Friday, March 16, 2007

Government Services Are Forced Consumption (Even With Voting)

Government services are forced consumption. Since the funds for the services are conscripted from everyone through taxation, you have no choice to not buy the government's product. Any "losses" and debts that the government incurs is passed onto you (it can simply tax you more and inflate more). Everyone or nearly everyone must pay for it or go to jail (or worse), regaurdless of wether or not they demand the service from the government. In short, government coerces everyone into paying for its services under the threat of force or the jailhouse. A typical response to this assertion would be: "many citizens do have a choice whether to 'buy' the government's services or to make it offer new ones. They can vote".

But this simply is not true. It entirely ignores the individual, the dissenter, the people who disagree, the numerical minority. Voting does not gaurantee representation and it is never a matter of true majorities or true unanimity. "The citezens" aren't one entity that all desire the same things. When we say "the citezens can vote for which services to get", in reality, only a limited percentage of the people are deciding this, and those who do not decide this are forced to pay for the services that those who do want it.

Among those voting, there are conflicting desires. The side of voters who loses must also pay for the desires of the numerical majority who wins. The idea that voting grants you true representation is a sham. Your choices are decided for you ahead of time (do citezens get to vote on every issue, let alone select what issues they vote on in general? of course not). You rarely get to actually directly vote on issues, and when it comes to elections for politicians you essentially only have two pre-stacked choices: Democrats and Republicans (I.E. people in the current establishment vs. people in the current establishment). That isn't representation, nor does it represent any meaningful power over the government on the part of the citezen.

The politician can for all intents and purposes do as they please once voted in office (and voting them out comes as an oppurtunity every few years, and they tend to jerry rig their seats and districts so that they can't be voted out easily). They are not bound by your vote, you are bound by it. You must put up with whatever the government does once they have been voted in, even if you voted in their favor. You have no choice to change your mind (if you do, you're simply S.O.L.), and you have no choice to not pay for a government policy that you do not demand as a consumer. If "the voters" vote that your religion is illegal and that you must pay for service X, then you have no choice in the matter. If "the voters" voted against it, and politician X goes through with it anyway, then you have no choice in the matter; politicians can use their power contrary to the wishes and promises made to those who voted for them ex-post-facto, once they're in power.

Voting is irrelevant; all of the services that the government provides that you do not desire you must pay for anyways, or you go to jail. Voting is not a demonstration of unanimous consent. There are always people who do not desire what the numerical majority of voters want. To pretend that everyone has a unanimous power to get what they want from the government through the voting system is nonsensical. Whatever the numerical majority gets in their favor, everyone else must comply with. Voting or not, whatever the government ultimately decides to do, everyone has to pay for it regaurdless of wether or not they desire it.

The only way for the quoted response to be true would be if everyone all desired the same thing from their government. This is not how reality works, however. All those who desire differently then the government itself or the numerical majority who determines election outcomes must pay for it regaurdless. Further, no individual citezen has the power to truly vote specifically on what they desire. What if my desire is to abolish the federal reserve? Or the income tax? Well, that would never be an option at any voting booth, therefore my demand is unheard by the government. After voting has already occured, what if I oppose the minimum wage hike that my state passed? Well, my buisiness is made to pay certain workers more even if my demand is to eliminate the minimum wage altogether.

The voting theory here is based on the ridiculous unspoken assumption that every citezen unanimously consents to everything that the government does. In reality, each individual human being demands different things, and those who do not demand whatever the government is providing must pay for it anyways. This is beyond obvious. When voting determines that a law will be passed or politician be granted power in Ohio, this does not mean tha every single person in Ohio has demanded and consented to the law or politicians. Everyone in Ohio who disfavors that politician or law must put up with and pay for it anyways.

This is why I reject the theory of democracy. It is a sham. Its absurdity can be demonstrated mathematically. Texas is considered a "red state", correct? Well, the actual statistics for the election read something approximately like this: say, out of eligible voters in Texas, 40% of them voted. As a further percentage of this 40%, say, 50% voted for Republicans, 45% voted for Democrats and 5% for Independant parties. Therefore, Texas is a "red state" as represented by about 20% of the eligible voting populace. The numbers dwindle down further when we consider the eligible voting populace as a percentage out of the overall Texas population; which will reduce our percentage to, say, 12% or 13%.

So, what voting theory would consider to be a majority or unanimous consent and demand for what the government does is really only a reflection of a splinter group, a small numerical majority. Of course, in our example, all those who voted for Independants or Democrats must pay for the politicians and policies that "won" that they didn't demand. Further, all those who didn't vote must pay for this as well. Further, the people in the actual numerical majority are not unanimous; they have varying motives and demands, and therefore a conflict of interest within their own group. So much for representation.

Beyond this, quite often the voters (1) get something quite different than what they voted for (2) were uninformed as to what they voted for really does or (3) get what they voted for + unintended consequences. Of course, even if they do get what they voted for there are others in society who must pay for it who did not vote for it not have any desire for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch: TANSTAAFL. Most voters are bribed by sneaky politicians into thinking that they can get a free lunch from the government, when in reality it is at a net expense to them and everyone else in society, including those who do not desire that particular free lunch or any free lunch at all.

The politician's job is to woo the voters as much as possible by promising them utopia; free this, free that, war on this, war on that, pure equality for all, etc. Democratic voting has become an ideological obfuscation of state predation just like the divine right of the king used to be, accept now it's secularized and voting is held up as the divine justification for whatever the state does; or the state itself is religiously idolized (as was done in Communist Russia, where paradoxically while all reigion was effectively illegalized, the education system was used to religiously indoctrinate the people to turn the communist state and the dictator into a religious idol).

There is no such thing as unanimous consent to the government, and therefore there is no such thing as a government based entirely on the consent of the governed. It is a fairy tale that has been abused to grant people power. Further, majority numbers does not determine moral correctness and defacto legitimacy. Such a line of reasoning is a logical fallacy known as arguementum ad populum. But in the world of consistant logic, 500 men robbing from one man is not any more moral then 1 man robbing from 1 man. Therefore appeals to the majority are mostly false justifications for the abuse of power.

Voting determined by numerical majorities does not determine actual accurate representation of "society" as a whole, nor does voting in itself necessarily lead to representation of the voter's well-being and demands in any way at all. Most of the voters themselves have little to no clue about the issues. Not only that, but to engage in voting that is followed through technically is imposing your will on others in society (therefore, once again, there are conflicts of interest, not unanimous consent). Society is not a single unified sentient entity that uniformly thinks thoughts and takes actions on its own. It is made up of individuals with varying ideas, actions, needs and wants. Appeals to the collective view of society obscure the individual factors at work, and in turn obscure the dissenters and variance within it.

Government cannot function like a buisiness. Government provision of services such as public agriculture, public industry, the post office, NASA, foreign nation building, public housing, public energy, public broadcasting, public education, public healthcare, public daycare, public welfare, public psychology, public counseling, job training and even public roads are all at a net expense to society and forced onto everyone (which includes the recievers of the services, the coerced producers of them and the coerced payers for them) and the regaurdless of their demand and consent as individuals.

Further, to the extent that the recievers of these services do not fully use them, they are at a loss, on top of the loss incurred to the net payers (which quite easily expands to the reciever themself as well). The affected citezen has no choice to not recieve the service and they have no choice to not pay for it. It is coerced consumption for the recievers and coerced labor (and therefore involuntary servitude, I.E. slavery) for the net payers. Both government ownership and government contracting of the means of production produce this general outcome, although in different ways. In either case, in both scenarios there people being forced to consume, pay for and produce services regaurdless of their demand or voluntary choice as individuals.

No comments: