Democracy: Where Everybody Else Is Your Country's Boss

Reading through some old journal entries, I found this little chunk of musings from November 2013. I don't fully agree with everything I said then, but for the most part I do think it's sound reasoning. It begins with some rambling, but I think the last two paragraphs sum up a broader problem behind much of what pains us in the current political climate.

These thoughts came to mind while reading the Times article about Switzerland's proposal to pay all citizens a base income, and the arguments for or against it. Relevant is the recent stink about certain Wal-Mart's putting out food collection bins for their employees who are struggling to get by, and McDonald's assumption that their employees will take food stamps if that's their only job. In other words: very large, profitable companies underpaying employees to shore up their profits with tax money or charity.

I dislike the idea that this happens, but I also dislike the alternative strategy - pass legislation to force these companies to act morally. Fundamentally, American politics solves problems not through problem solving but through coercion. If something happens that we don't like, ban it. If people do things they're not supposed to, we assume something was not heavily regulated enough. We remove agency from the populace, and yet we expect everyone to maintain a sense of responsibility.

When did we start assuming that, if a system could be exploited, it would be? When did we start exploiting any system that could be exploited? More to the point, how broadly and egregiously is the system exploited? If we created a simpler system without all the checkpoints that are supposed to control abuse, could we still have a net gain? Even if a large number of people abuse or misuse resources, the shaved down political structure will almost certainly be cheaper and more cost-effective.

I find the systemic simplification and social support a basic income-type system offers deeply attractive. If your boat perpetually springs leaks, you only keep patching it when you're in the middle of the ocean. At some point you give it a new hull. What would it cost us to create a new anti-poverty system? Not to add to the existing, not to modify it, but to create an entirely new one.

I've strayed from my initial thoughts, though. This idea of coercive self-governance worries me. Everybody agrees to democracy because it means they get to have input in the government. However, when you're sold it, you only think about the fact that you will have a hand in directing things, and forget that 300 million other people will, too. And they probably won't agree with you. And so you reach an impasse where you have two constantly warring factions - the "tyrannical" rulers and the rest. The angry, disenfranchised rest. You never see the two sides working towards a common good, but rather constantly butt heads until one pushes through.

If you agree with one side, you believe the system, though clumsy, is working. If you agree with the other, you feel cheated, taken advantage of, and vengeful. Neither of these reactions allow a healthy atmosphere.