy votes through patronage of various groups – they use public funds to bribe the electorate. Some countries are a little more obvious than others, but it happens in every democracy.

People are sufficiently selfish and shortsighted to vote based on which politician can steer the most to them. Any politician who is actually working for the greater good and benefiting the nation as a whole quickly loses to the politician that makes the most outrageous campaign promises.

Of course there are some that are still sufficiently ignorant of basic economics to think that the government can provide everyone with a high standard of living for nothing, because obviously governments can just conjure resources out of thin air free of charge. I would like to think that most people understand enough to know that every promise comes with a cost.

Promise steel workers high tariffs on steel might help steel companies by reducing competition, but everyone in the economy (including those very steel workers) are harmed by the higher cost of steel. Give yet more subsidies to corn growers and you raise taxes (which cause considerable harm to the economy through administrative costs, bureaucratic inefficiency, and dead weight loss) to just make even more excessive production far beyond what is necessary (then of course you have to do something with that excess production, so you promise more subsidies for turning it into corn syrup or ethanol at even greater cost to the tax payer) which reduced resources for everyone else. I could go on and on.

So why? Is it that people are just so ignorant of basic economics that they think there are no consequences – that government largess is costless? Or is it that people are willing to see everyone worse off if they might end up less worse off than most other people?

A Democracy can only truly work when votes aren't bought. It is less the people's fault, as their minds are confused by messages from those who are selling them the politicians. After all, the people do not own the media, a handful of wealthy men do. The media can shape reality, or at least the perception of it in the eyes of the standard person, and so their views are shaped.

Depending on what country you are in, there may be little alternative. Several countries live quite well on the basis of the Third World, generally taking their resources and producing nothing of real value, just trinkets that the people want to buy from large chains of stores. Much of the First World, without the Third World cheap labour, would be in dire straits. That is why they tout "Free Trade" so much, it is their excuse to grab resources to further their unstable, unsustainable economies for a while longer.

The problem lies equally in the consciousness of mankind as it does with any flaw inherent in the systems of economics and governance, Marxism never saw that, which is why it generally (with a couple of exceptions) failed outright when used as a dogma (but not neccesarily when used as a pragmatic guide), because naturally Marxism considers the consciousness of man based upon the productive forces. True Socialism and Communism, according to Marxist theory, can only be achieved when there is "Abundance", but who can say what that is? After all, the US lives far better than people in Marx's time, but clearly this abundance is not enough for Communism, or to truly raise the consciousness of Americans higher than any other people. Capitalism tends to ironically, reach the same basic conclusions, the primary factor of mankind is raising the economy at all costs.

There is a very strong argument that what exists today is not even Democracy; the proper name of this system being a "Republic", but when the masses elect people to vote in their name, they are effectively abandoning their vote to someone else, who may or may not follow their intended gestures. I would suggest the reading of "The Green Book" by Muammar al-Qadhafi, specifically the first section: "The Solution to the Problems of Democracy: The Authority of the People", whatever you may think about Qadhafi, he brings up very good points on the flaws of modern Democracy and ways to fix them.

If anyone wishes to contact me, and I do love good discussion:
my AIM is latino heat11554

You're pretty much screwed. Public Choice economics would predict that trying to change the incentive system is irrational. Trying to would have one incur costs on one's self with an uncertain benefit. One individual is unlikely to change things.

Politicians effectively buy votes through patronage of various groups – they use public funds to bribe the electorate.

So? Public funds being invested in the public good is a good thing.

Of course, at some point excessive government spending might become a problem. But there is no reason to expect that the public cannot realize this, and act accordingly.

If, of course, the public perceives that the benefits of government spending outweigh the costs, that is their choice.

Of course, at some point excessive government spending might become a problem. But there is no reason to expect that the public cannot realize this, and act accordingly.


I would have to ask. Has this ever occurred anywhere in history? I am a little leery of considering colony revolts as valid examples though, so keep that in mind.

I would have to ask. Has this ever occurred anywhere in history?

Spending cuts in democracies? Um, yes.

An unwillingness to spend beyond a certain point in democracies? Also yes... obviously, because otherwise the government would take everything always.

Spending cuts in democracies? Um, yes.

An unwillingness to spend beyond a certain point in democracies? Also yes... obviously, because otherwise the government would take everything always.

No, I meant the public acting accordingly. Big spenders being voted out of office or otherwise removed from power on the basis of their excessive spending.

Big spenders being voted out of office or otherwise removed from power on the basis of their excessive spending.

Isn't that the obvious motive for politicians cutting spending?

Plenty of politicians have been voted out of office for budget problems like high deficits... or for raising taxes. Both of which, of course, are the costs of high government spending.

No, I meant the public acting accordingly. Big spenders being voted out of office or otherwise removed from power on the basis of their excessive spending.Yes. IIRC the 70s is a good decade for examples of that.

There's also examples of politicians and governments getting the boot for cuddling special interest groups, though all of them do that, so it's more the exception than the rule.