Stopping the Decline of America - A Radical New Idea to Restore Individual Responsibility

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years.

- Attributed to Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

Do you think the patriots who founded this nation would recognize the values of America today?  Can you imagine how those independent minds who risked everything - including their lives -  to be free would assess our current government?  What would they think about our people?  You might ask why we even care what the Founders would think – that was hundreds of years ago.  While they were not perfect people, our Founders held perspectives which are still very relevant for shaping our society today. 

The over-riding (and radical for the day) belief our Founders held was that citizens should be free from government intrusion into their lives.  In their former countries, our forefathers had been told which churches they could attend, what concepts they could believe, what property they could own and how much they would be allowed to keep of what they earned.  (This sounds more and more familiar in the United States of 2012, does it not?) Such oppressions are also typical of the millions of immigrants who have come to the United States since it was founded.    The primary reason people have come to America is to establish a better life free from the intrusions of government. 

In the early years of the colonies, Americans generally obtained the autonomy they came here seeking.  These colonists had the privilege of working and enjoying the direct fruits of their labors.  With freedom, they learned to pull together to provide what was necessary for their societies to grow.  They built their culture on the values of honesty, hard work, expertise, fairness and tolerance of others’ views.  Anyone with the initiative to take a risk could expect to reap a reward – or perhaps even experience a loss.

Taking notice of the prosperity generated by this uniquely “American” culture, England began to impose the same intrusions upon this New World that it had imposed upon the Old Country.  England began to impose taxes and make decrees without the consent of the people.  The American Revolution occurred because our Founders were committed to maintaining their God-given rights to peaceably live as they saw fit.  They were determined to be free from government intrusion and coercion as they exercised their “unalienable” rights (“among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”).  Our federal government was established for one purpose – to protect those rights within a unified nation.  An important distinction must be made at this point: our governments (federal, state and local) were not established to guarantee our happiness, but rather to guarantee the rights that allow us to pursue happiness. 

How does a federal government do that?  What is its role in protecting these inalienable rights of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?  It’s really not that complicated.  A government’s role is to guarantee those fundamental rights that individuals cannot guarantee on their own.  A federal government’s role boils down to providing three basic things:

1. Guarantee of Justice – Every individual has the right to equality of treatment under the law.  Every citizen needs the ability to redress grievances with the government and with other individuals.  Restitution and punishment for crimes committed against citizens must be provided.  In a perfect world, citizens would either have no conflicts or they would resolve issues with other citizens on their own.  In our real world, however, there must be a third party (court system) to judge, mediate and correct wrongs.  For a civilized society to function, there must be a certainty that justice can and will be served for the citizens.  Only government can serve justice, as justice normally requires forced participation by the offending party. 
   
   Justice should be handled at the lowest possible level (city, state, federal) that it impacts.  Federal law enforcement should only be provided for issues offending national interests (interstate commerce, interstate crime & fugitives, interstate civil issues, international crime).
    
2. Promotion of Interstate and International Commerce – Commerce within a state should be handled by the laws governing that state.  The federal government should only be involved in issues promoting and regulating commerce that affects citizens across state lines.  National standards for transportation, guarantees of free commerce, standards for communication and the like all fall within this domain.  Natural resource legislation, insomuch as it affects national commerce, may also fall under this legislation.
    
3. National Defense – The government must have the ability to act on behalf of the nation in regards to defense.  Whether this is by coordinating state or local militias, or whether this is by managing a standing army, only the federal government can assure that the whole nation receives an equitable share of the load for working in the best interests of the nation.

Reiterating, the federal government should only do those things necessary to guarantee citizens the rights that the state and local governments cannot.  Similarly, the state governments should only do what the local governments cannot, and the local governments should likewise only do what the citizens cannot in regard to their rights.  It is important to focus clearly on the concept of “cannot do for themselves” rather than “will not do for themselves”. 

The problem with our current system of government is that many in our society have been led to believe that the role of government is to provide them “life, liberty and happiness”.  There is an enormous difference between government’s protecting your right to enjoy “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as opposed to providing you with life, liberty and happiness.  The former is readily achievable in a just society, while the latter is impossible to attain. 

The mistaken notion that governments can provide happiness causes those who do not feel “happy” to expect and demand that the government make them so.  Whether this happiness is believed to come from a job, an education, a cultural experience, food or health care, many citizens have come to believe that such things are included in their inherent rights as Americans.  They do not understand that their only genuine right is merely the free pursuit of those things believed necessary for happiness – any resulting happiness is up to the individual citizen and cannot be guaranteed.

