Wed, Jan 27 2010 3:21 PM
The curious case of politics
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?
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.
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.
surely a man who more than doubles the wages of his workers from his
is far more worthy of praise than morally bankrupt politicians who
are able merely to redistribute what
is not theirs.
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
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.
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.
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.
Actually, Ford used patents to secure his advantage over competitors,
but this too was only permitted by the government.
Filed under: idol, politics, elevation, secularism, discourse on voluntary servitude, peter principle, lord acton, henry ford, curious, morally bankrupt, skeptic, the curious case of politics, corruption, new god, power corrupts