printA lot of gushing is going on about our wonderful democracy at work—the allusion being to the long lines and high turnout. Not to rain on anyone’s line, but:
America was not conceived as a democracy—majority rule was never the intent here. In a democracy, majorities get to decide what is up for grabs. In a republic, where the central government has limited and clearly enumerated functions, majorities merely determine who is to be elected.
We are thus subject to the whims of the national majority, or, rather, of its ostensible representatives.
It is these representatives who triumph in this or any election, certainly not that fictitious entity “The People.” While it seems obvious that the minority in a democracy is openly thwarted, the question is, do the elected representatives at least carry out the will of the majority?
The answer is No. The People’s representatives have carte blanche to do exactly as they please. As Benjamin Barber wrote:
It is hard to find in all the daily activities of bureaucratic administration, judicial legislation, executive leadership, and paltry policy-making anything that resembles citizen engagement in the creation of civic communities and in the forging of public ends. Politics has become what politicians do; what citizens do (when they do anything) is to vote for politicians.
In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy E. Barnett further homes in on why the informed voter ought to have little incentive to exercise his “democratic right”:
If we vote for a candidate and she wins, we have consented to the laws she votes for, but we have also consented to the laws she has voted against.
If we vote against the candidate and she wins, we have consented to the laws she votes for or against.
And if we do not vote at all, we have consented to the outcome of the process whatever it may be.
This “rigged contest” Barnett describes as, “‘Heads’ you consent, ‘tails’ you consent, ‘didn’t flip the coin,’ guess what? You consent as well.'”
Update I (Nov. 5): Wrote Michael Oakeshott in The Claims of Politics:
“Political action involves mental vulgarity, not merely because it entails the occurrence and support of those who are mentally vulgar, but because of the simplification of human life implied in even the best of it purposes.”
Twiddle-y-dee or Twiddle-y-dum,
there’s just one Party
and it ain’t no fun.
So I went to the polls
and voted for none!
(But don’t be appalled
I wrote in Ron Paul).
Ilana, you weren’t dancing in the streets because we have a “black” (technically “colored”) Emporer-Diety instead of and old white warmonger!!! The good news was the Republicans losing. The bad news was the Democrats winning. But probably 90% of Americans no longer believe in any small-r republican concept of limited government {oh, they might oppose some particular thing but not in any general sense}. Sadly, the main impediment to Global Government is not based upon principle but on prejudices and bigotries – a silver lining to evil, if you will. Meanwhile, we may still be sliding to Global Bankruptcy and who knows what that will bring.
So how do we withdraw our consent?
Now is when we try secession.
Things will likely still have to get a little worse before it becomes viable. But I think we are reaching a demarcation point. While most Americans are stupid or evil, there are some who are becoming more angry at the State.
I see a little bit of it in my poly science class.
Also, I think that if, say, Texas left the Union, and dramatically rolled back the State, the effects of greater prosperity and less political faction could be seen as being positive by other States.
This is probably just positive thinking, but at least the word is out there. Imagine how the now legendary von Mises must have felt when times were even worse, and Austrian economic theory was thought to be dead?
Unfortunately, Lincoln already set the precedent on how the Federal Government treats those who wish to secede from the “Union”. And our pea-shooters can’t compete against the Federal arsenal.
So, the only possible avenue is voting into office many of like mind. How long do you think that would take?
Max,
That is simply not possible.
I would also argue the limits of politics and what the government wants and deems appropriate. There is a difference between high order political theory and reality. People who often hear about my ideas of economics and ethics often say that I am only talking ‘high theory’ and not practicality and common sense.
My response is terse and might help a little bit in this discussion; it is the people who view the Constitution and democracy as being ‘laws of the land’ and governing all the realm of reality as being impractical. They believe that political theory applies, if voted by the majority, is not only just, but also implies truth and reality. For example, in an argument over minimum wage laws and the Department of Education, my professor whom I am arguing with said “do we have a right to education? Not sure, the Supreme Court hasn’t decided so.”
This amounts to the greatest amount of sillyness that I can think of at the moment. To argue that the Constitution, the Supreme Court, or democracy governs what is a ‘right’, or what is ‘real’, is about as silly as deciding solutions to calculus problems by arm wrestling.
How does this apply to the right to secession? Well, politically (theory), we don’t have a ‘right’ to leave the Union. But in reality it is a very real possibility once things get bad enough.
To wit; imagine that five to ten years from now, Texans are quite pissed at the State of the Union, and decide that they want to leave. Imagine that most, if not all, decide this.
Do you really think that the United States government, with it’s one million man Army, would be able or willing to wage war against, say, 10 or 15 million angry Texas males who wanted to defend their homes and families from Leviathan? I think that it would be political and military suicide for U.S. to engage in such a policy. Unlike the Civil War, which is sometimes justified today by the need to end slavery, this could not be used as an example in contemporary times. What justification would the U.S. use if they decided to war on Texas? ‘We are doing this to promote public education’ before bombing Austin and killing thousands of people? I highly doubt it.
For this reason, I think that secession is still possible.
Sorry for the long post, Ilana.