Our founders never envisioned such an attitude of dependency taking root in our society without dire consequences.  They knew that a democracy required selfless and civic-minded individuals, and they were concerned that this new American republic should make every effort to preserve and promote the values that foster good citizenship.  They understood that an untended democracy could eventually devolve to a condition as described in the famous quote attributed to Sir Alex Tytler.  This quote asserts:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years.

Attributed to Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

The conclusions from this statement are chilling.  Tytler was a Scottish historian who believed that democracies are doomed to failure. Though there is admittedly debate as to whether Tytler himself authored the cycle as presented in what follows, the implications are still very poignant today:

The Tytler Cycle, unfortunately, seems to fit the pattern of the United States well.  The United States was born from a group of colonies which found themselves increasingly in Bondage to Great Britain.  These colonies progressed through increasing Spiritual Faith which led to Courage resulting in Liberty through the actions of the American Revolution.  Our liberty, fueled by the values of our faith and the strength of our courage led the United States to Abundance unparalleled in the history of mankind.  This Abundance has given way to Selfishness and Complacency as we have allowed our economy to be decimated while we seek easy living through credit, market speculation, loose fiscal policy and unending borrowed economic stimulus.  Some, though not all, parts of our society have moved into Apathy, while far too many now live in Dependence.  Welfare checks, WIC, Social Security, Medicare, education, prescription drugs, stimulus checks, disaster relief and now health care are all to be given to us by the government.

Where does the government get all these benefits that they “give” to the population?  How is it that the government earns the money it receives?  It doesn’t!  Money is forcibly taken from the citizens who produce and given to those who do not.  We have moved into a new form of taxation without representation!  The question before us is:  Will the United States progress to full-Dependence and then to Bondage, or will we break the American Cycle of Dependence before it takes full root?  What do I even mean by the “American Cycle of Dependence”?

There is a growing segment of society who fits Tytler’s description well – those who have discovered that “that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury”.  There are many who have come to believe that the United States owes them an existence – even happiness – simply because they were born on American soil.  Some believe that every citizen “deserves” a means of support regardless of that individual’s effort.  Those who believe this way have learned that they do have some currency they can spend in a democracy regardless of how unproductive they might be.  That currency is their vote.

In parallel, there is a class of politician who has also learned that life can be good when one distributes from the public treasury.  Regardless of their ideals and aspirations along their individual path to public office, these rudderless politicians can no longer imagine life removed from the political spotlight.  They have learned that they too have some unearned currency in a democracy that helps them get what they most want, which is to keep their position of power.  These politicians have learned that by forcibly taking money from the productive citizens, they can buy votes from those who are unproductive and perpetuate their own power.  This is illustrated in the “Cycle of Government Dependency” as follows:

  

When these two kinds of people – the unproductive “deserving” citizen and the power-hungry amoral politician – find each other, the results are devastating for a nation.  That is where the United States currently finds itself.  This is the American Cycle of Government Dependency that must be broken.

There is an inherent conflict of interest at work when those same people who receive their sustenance from the government are allowed to significantly influence how that government spends its money.  It’s allowing the fox to watch the hen-house.  This type of arrangement defies common sense in every other realm of life.  For example, if you spent decades building a business, would you hire employees, allow them to determine their own work content and then give them give them freedom to set their own wages? 

Do you allow your children to decide how much support you will give them, or do you reserve that right for yourself?  Do you give them blank checkbooks or unlimited balance credit cards?  Why not?  (If you do give your children blank checkbooks, I have no doubt that you will still accept the logic of my argument as I am certain that it will not have worked out well for you.)

If you were approached by a group of beggars on the street, would you allow them a vote to decide how much of what is in your wallet you would give them?  Would you give what they demanded, even if you offered them work which they refused?  Would you give them all that is in your wallet and go home and bring them more if they said it wasn’t enough? No? Why Not?  Is it because you intuitively know that it is wrong to take from others what you have not earned?  That the receiver has no rights to dictate to the provider?

Freely giving to people who request help is one thing, but isn’t it obvious that the one who earns should decide whether or not to give to another?  The profit of one’s industry should not be taken by those who did not earn it!   Yet this is exactly the situation we find the United States in today, and it is contributing to the bankrupting of our country.

