Time to Think the Unthinkable?

Time to Think the Unthinkable?
China Post Editorial
by Bevin Chu
August 30, 2009

Democratically elected former President Chen Shui-bian, some would argue, has turned out to be the most corrupt head of state in modern Asian history. Democratically elected President Ma Ying-jeou, others would argue, has turned out to be the most incompetent head of state in modern Asian history.

More than one political pundit on Taiwan has come to the reluctant conclusion that under democracy the people have a choice between two kinds of leaders: competent but corrupt leaders such as Chen Shui-bian, and uncorrupt but incompetent leaders such as Ma Ying-jeou.

Their characterization flatters Chen Shui-bian. Chen was hardly a "competent but corrupt leader." Chen was an incompetent and corrupt leader.

But their characterization is correct in another, far more fundamental sense. Democracy does indeed force the people to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Since democracy forces the people to choose between the lesser of two evils, perhaps it is time the people started thinking about an alternative. Instead of resigning themselves to choosing between the lesser of two evils, perhaps it is time the people started thinking about "self-government," a political system that allows them to choose between the better of two goods.

In his landmark book, "The End of History and the Last Man," establishment political scientist Francis Fukuyama argued that with the end of the Cold War, mankind's millennia long political journey had reached its final destination. Western liberal democracy was the final form of human government. It would be the last form of government mankind would ever have, and the only form of government adopted by all nation states, East and West, from here to eternity.

As Fukuyama put it: "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such. That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."

If the prospect of being stuck with Western liberal democracy and compelled to choose between the lesser of two evils from here to eternity depresses you to no end, you are hardly alone.

According to Winston Churchill, Western liberal democracy is "the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Churchill's witticism is usually taken to mean that Western liberal democracy may be a system riddled with defects, but it is nevertheless the best form of government mankind can ever hope for, therefore we had better learn to accept it and live with it.

That may well have been what Churchill meant, but that is hardly the way the rest of us must take it. After all, if Western liberal democracy is nothing more than a political system riddled with defects, just like all the other political systems that have been tried, perhaps it's time we tried an entirely different political system, one that isn't riddled with defects?

Perhaps it is time we considered the possibility that Churchill and Fukuyama were wrong. Perhaps Western liberal democracy is not the best form of government mankind can ever hope for? Perhaps Western liberal democracy is not the final form of human government?

Perhaps the final form of human government is something unfamiliar to most of mankind, and which most of mankind has yet to try? Perhaps the final form of human government, the one that will replace Western liberal democracy, is "self government?"

Donald Boudreaux is the chairman of the economics department at George Mason University. Boudreaux explains the difference between Western liberal democracy and self-government, and why mankind ought to reject the former, and adopt the latter.

As Boudreaux notes, the United States is often characterized as "an experiment in self-government." Most people understand “self-government” as Western liberal democracy. According to this understanding, people govern themselves if they hold regular elections, enjoy universal suffrage, and abide by majority rule.

But Western liberal democracy is not "self-government." It is "elective government." Elective government is not self-government. Elective government routinely coerces individuals to submit to the will of others. Those others may be a "democratic majority." Those others may be an "influential minority," i.e,. a special interest group. But when some individuals can coerce others to do their bidding, then neither is self-governing. The first individual is governed by another, and the other individual is governing not just himself, but the first individual as well.

Even mainstream political pundits on Taiwan, far from the cutting edge of political evolution, are beginning to discover the truth about Western liberal democracy.

Perhaps it is time to think the unthinkable.


Appendix: Response to yet another Taiwan independence fellow traveler

One Taiwan independence fellow traveler who would only identify himself as "dan," wrote:

"so you are the writer of those unsigned CHina Post editorials? If so, why not sign your name? also Dr Boudewax never said such things. he was angry when he heard you wrote that. i asked him about this by email he told me you totally mispresented his words....really"

I can't help laughing as I respond to "dan's" imagined "gotcha" comment.

