Skip to main content

Why Democracy doesn't work

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a woman who recognized my name from some political work I did a couple of years ago. The issue concerned the process of drawing political boundaries around school districts, and this woman, a retired school teacher, disagreed with the way the legislature had set up the voting.
When I told her that we'd have to agree to disagree, she slammed her hand onto the table and angrily stormed off, ending the conversation.
I have no quarrel with her passion in standing up for something she believes is unfair; where I have a problem is that she had such a hardened viewpoint that she wasn't even willing to explore the reasoning behind the legislation. In this particular case there was a sound reason why the legislature had decided to limit who could vote in creating a new school district using a particular procedure. (There were two other procedures in the statues, one that required no vote at all and one that allowed everyone to vote.)
In this particular case, the people who were not allowed to vote on the boundary issue had the ability to vote on other issues that the people who did get a vote on the school district boundaries did not, but which impacted them in terms of property taxes.
If the voting had been universal, then the one faction would have been able to force the other to subsidize their policies. Policies that the legislature felt needed to be moderated.
This type of knee-jerk reaction, and an emotional unwillingness to consider both sides of a question are why a democracy can never work. Fortunately, we live in a republic where the legislators do the due dilligence. Unfortunately, they are still dependant on being democratically elected.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Agregate Demand and the US Savings Rate

In my last post, I touched on the differences between the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig von Mises. Immediately aftward, I was directed to this story in the New York Times. It seems that americans are saving more instead of spending the their money on consumer goods. Up until this downturn, about 70% of the US Economy was consumer spending, and in 2005, the US Savings rate was negative 2.7%. The "stimulus" is supposed to stimulate spending to get money moving again. But it isn't happening as planned. Folks are saving for down payments because they don't expect to get zero down home mortgages; they're saving to replenish their decimated retirement and college funds. The austrians believe that the best way to "fix" the economy is to allow the "malinvestment" created by the false signals in the economy (from the open market ops and deficit spending) to be liquidated and the resources repurposed into better investments. It...
Post a Comment
Read more

Haiti Adoption Story

Most of us have seen or read stories of adoptions of Haitian children following the earthquake last month. Some of the stories have had a positive slant (the charity has saved children...) other's have had a negative slant (the "missionaries" who kidnapped and tried to smuggle 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic). At a family gathering yesterday, my wife heard a story about a couple that was "finally" able to adopt a child they've been trying to adopt for about 4 years. As the story was related to me, this couple had originally been matched with this child about 4 years ago, but the adoption was cancelled when the parents of the child took her back and parented her themselves. After about three years of caring for the child, the natural parents returned her to the orphanage because both of them had been diagnosed with tuberculosis; a death sentence in Haiti. (Mortality for untreated TB is about 67%.) The adoption was finalized just befo...
3 comments
Read more

If It's Not Baby Selling, How Do You Explain This?

Apologists for the infant adoption industry like to claim that the fees collected by adoption agencies are to cover expenses and so on, that there is no profit or profit motive involved in the practice. I usually counter this by pointing out that part of purchasing a car goes to pay the salesman, some pays the rent for the dealership, some goes to taxes, and so on. When money changes hands, and a product is delivered, it is selling. With infant adoption, the product is a human baby. The only difference between a for profit company and a non-profit is that one's books say "shareholder equity" and the other's say "retained earnings.' But in light of this ABC News story that ran last Mar 12, I don't think even the "it's only fees and costs" story holds up: When a couple seeking to adopt a white baby is charged $35,000 and a couple seeking a black baby is charged $4,000, the image that comes to the Rev. Ken Hutcherson's mind is of a practi...
2 comments
Read more