As long as this destructive alliance between unproductive voters and unprincipled politicians exists, there will be an inherent conflict of interest which will ultimately result in the economic – possibly even the moral - demise of the United States.  The solution I see to this problem is to deplete the currency that makes these transactions possible.  As radical as it sounds, and I know it is radical, the right to vote needs to be taken away from those who use it for self-promotion while giving nothing in return.  Many will gasp at this notion as un-American.  Is it?  In what other sphere of life does the one who is dependent on another get to dictate terms to the one on whom he is dependent?

Let me spell out, at least in general,  this radical notion:  In principle, I propose removing the right to vote for U.S. House of Representatives races from those individuals who take transfer payments from the government for as long as they are dependent upon the government - with some exceptions.  I would only apply this voting restriction to races for the House of Representatives as this is where all government budget bills are generated.  I would not limit the right to vote for Senators or for the President. 

I would exempt retirees who have contributed to social security and paid taxes for their working lives.  I would exempt the infirm and those with medical disabilities.  I would exempt those who earn the support they receive from the government (government workers, military and military pensioners, etc.)  For those, however, who are able-bodied and take their sustenance in the form of transfer payments from other taxpayers via the government, I would suspend the right to vote until such time as they are earning their living on their own.  I don’t think that is too much to ask of anyone who is dependent on the efforts of others.  The exact thresholds would need to be determined, but in principle, I believe this can work if enacted.

This would do a number of things.  First of all, this change would not eliminate public assistance, and it would not take away the rights of citizenship.  It would merely suspend U.S. House of Representatives voting rights while a conflict of interest exists until such time as the conflict of interest is resolved.  People who need assistance could still get support from the government, but would not be allowed to vote in U.S. House of Representatives elections until such support ended.  This would break the conflict of interest.  House members would only be accountable to those who are paying the country’s bills and would cease to buy votes with tax money through government handouts.  What politician will give away his voting constituents’ tax dollars to others when he is fully accountable only to the ones who pay the taxes?  If one were so foolish as to ignore those paying voters, he would find himself quickly voted out of office.

You might argue that if only those who do not take their living from government welfare programs get to vote, all welfare programs will be eliminated.  Maybe so, but those who are not taking the money would decide.  I think that is as it should be.  Furthermore, if welfare programs were eliminated, those citizens who were no longer getting forced payments from their fellow citizens would get their full voting rights back.  If these citizens later garnered enough influence as non-supported voters, they could always re-institute any canceled programs or work to create new ones.  They would not, however, keep a perpetual lock on transfer payments, and in the meantime, they might learn the skills needed to provide for themselves.

You might argue that this would lead to an endless cycle of creating and eliminating welfare programs in turn producing continuous turmoil.  Possibly so, but is that worse than what we have today?  Isn’t something to force people to take care of themselves needed?  Isn’t saving our democracy better than sliding into Tytler’s bondage?

I am not naïve to the reaction that the mere suggestion of modifying voting as I’ve described here will produce.  Howls from many sectors will come up.  “This is elitist!”  “This is un-American!”  “It’s no different than allowing only landed gentry to vote!”  “This is racist!”  I assure you, this idea is none of the above.  Temporary vote suspension is a way to address an inherent conflict of interest that I don’t believe our founders ever expected from our citizens, although they certainly would have understood its frightening implications.

I am also not naïve to the difficulty of enacting such a radical idea.  This would probably take a constitutional amendment – something almost unfathomable in our highly polarized political climate right now.  I do believe, however, that starting the conversation can help to clarify the problem.  Perhaps it could lead to other solutions.  One thing that is clear is that doing nothing will only perpetuate the problem.

So there it is – a radical new idea.  Government Welfare = Temporary Loss of Vote for U.S. House of Representatives.  You can find a million ways to argue against this idea, and I’m sure some of them will be valid.  Many will recoil in horror at their perception of my insensitivity to the plight of others.  But I ask you:  Which is more insensitive – to stay the path we are on and continue to march headlong into financial and social ruin for everyone or to make some difficult and sensible choices which might help alleviate the problem?  This idea will not solve all our country’s issues, but I am convinced it would have a significant positive impact if enacted.  No doubt, it will take citizens of rock-solid conviction to drive it through into law.  There will be many, many practical considerations to overcome in its implementation.  All that being understood, I think this is an idea we should seriously consider as a country. 

Copyright © 2012 Mark W. Wilson