On January 20th people in the
While
a rigorous intellectual enquiry reconciles discordances, democracy merely
inflates them with a system of winners and losers. To rub salt in the wounds,
politicians know that a huge number of the electorate are pretty ignorant about
politics and economics, so they look not to what's good for the country but
what is likely to be popular in terms of votes
Because
of how our top earners raise the average wage, the majority of people in the UK
earn below the average wage, which means they are going to be swayed by
redistributionist policies targeted at the rich, and economic policies that
hamper progress. Unfortunately, in terms of viable representatives, this means
the public do not get what they need; they get what they think they want. Or to
use a culinary analogy, instead of getting to choose between a fillet steak, a
sirloin steak and a rump steak, the public instead gets to choose between
several rump steaks with slightly different flavoured sauces.
Despite the increased human assent to democratic
values, there is one key thing that will always provide a resistance; and it is
that for all her picturesque backdrops and glorious natural scenery, nature is
not very democratic at all. When it comes to health, looks, size, shape,
talents, intelligence, sensory apparatus, opportunity and background, nature is
far from democratic - there is a notable difference in all of these human
qualities in each of us, as their attainment depends on undemocratic things
like fortune and pursuit.
Further, there is no democracy in the qualities
we try to attain either. Successful romantic love is not democratic: it reveals
itself more to the faithful pursuer of monogamy than it does the uncommitted
philanderer. Goodness is not democratic: it emerges more in those who seek moral
probity than those who pursue selfishly bad ends. Knowledge is not democratic:
it is the natural reward of diligence and effort, and absent in lazy-minded
slackers. Good health is not democratic: it is contingent on the lifestyle
chosen, genetic legacies, and other physiological factors too. And more
generally, the achievements, the wisdom, and the fulfilments we secure are not
democratic: they are the reward of hard work and an earnest pursuit of things that
are good for us.
Our democratic leanings, then, are assented to
in spite of nature not because of it. Those leanings are based on a popular
view about equality - the view that it is fundamental to a successful society
and peaceable co-existence. Our yearning for equality is in one sense a good
thing - it is the recognition that we want everyone to make the best of their
raw material, irrespective of genes, looks, intelligence and background. But in
another sense, and sadly the predominant sense, it is pernicious in its fear of
success and advancement. At its worst its proponents hate the thought of wealth
stratification, superiority and divergence in achievement - they behave like starved
organisms desperate to lament the oxygen of others, leading only to envy and
resentment.
While the first tenet of equality is noble, the
second is ignoble, and we must have no truck with it. Just as an education
system that gave everyone the same grades would be unrepresentative, and a 400
metre race in which everyone crossed the line together would be pointless,
similarly, a society devoid of wealth stratification, superiority and divergence
in achievement would be a society in which those richest of human qualities -
freedom to pursue talents, rewards for hard work, benefits to innovation, and
positives that emerge from moral and intellectual excellence - were rendered
meaningless.
I
tend to agree with Churchill that democracy is the least bad of all
alternatives rather than being stunningly good in itself. Still, we have it,
and we're better off than most countries, so we mustn't grumble too much - as
long as we keep one step ahead of democracy's limitations.
* See here for my blog post on Aumann's Agreement Theorem
