Democracy and the Future

Before diving into some conceptual aspects of democracy, may I offer a quick political note or two about the Clinton Foundation imbroglio? First, nothing better shows how diametrically opposite in personality are democratic and republican presidents, than their behavior upon leaving office. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Al Gore scurry around the globe, armtwisting moguls into donating to extinguish diseases like Guinea Worm and River Blindness, or else fight climate change. Ronald Reagan and both Bushes raised money for their presidential libraries, then vanished, along with Dick Cheney, doing little but holding court. 

This supports my longstanding theory that the true difference between democrats and republicans is not about "left vs. right" in any classic sense. (Every metric of competitive capitalism does better across DP administrations.) Rather they are the manic and depressive sides of American personality. In further evidence, witness how stunningly lazy have been ten of the last twelve US Congress sessions - those run by the GOP. While the other two were frenzies of activity.

But no. There is one way Bill and Hillary Clinton can get their Foundation out of the news cycle. Give it to Jimmy Carter. Lock, stock and barrel. The same way that Warren Buffett made Bill Gates his top heir. Because the Gates Foundation is the best-run charity, getting the most done. Likewise, one thing all Americans agree about Jimmy Carter is that he's utterly honorable. So hand it all over to JC and be done with it. Carter will give Chelsea a job. Just do it.

Now... to the Big Picture.

== A Defense of Democracy ==

A fellow wrote to me asking what my fundamental defense of democracy would be and what good are ‘leaders’ anyway?  I pondered this and answered:

For thousands of years, nearly all societies that had metals and agriculture also were ruled by feudal government. Power was inherited by the sons of lords and priests. This actually made sense at the beginning, when any harvest surplus was small and unreliable. Society was well-served if at least a few boys got enough protein and fully-myelinated brains.

Unfortunately, this led to a sense that the king and lords "owned" the state and everyone in it.  And to stay on top they crushed any potential competitors and critics. (Only fools think fair markets happen 'naturally.')  So we lost the benefits of competition and criticism.  And hence one can see why all those other eras and nations were so very, very badly governed. It's a thing called history.

Things only got better when we tried several enlightenment innovations.

1- the state and its officials are not the same! This conflation - summarized by "L'etat, c'est moi," did more harm to human progress than any other. Officials should have to answer vigorous criticism, which is the only means to discover error. Incompetent officials can and should be replaced.  

2- The best way to ensure this is by dispersing power so that officials and aristocrats have rivals who can prevent them from re-creating feudal rule. 

3- The best way to achieve that is democracy, since it has a pattern of cyclically subjecting officials to scrutiny and replacement by a mass of inspectors who are too numerous to bribe.  Or if you bribe a majority of the voters, then perhaps that can be called good government.

You can see that my case for democracy is not based on goodness or rights. Those supporting catechisms are surprisingly weak. Witness how many nations, large and small, are awash in propaganda calling democracy "decadent." Those ruling oligarchies call out "rights fetishism" nothing more than another religion.

No, the more fundamental reason to support democracy is based upon the pragmatic fact that it is the only known way to prevent horrifically bad governance, of the kind seen in feudal (pyramid-shaped) power structures. All of those self-serving oligarchies - together and combined - never across 6000 years accomplished 1% as much as our democracies have, in one human lifespan.  That is one helluva strong argument!  Much stronger - at a basic level - than moralizing about rights.

(Though don't get me wrong!  Rights is good! In fact, passion for them makes us stronger. But I was talking in basic, philosophical terms.)

BTW. There are many types of democracy of course. And there are always officials and aristocrats who scheme to bring back feudal-type power structures. We are seeing this attempted oligarchic putsch right now, and I depict its potential (and surprising) ramifications, in EXISTENCE.  If they succeed, then we'll return to terrible governance by self-deluding lords... who now have nuclear weapons.

== Future Shock ==

Alvin Toffler, the celebrated author of Future Shock, died on 27 June 2016 at age 87. In 1970, Toffler’s book was hailed as ‘brilliant’ and ‘explosive’. Half a century and dozens of major technological paradigm shifts later, his accuracy and predictive power is still without equal. Toffler largely defined ‘futurism.’

His core concept was to coin future shock as “a new and powerfully upsetting psychological disease”- a potentially debilitating effect upon citizens and leaders resulting from disruptive force of technological change. Technology, Toffler deduced, is both humankind’s most liberating gift and its most powerful source of mass disorientation.

In this work and those to follow, Toffler offered the earliest and most empirically sound acceleration theory in modern history, suggesting that the rate of change may have the greatest implications. Toffler also foresaw – along with McLuhan, Lakoff and a few others – that the most significant challenges and opportunities would arise from the knowledge economy. Information would become the most valuable commodity and the primary source of capital.

Let me add that I believe we are just now climbing out of the disastrous "shock" of the shift in century and millennium. Those double-oughts or twin zeroes were, I believe, more traumatic for most people than anyone imagined, helping to explain why the first decade of the 21st Century was so utterly, utterly lame-o.

See elsewhere my essay on how the last three centuries appear to have started on their 14th or 15th year. In fact, the cycle seems to fit best at 101 years, not 100.  In which case it is 2016 when we face the critical choices that will define us to history.  Um... look around you, at the news.  Choose well.

== The Origins of the Property Tax ==

Finally, from The Atlantic, an interesting article about the origins of the Property Tax. Although this author calls it the "most hated" tax… and I'm sure it is, having lived in California during the Proposition 13 rebellion, and in Britain when Maggie Thatcher talked Parliament into banishing the "Rates" as they called property tax… let me go contrarian on you.  

It is an absolutely necessary tax! Along with the maligned Inheritance Tax, it is inveighed against by.. guess who?  Aristocrats! The richer you are and more parasitic, and the more you are lounging around on what Adam Smith denounced as "rent-seeking," the more you hate these taxes because they put a pressure on the wealthy to put their wealth to work! They are primary ways to ensure against the inevitable and totally natural drift back toward feudalism. 

(Mind you, not all the wealthy are parasites!  A large minority, featuring most tech billionaires, eschew rent-seeking in favor of active investment in new techs, new products and services.  Exactly what Supply Side "economics" predicted all  the rich would do.  Irony? The few who acted as SSE predicted despise SSE for its horrid effects upon the middle class. Most of these billionaires are... democrats. But back to the property tax.)

Did Parliament and California legislators crank up the property tax too high, triggering rebellion? You bet! Using this tax to oppress and anger the middle class was totally stupid! Indeed, I would bet that aristocrats helped to push up rates with this end in mind.

Read the article.  Then remember that the American founders - right after the Revolution - seized up to a third of the land in the former colonies and redistributed it!  Far more redistribution than done by all 20th Century democrats (including FDR) combined. So much for Tea Party narratives.