F Dominicus Blog

A politically incorrect blog about matters of money, government, bureaucracy, freedom and sometimes something else.

Democracy or: cultivating defraud

Well there is a kind of agreement that monarchies are bad. But there is another agreement that democracy is "good".

I wonder why?

If the majority decides to live of the expenses of minorities, how is that different to a monarchy? If the majority in Parliament decides it's fine to take 75% of the income of people over let's say 100 000 €. How can that be justified?

Tell me what happens if a majority lives on state payments. How can it be okay that they can vote for supporting their way of living?

In Markets there is nor majority. Either you and you parter agree upon a deal or the deal will not take place. Now let's have a look at taxes. What's the deal? If I want or did not want no way, the state decides I've to pay. If I won't I've to go to jail. Then another example. I've a computer not TV and no Radio, how can it be just to have pay license fees. Or another example I'm operating a small business, why am I supposed to pay for the IHK? There is no obvious return for me, why do I have to pay for it still?

The unfortunate truth is that democracy has not special merits in regard to fairness. Markets have. And so if would have the choice between democracy and//or markets what would I prefer? I would abolish parties, stop any subsidy for whatever reason. I probably would accept a very small tax for the military, but I would not have a police monopoly. If I have an politician it would be not allowed to vote as long as he's in the executive. Because nobody controls government I would still allow voting against any law through voting of the public. (even on the dangers this majority oriented way has). But if there are costs to be expected the majority has to pay for it and not those not in favor of the "decision". If they want social welfare, they can not rule that anyone has to pay for it. It's clear if someone has not paid for it he can not take any money out for it.

I would also disallow personal bankruptcy. And I would not disallow paper money, but I would base my money on something of worth. if you do not want to pay with it, then that would be fine for me. I'd not this money on all, I would let the markets decide. If they find some currency worthwhile, they should pay with it. I would not even care if banks lend out more then they have. I would not bail-them-out. A bank is nothing special and should not get any privileges. If they do not pay their obligations they have to go out of business.

Because central banks are defrauders by definition, they would have be abolished. We can not have a sound system with monopolies granted by states.

So in the end it's markets which must prevail. Everything else is unfair.