What's wrong with Democracy by Free Hal
Here is a good article written by Free Hal. It explains clearly some of the weaknesses of Democracy and why it can collapse.
What's wrong with Democracy?
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Ben Franklin
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." - Alexander Fraser Tytler
"Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation." - Karl Marx
Democracy is the best way, pretty much the only acceptable way, to run a state.
Dictatorship, theocracy, tribalism – none of them comes within a mile of democracy as a way to steer the coercive power of a government.
The contest has been tried time and time again, and democracies have always triumphed against the over-ambitious dictators (Kaiser Bill, Hitler, Kruschev, Galtieri, Saddam) who convinced themselves that democracy was soft.
Democracies are just nicer than pretty much any dictatorship you can think of. The freedom, order , and consent that western democracies involve are easy to live by, and allow individuals to take charge of their own happiness.
Democracy is Unsustainable
The problem with democracy is that it is long term unsustainable.
The democratic state leads to the welfare state.
The welfare state overburdens and then capsizes itself.
Without a state you have no democracy.
This may sound sweeping. How does it work?
The fiscal effect
The lower earning majority will out-vote for the higher earning minority into buy things for them, such as health care, insurance, pensions.
The maths is simple: if a 1% tax increase will cost you £1 but will buy you £2 of things you want, you will vote for it. The minority for whom that 1% costs £100, and who aren’t eligible for the benefit, are outnumbered.
Everyone will complain about tax increases, but the majority will vote for the politician who convincingly promises them £2 more of services for £1 more of tax. And they will bitterly resist any government hinting at withdrawing freebies already available. This is the tax ratchet in operation. It has no logical stopping point to prevent it going over the cliff-edge.
Lethal side effects
Freebies will create side effects which further undermine the system.
Currently, in Europe, the side effect of utopian welfare promises has been to attract large numbers of less productive migrants, primarily Islamic populations, who don’t want to integrate. The welfare state has thus created a catastrophic and self-widening ethnic divide in Europe which can break the democratic state on its own, and which will continue to grow even after the welfare tap runs dry.
Similarly, the majority, being employees, will also put squeeze the system from the other end of the system, i.e. getting the state to force others to pay them more for working less. This goes under the banner of ‘health and safety’, and – you’ve guessed it – ‘social justice’. These nice-sounding justifications don’t alter the fact that a quart won’t go into a pint pot. An economy won’t survive if too little is put in, especially if too much is taken out at the other end.
This process adopts ideologies like “social justice”, “progressive deficit”, and “social inclusion” as ways to justify it. And it will be seen as a right. E.g. a reduction in taxation is always referred to as ‘giving money to the rich’ instead of what it really is – desisting from taking it from them. It’s a highly proceduralised shakedown, adorned with fine words and the high academic seal of legitimacy.
This ideological thrust paints the traditional state of things as uniformly bad, as something to be changed, to be got away from. This simplifies in the general consciousness as the idea that western society, not having always signed up to notions of 'social justice', i.e. the forcible transfers of wealth from the minority to the majority, is bad. If it can be undermined, along with the oppressors who impose it, then the welfare utopia can arise in its place. Not for nothing did Mikhail Gorbachev, during a March 2000 visit to London, describe EU as "the new European Soviet".
Over time, the ingrained wisdom is that anything traditional, anything associated with the old way of doing things, is to be torn down. In this environment, western culture, traditional morality, individual responsibility, self-restraint, and self-reliance, are reflexively perceived as bad in themselves. And western society and its towering historical culture are seen merely as irrelevant or oppressive. This explains the self-loathing of western society, particularly welfare democratic society, and its peculiar determination to weaken and undermine itself in the face of any threat.
Anyone who thinks collapsed economies are some kind of carnival is either a Marxist or a fool, probably both. The effect last for a generation and usually put in train other effects that last for a generation after that. Reflect for a few minutes about what has usually followed economic breakdown in Europe. The state itself usually breaks down, and people resort to the strongest local warlord, or the most militaristic dictator, for protection.