The curious case of politics

Solredime — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 15:21:00 GMT

How should voters determine what politician to vote for? Who is “able” and “competent” enough to rule over others? If one were to accept the premise that somebody has to lead the nation by force (one which I do not accept), how would voters decide who to choose?

Well, a reasonable way would be to look at past experience: “Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns – they for whose cause we are to labour, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic.” Let us see how the person performed when they had the same means at their disposable as anyone else, as you and me; if they truly managed to harness their talent and transform society for the better.

People like Henry Ford, one of the first to successfully apply assembly lines in mass production, directly brought down the cost of automobiles, and indirectly influenced other industries to mass produce in similar ways. Perhaps it is such people that should be considered viable candidates.

For surely a man who more than doubles the wages of his workers from his own money¹ is far more worthy of praise than morally bankrupt politicians who are able merely to redistribute what is not theirs.

One is compelled to remember Lord Acton's eminent observation that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A statement for which, as though it were not already unnecessary given ample historical examples, empirical proof is being developed². And if it were not bad enough that power can corrupt good people, voters elevate to high stations people who from the very outset seek power.

If a man such as Henry Ford is performing well for society, is it perhaps not precisely because of their constraints? He must not only compete with others for the satisfaction of peoples' wants; but he has no privileges that set him above others³, no power except that which he has earned, and this power could evaporate the moment he mistreats his customers.

By what inane logic would you promote one who is doing well, to a position where whether they do well or not no longer affects their power or revenue? A position where they have neither need, nor incentive, nor ability to be competent. Who in their right mind, would actually make the effort of enacting the Peter Principle⁴? Why would people surrender exactly those rights which protect them from men of power?

Something is wrong when voters willingly promote incompetent men from positions of relative harmlessness to that of absolute power.

For those interested, the why was answered in Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.

Still, I find it fascinating, that in this day and age when the rejection of gods has become quite fashionable; that those same skeptics who profess incredulity with matters of religion, suddenly act like gullible infants when it comes to politics. That they would build a cult of personality for their idols, suspend their faculties of reason, and worship a man as they would not dare worship a god. You have not freed yourselves, but merely replaced the uncertain slavery of organised religion with the inevitable servitude inflicted by man.

____________________________

1. http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20060105-henry-ford-five-dollar-day-model-t-ford-motor-company-assembly-line-james-couzens-highland-park-detroit-automobiles.shtml

2. http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328544

3. Actually, Ford used patents to secure his advantage over competitors, but this too was only permitted by the government.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

Solredime : the curious case of politics, secularism, peter principle, henry ford

The curious case of politics