Umbral Echoes Blog

It seems to me that the vast majority of people have political beliefs that benefit their situation. That seems natural, but then again, isn't selfishness something that we as humans try to work past? Civilization exists for the greater good of everyone, after all.

But again, it seems that most people are unable to grasp this, or at best they justify selfishness with logic instead of looking at things logically from the get-go. The rich say, "Less taxes on the rich!" The poor and middle class say, "More taxes on the rich!" This is normal, and people who hold selfish political beliefs generally don't interest me. It's expected. Though sometimes their systems of self-justification are interesting, ranging from thought-provoking to absurd.

What really pique my interest are people whose political views don't benefit themselves, or people like themselves. The person who says, "You know, I'd be okay with paying more taxes." The rich woman who says, "I think welfare is a necessary part of our society." The all-American country boy who says, "Shit, let more Mexicans in — they're just takin' the jobs we don't wanna do anyway!" The unemployed man who says, "I think unemployment benefits are too high." The girl eligible for disability who says, "I don't need this." The retired person who says, "I don't think there should be social security."

I personally hold some political beliefs that definitely don't benefit me. I think that taxes need to be higher — though I also think that government spending needs to be more efficient. I'm fine with the near-fact that people in my generation will pay social security but not get anything back from it. Not all of my political beliefs are that way, of course, but a few are. And though I know a few people who are the same, it seems that by and large, such people are very much in the minority.

This would seem to me to lead toward a tyranny of the majority. If 75% of the (voting) people realize that they can take resources from everyone else, and they vote for candidates that enact laws which benefit them (at cost to others), then… well, I think you can see where this is headed.

This line of thought always leads me to this quote, which is often attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler though its origins are still unclear (some attribute it to Alexis de Tocqueville):

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Sounds a little scary, huh?

I’m watching the State of the Union address, and as usual there are a lot of “duh” moments in it. Yeah, we’re trying to get our troops home. We need an economic stimulus package to get pushed through soon. Et cetera.

As I watch this though, I’m drawn less to what’s being said, and more to what both sides of the auditorium (Republican and Democrat) applaud on — as opposed to which points only the Republicans applaud on. And also, which comments get standing ovations from just one side, or both. It’s like a gauge of what is going to happen, and what might or might not.

As a quick example, the first thing I saw both sides applaud on was a measure to make congress vote on all earmarks — if it’s important for tax dollars to be spent on, then it should be discussed and voted on publicly.

And dear lord, man. “Nuclear,” not, “nukular.”

As an aside, David Elsewhere is my hero of the day.