Democracy is only a blessing if you have a small village of a dozen families, and you need the whole village feeling "free and liberated " so they can work towards a common goal, which everyone has the sense of feeling involved and important. However even for this village to keep on functioning you need a certain degree of hierarchy in each family and in the "government". And in the governing body, which you might only have a few persons to "govern" the small village you still need to have a good open and transparant system to avoid corruption and have accountability. Another issue is that all these 12 families eventually would want to "have the best" for her own family,and want to have a voice or see policies implemented what is "good for his own family" and less for the overall benefits of the whole village. This is why in this governing body compromises need to be made, which immediately reduce the effectivness of any new rules, laws or policies. Compromises which might be half-good for some families but in the longer term bad for the village. Just imagine this to be applied in a country of millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions and even over a billion.
(Note: Thanx to the link to Hans Herman Hoppe's 'Democracy the God that Failed.', I will look it up if I can get a copy in Shenzhen, if not maybe in Hong Kong)
Quote:
in a publicly-owned government -- i.e. democracy -- the rulers' have current use of resources only, not their capital value. These government caretakers cannot personally keep that which is exploited from the tax-producers. Thus, systematic property violations will be greater under a democracy. In economic jargon, the monarch's degree of time-preference will be substantially lower than that of the publicly-owned government caretaker due to difference in ownership. But isn't the democratic system kept in check by elections? Not really, argues Hoppe, as those in power "buy" votes with their redistribution policies and egalitarian schemes.
This reminds me of the news article I just read that Hillary Clinton just received another 10 million bucks to spend on her Primary Election parade. I really wonder how much money are thrown away in the Elections of democratic nations. Often it seems like the more money you have the more chance of winning an election. Effectively, even in the small village example I sketched you will see the governors trying to bribe the votes and get re-elected again. These bribes can be with new favorable (often short-term) policies, or plainout with monetary means. Or spend a big portion of his time on making promotions and public relations to get "his message" over to everyone, but wasn't he elected to govern the interests of the village, so why he is spending his time and money in winning an election race? Sometimes I wonder what the job is from someone like McCain, Clinton or Obama, who are now full-time running for Presidency. Don't they have some senate work to do?
Short-term minded politicians are ruining the so-called democratic free countries which need long-term minded efficient and effective governming bodies working for the best interests of the overly majority of the population. If we have to sacrifice the opinions and voices of a small minority to keep on developing the 99.99999% of the remainder of the populace, be my guest! Our long-term oriented government would need to keep an open mind and listen to constructive criticism, be flexible enough to adjust the policies when the majority's interests are swifting.
Similar like the pollution issue, the majority of the people is concerned about it, in China we can implement a new policy of banning all free plastic bags in supermarkets at the snip of our fingers. We have to sacrifice some plastic bag manufacturers, but we save the environment and in nett give much more back to the people!
China
China
One China
One China
