The principle under which we operate is a simple one: as a political system has implications for everything (and we mean absolutely everything), then it is also fair game that we review everything (and we mean absolutely everything).
It is for this very reason that this site is hectic, to say the least. It is not just because modern democracies permeate everything that everybody does, but because this is no coincidence. Political systems are designed to do just that. Our task is to point out that, generally speaking, the price of certain advantages in our current system outweighs the price of the entire package. In the past, modern democracies were small and the benefits they provided were significant. However, over time, they began to pollute everything with negative impacts. Consider the following.
There is no free lunch. Contrary to what Central Banks and politicians tell you, printing fiat money is not the equivalent of creating wealth out of thin air. It is a scam. When everything is said and done somebody must pay the full price with real wealth and not with coloured toilet paper. Concomitantly, every time a politician makes a decision that affects our lives, even if this decision is made with the best of intentions, somebody, somewhere, must pay the full price for the disturbance of true free market forces. Politicians alter the Ying, we suffer a modification in the Yang.
If you are into the whole Earth-Gaia / Mother Earth / the Universe-Is-Conscious movement, this is actually an excellent analogy as to how political systems work. With one crucial difference. We don't get to make the decisions that alter our Ying or our Yang. Politicians get to make the altering decision and we always get to suffer the consequences. In so doing, it is a win-win game for politicians and a lose-lose proposition for us.
This is so because politicians are insulated from their decisions through their positions, jobs, salaries and privileges. No matter the decision they make, what's the worst that can happen to them? They may lose the next elections, but at least they still have one last chance in the elections to rectify this "perception". If the decision seems popular (i.e. of socialistic nature), they win. If the decision seems unpopular (i.e. of capitalist nature) they have their future cushy jobs secured with private corporations. On top of that, they get to try to stay in power in the next election. Win-Win.
But how about us? If the decision is popular, this simply means that the unholy trinity (tax, borrow and print) will be working overtime. This also means that our standards of living will drop even further. If the decision is unpopular, this means that corporations will get to keep more of their profits without a concurrent effort of serving their customers. This will, of course, further decrease our standards of living. Lose-lose.
But why is that this phenomenon takes place?
Because every time we make an economic decision we are trying to remove "uneasiness" from our lives. We are willing to trade something we consider of lesser value for something we consider of higher value. Our counterparty in the deal will, of course, perform the same economic calculation. This is a win-win deal for both parties.
However, when politicians make this determination for us, they are trading something that we consider of higher value (for example our long-term standards of living) for something of lesser value that serves their purposes (for example temporary "free" goods and services). They force us into this deal. We have no choice in it and as so it is a win-lose proposition for both parties. They win and we lose.
It is interesting to observe that politicians always act as us (for example when they set their salaries). They "sell" their time which they consider of little value for high salaries which they consider of superior value. We, as the counterparty in the deal, are stuck with their worthless time while being forced to pay them with our real wealth. Or, when they decide to expand some government program this will boost their standings in the next election but will suck us with the bill. The problem is that we cannot act as us. We are always forced to be the counterpart of the deal whether is in our best interest or not.
It is for this economic reason that democracies are patently unfair, even assuming that they are based on sound Social Contracts (a big leap of imagination - see Social Contracts Are A Scam). This is so because we do not get to decide what we value more in the contracts that we are forced to enter.
Even if we could somehow agree (really agree) on the things we want, democracy would still not work. This is so because there is no free lunch. For one group to get what they want, wealth must be taken from the other group. We are fairly certain that the losing group will always object.
Modern democracies are a contradiction in terms which we pretend to believe for as long as the benefits outweigh the price. F&P
As such, as politicians get to decide how our wealth is going to be spent, we are legitimized in reviewing this spending. But the more politicians spend of our wealth, the more our lives will be affected by that spending and therefore the more elements we are entitled to review. In modern democracies, there is nothing that we can point to that hasn't been altered by politicians. Therefore we are entitled to review everything.
We have now come full circle. Democratic systems are dangerous to your economic health because they prevent you from seeking the best deal you can possibly get. Although it is true that if you are in the "receiving" group you will indeed get "free" goods and services (the "donating" group will pay for them), it is also true that by preventing the free markets from operating you are being prevented from becoming self-sufficient. It is this lack of self-sufficiency that necessitates the ongoing and ever expanding cycle of "donations" and "recipients" (see Socialism - The Most Addictive Drug). In this sense, modern democracies are self-defeating marching steadily into a spiral of economic death.
But should we be surprised of this outcome? Of course not. This was the very same principle of socialism: good is defined as what is best for society and not the individual. This automatically prevents people from seeking the best deal they can get. And we all know how well that experiment went.
The bottom line is simple. We will continue to review, evaluate, criticize, analyze, deconstruct, reverse-engineer, clarify and otherwise turn everything upside to see what falls off, not because we are nosy but because it is our wealth that it is being used. Through this process we are legitimized in our task.
Unless you prefer to view it from a different point of view. Maybe you believe that Social Contracts are valid and the Magna Carta, Constitution or Declaration of Principles under which you operate are valid documents. That is most certainly your right. Just one thing, as the economy spirals into the proverbial economic toilet, remember that those documents cannot be used to cope with bodily functions; they are too refractory.
Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.
