Government: Inherently Anti-democratic
In the western world especially, the notion of democracy, as a system in which the people rule, or at least, get a say on whom they are ruled by (in theory), is much touted as a fair and moral mode of social organisation. The belief being, that democracy is equivalent to freedom. That if you have any say at all then you are your own master and not controlled or owned by someone else. There are some major holes in this thinking that I will not go into now. Today I will talk briefly about the anti-democratic effect of taxes and government spending on society.
This is because, a capitalist free-market is the ultimate democratic voting machine, where the expenditure of money (or barter for that matter) are votes. In a free-market where goods and services are exchanged between people with mutual consent, without force, coercion or fraud, the sum of the individuals preferences reign. Those offerings which are unpopular are allocated little money and the more sought after goods and services garner greater resources for the producers, which guides future productivity by way of incentives. In this way resources are directed by the unforced choices of market participants.
Conversely, when government seizes money through taxation and subsequently spends it, it is in effect rigging the voting mechanism of markets in favour of the preferences of those who govern. Since government does not spend money precisely as the taxpayer would have, it necessarily results in an allocation of resources in society that is not what taxpayers preferences would have created. This is true of all governments and rulers that we would recognise as governments or rulers, whenever other peoples money is seized and spent, whether it is called democracy or not.
If you liked this please let me know below.
Interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing!
I'd be interested in knowing where you think that government spending in any western democratic country is in direct competition with free-market companies.
I'm interested because it seems to me that most government spending is on things that free-market companies need, but would never be able to do for themselves like creating an educated work force, developing infrastructure and keeping the work force healthy. From my perspective, since the 80's, privatization of institutions that were once the domains of governments means that in western democratic governments, virtually everything that can make money in a free market is in the hands of private companies.
But perhaps you're thinking of some specific counter-examples?
Thanks for your reply. By way of answer I should first explain a little about my position. The key difference between public and private endeavours is the inclusion of force. The use of force is prohibited to private enterprise except where people have consented to be bound by contract. Governments however, being able to take money by force (taxes) and otherwise use force, e.g. forced purchase of land, are inherently able to act in ways that people deem not to be in their best interests. Therefore, whilst government can provide things people want or need, they differ from private enterprise by being able to also provide what people don't want or need or what would not be their priority for the use of limited resources. I would argue that this difference means that private enterprise could provide virtually anything that was needed, to the extent that it is the most cost-effective use of resources, and better than government can achieve. With regards to competition, it is worth noting that it is hard for private companies to compete with government when private companies must entice people to part with money willingly whilst government can just take it. In my view, this is the main reason that once government has imposed itself in an industry e.g. providing healthcare, education etc. it is hard for people to see how it could be done otherwise. It comes down to this, is it of use or benefit to people such that they would pay to have it without being forced? If so, would it be better run, more efficient and effective if consumers must be encouraged to part with their money willingly, or if they are made to fund it whether it's any good or not, or whether they want it or not? Sorry if this doesn't answer your question.
Congratulations @captainsteemit! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!