It is breast cancer awareness month. Or maybe it was last month. To be honest, I am not paying particularly close attention. It is not that I do not have sympathy for people stricken with breast cancer- it is a horrible, dangerous, serious affliction and I am pleased there is research into finding better treatments for the disease. It is just that I am a bit overwhelmed by all of the attention breast cancer, amongst all the other awful ailments that are out there, receives. I think, frankly, it gets too much- attention and funding.
Why does breast cancer get so much? Because the US Government is inefficient. And the US Government is inefficient because we have constructed a democracy where there should not be one.
It has been (inaccurately) said that Ben Franklin believed "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting upon what to have for lunch." (I write "inaccurately" because it appears Franklin never said this, despite the myriad libertarian websites claiming that he did. It is an important observation-- not that libertarian websites are frequently wrong, that is not it-- but that political quotes can be deceptive if not flat out incorrect. Sound bites are dangerous.)
Regardless of whether he said it or not, the point is sound, democracy is majoritarianism. What has been said frequently, and is entirely correct, is that the word cannot be found in our Declaration of Independence or Constitution. The Founders feared democracy because of the threat it was to diversity.
We do not often enough think of the area which would later become the United States as diverse, but by 18th century standards it certainly was, and by our own modern standards probably should be considered diverse as well. A whaleman on Cape Cod had very little in common with a farmer growing corn in North Carolina. A Pennsylvania backwoodsman, making a living by selling timber, would have considered a Savannah merchant as alien as an Indian, or perhaps more so depending on the tribe. We were a fractious and divided country and the Founders realized that the rights of minorities were in jeopardy under a national government. Smaller states, certain occupations, lesser known religions, even slaveholders, were in danger of losing rights to the majority (please understand, slavery is an insidious institution, but at the time slaveholders were seen as a minority class which needed protection from the whims of the masses). So they formed a republic, a system in which the people elect representatives: professional deciders. These representatives were to do what was best for the country, not just their constituencies.
Until the 17th Amendment provided for direct election of United States Senators in 1913, the only two instances in which American citizens voted directly in federal affairs were when they were voting for their member in the House of Representatives and when they were serving as federal jurors. Otherwise, political decision making was left to an elected, but autonomous, representative class. Impeachment was reserved for criminal and ethically objectionable acts- not a loss of political confidence. There is no means of a recall election under our system (nor is their one for a snap election- voters cannot democratically remove representatives, and incumbents can't manipulate democracy, to be reelected).
But that system of order has been eroded by our rush toward democracy.
I will save for another time a further exploration of how "democracy" was shoved down the throat of the country, of how new states added were forced to include certain provisions to their constitutions, and how today the word is used unknowingly as a substitute for more cherished American principles. I want instead to turn to the affect this democratization has had on our existing system, which instead of being a body which carries out the minimum action needed for governance, while always restrained to protect liberty, has become a tool of corporate and special interest structures. Under the guise of democracy our political system has become a process whereby action, usually in funding pet projects, has become equated with successful governance. Protecting liberty is someplace in the background.
But before I do, I want to emphasize that I separate myself from the secessionist crew, who show up at protests waving Stars and Bars and screaming that democracy is evil. I admire the federal government, at least as imagined, and agree that a part of it includes certain democratic ideals. The federal government, indeed all governments, are accountable to the people. That is the ultimate democratic test- not each election, but the palatability of a government; the ability to continue to exist under the system that was created, or it has evolved or been twisted into, until the population becomes so taxed and burdened that it rises up and for non-capricious reasons alters the government.
Having written all of that, let me tell you my problem with Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Accept for the moment my earlier proposition that post-Constitution American democracy breeds corporatism, a situation where the state favors certain business interests. (Indulge me- I'll write another time why this is so). Even leaving that aside though, breast cancer research receives so much attention because it is a disease which appeals to a loud minority.
An odd position to take, you are thinking, if you have just read my earlier opinions and know that I think democracy endangers minorities.
But the threat here is loud minority-- which the breast cancer lobby certainly is, just look at all the pink-- and what influence such a group exerts.
A highly energized minority can undermine the liberties of a disinterested minority, or even a disinterested majority. This is because democracy breeds a need for action. Stagnation in the Congress is seen as a consequence of obstructionism, laziness, or ineptitude. Representatives struggle to act-- for votes and for funding-- and in struggling they respond to loud minorities.
A loud minority can harness the ability of the government to compel all other groups, primarily through taxation, to agree about a certain point. Since most people have better things to do than read Congressional Quarterly, it is no wonder special interest groups yield such power. It is a tyranny of a minority over other minorities through the democratic system.
Opponents to this view would argue that our existing system is more accountable. I would first say that, most importantly, we must pay more than lip service to what the Constitution requires. At least in 1913 progressives took the time to pass an Amendment to change how senators are elected. But with the increasing public pressure on the electoral college system, does it really serve its role as an additional filter between the masses and the President? Who last voted in a presidential election thinking about an elector?
But just as importantly, I would argue that while democratic changes make representatives more accountable to certain people, it endangers the liberties (and the preservation of liberty is, of course, the most important role of government) of the rest. This is because nothing government does is free.
Take breast cancer research. Each time someone slaps a pink ribbon on their car or walks in a race to raise money for breast cancer research, they are channeling money away that might otherwise have been spent on other causes. When this takes place in the private sector, when a consumer decides to buy a pink ribbon or voluntarily participate in a breast cancer fund raiser, this is their own private business. But when those efforts seek to influence the public sector, which they so often do-- then it impacts everyone. It is a misconception that government funds are created for free. There is an inevitable cost, via borrowing, inflation, or taxation of such finite funds.
Much has been written in other places about how breast cancer receives a disproportionate amount of funding compared to other diseases. The same could likely be said of HIV funding and several other illnesses. But by some measure, that's a dangerous judgment to make. Who am I to say that a newborn suffering from cystic fibrosis, a horrific disease which attacks infants in the most painful of ways, is less or more important than, for example HIV, a disease which is easily preventable? (I make my bias clear here- I think sick babies, attacked by a disease caused by bad luck, are more deserving than sick adults, afflicted with a disease which frankly is often caused by reckless or poor decision making).
But it is not up to me! Or at least, it is not up to me what the government funds. It shouldn't be up to any of us. Let us take the government out of the disease funding game. If I think HIV is less deserving than cystic fibrosis, then leave me my tax dollars to make that rational choice myself.
The market should set the agenda for research. Since diseases are (largely, see below) impartial, a market system would grant the most serious and most common illnesses the proper attention merited. The reasoning is simple: if a disease is serious, people will pay more for a cure. If it is common, people will pay frequently for a cure. These two factors, the baseline of demand, drive supply. If there is a need, the market will meet it and will distribute resources far more efficiently then a democratic system, vulnerable to the dangers of majority rule or energetic minority influence, might create.
I wrote earlier that I do not completely reject democracy in America, and similarly I don't completely reject government support for research into diseases, either. The reason is because certain diseases are likely a consequence of poverty or iniquities of the market system brought about by fraud (this is not an indictment of the market, of course, merely a recognition that government has a role in acting as an objective arbitrator- always with an eye to minimum interference). To this end I would welcome, at the state level, certain small and targeted programs to encourage research into diseases which by some manipulation of the market are not being proportionately funded. Most practically states could pool resources, the way certain states agree to share funding for parks which along state lines, and similar projects. Perhaps. I need to think and then write about that some more. Which I will at another time.
Tomorrow is election day, by the way, so generally speaking and not just on this subject: vote for liberty.
Sensible libertarian views on nearly everything- except foreign affairs.