The Case for Limiting the Franchise

“No taxation without representation”: that is the slogan on which the American Revolution was fought. And I think to most of us it makes intuitive sense. It is simple justice: if I am paying for the government, I have a right to a say in it, in how my money is spent. But it implies an interesting corollary that seems generally to be missed: no representation without taxation. If you are not paying taxes, it is unjust that you have a say in how other people’s money is being spent. 

This used to be generally accepted wisdom, so the franchise was limited by property requirements. Or one earned the right to vote by serving in the military: that too was having skin in the game.

There is an obvious danger, with universal adult suffrage, that those who are not contributing can over time band together and vote themselves more and more benefits and free money, knowing it is all coming out of someone else’s pockets. There is a famous quote from Alexander Tytler in the 18th century: 

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Tytler is not the first to notice this. That would probably be Ibn Khalud, who pointed out this cycle in the 14th century. Over time, as Ibn Khaldun observed, governments grow until they strangle the productive economy, and the society collapses.

It would seem that Western Europe and North America are well into this cycle. We are at least at “From abundance to selfishness.”

So all this is an argument, radical as it may sound to unfamiliar ears, yet obvious to our ancestors, to limit the franchise. Full democracy is a dead end. Among those who realized this, notably, were the American founding fathers, who carefully placed checks and balances on full democracy.  

Nobody who earns their living from government should really have a vote. They have an immediate conflict of interest. This means civil servants should not vote—they could not back in the 19th century. That would include teachers, say, and most medical professionals. And of course politicians. Less critically, but by the same logic, no one receiving welfare, disability, a student grant or a government pension should vote. Nor the executives of any corporation receiving government funding.

This would preserve a social safety net, but give some incentive, if mostly psychological, to climb out of dependence if you can. 

Trudeaunomics: Lowering Inflation by Raising Taxes

 

Justin Trudeau committed a misstep that may end up in the history books, or at least in the lore of Canadian electoral politics, this week. He threatened the big food chains that, if they did not do something to stop the rising food prices, he would slap a new tax on them.

Raising food prices yet again.

It is an embarrassment that Canadians ever voted for him, but it seems as though everyone is now embarrassed by him. It took an alarmingly long time, but folks generally are at last seeing through his tiresome act. “The Canadian people expect …. They know we have their backs…. And that’s exactly what we will do.”

And the inevitable scapegoating. 

If he's going to be a clown, he could at least be funny.

The only anti-Conservative memes I see recently online are to the effect of “Yeah, what Poilievre says sounds great, but he will not deliver.” And “Don’t vote Tory just because you are mad at the Liberals. Ask Ontario.” 

Neither gives a reason for voting Liberal; both concede that the Liberals are awful. 

Why not vote for the mere chance of something better?

And that cannot be the NDP, who simply support the Liberals.

That so, what’s your alternative?

No Representation without Taxation?

The Boston Tea Party.

There is an interesting implied corollary to the war cry under which the American Revolution was waged. If 'no taxation without representation,' then why not 'no representation without taxation'?

In fact, in the early years of Canadian democracy, and perhaps elsewhere, this was taken for granted. Anyone receiving public assistance was excluded from the voter rolls. So was anyone receiving a wage from the government—that is, the civil service. The point, and it is reasonable enough, was that any such person had a conflict of interest. Couldn't they just vote themselves more money?

It seems to me it would be a small enough sacrifice, for those truly in need. And, although largely symbolic, it would tend to end any sense of entitlement, among both the recipients of public assistance and the civil service.

Of course, it would probably devastate the NDP...