For starters, I very much wanted to be credited. But the China Post management stipulated that I since was selling the editorials to them, and they were buying the editorials from me, they were China Post editorials, not Bevin Chu editorials.

As a champion of free market capitalism, who believes that when you sell something to someone it belongs to them, I could certainly see their point. 

"dan" accuses me of cowardice. He's obviously not thinking clearly. If I did not want my name associated with the articles, why would I repost them later under my own name? Long after the China Post had a chance to sell the papers in which the articles were posted, of course.

But then again, if he was capable of thinking clearly, would he be a Taiwan independence fellow traveler in the first place?

Adding to the irony, here is what pops up when one clicks on "dan's" name:


I wish I could say I was surprised, but such unblinking hypocrisy is typical of Taiwan independence and Taiwan independence fellow travelers.

As far as Boudreaux's beliefs are concerned, the article I cited is reproduced below, verbatim, in toto. Judge for yourself whether I, as "dan" so charmingly put it, "totally mispresented his words....really."

More to the point, I cited Boudreaux merely out of convenience. As long time readers of my blogs know, I have never been one to resort to argumentum ad verecundiam, i.e., appeals to authority. Ultimately it makes no difference whether a particular individual supports my point. The facts support my point. That is plenty. 

"dan" was almost certainly merely being a wiseacre. He was almost certainly engaging in a little cowardly hit and run. A serious response was probably unnecessary. But I decided that taking the opportunity presented to clarify matters, might actually do some good.

-- Bevin Chu

The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty
http://www.thefreemanonline.org
Self-Government
by Donald J. Boudreaux • September 2000 • Vol. 50/Issue 9

The United States is often described as an experiment in self-government. But what is this thing? Most people understand “self-government” to mean democracy. According to this understanding, a people are self-governed if they regularly vote to select the individuals who are to occupy political offices. This method of deciding who holds political power has clear advantages over conferring political power according to military prowess, bloodlines, or other criteria remote from the input of the ordinary men and women who are to be governed.

Understood in this way, to endorse self-government is hardly to take a courageous or controversial stand. No good case can be made that fitness to govern is best determined by bloodline or by skill at military conquest. Clearly, whatever power the state exercises ought to be exercised by people chosen in fair elections by those who are subject to the state’s dictates. Almost no one in modern Western society disagrees that people ought to be governed in this way.

But such government, regardless of its merits, is not really self-government. It is government by the elected. No amount of romantic praise of democracy can change the fact that even the best popularly elected government routinely obliges Smith—against his will—to do the bidding of Jones. And whether Jones be an influential special-interest group or a popular majority, when Smith is threatened with coercion to do Jones’s bidding, neitherSmith nor Jones is self-governing. Smith is governed by Jones, and Jones is governing not only himself but Smith as well.
True Self-Government

Self-government in a truer, more literal sense is both desirable and possible.

True self-government is just that: self-government. Each individual governs himself. Each person is free to chart his own life’s course, choosing which risks to brave and which to avoid. Each person is responsible only for himself, for his family, and for those whom he—of his own volition—chooses to care for. Each person has a claim to the fruits only of his own labor and sacrifices, and no claim to the fruits of another’s labor and sacrifices. Each person has a legal right to do as he wills so long as he respects the equal rights of others and honors all his commitments.

Of course, living in this way—as a free man or woman—requires discipline. To be foolish and imprudent is to fail at self-government. Typically, people who don’t govern themselves personally pay the price of not doing so. One advantage of a free society is that it focuses the costs of irresponsible behavior on those who behave irresponsibly, and it focuses the benefits of responsible behavior on those who behave responsibly. The result is that irresponsible behavior is kept to a minimum.

But how to distinguish responsible from irresponsible behavior? If we let each individual determine how to make this distinction, won’t the result be chaos?

Some behaviors are plainly and always destructive of social cooperation. Murder, theft, rape, slaveholding, arson—these and other behaviors whereby some people coerce others are unquestionably out of bounds; the law should prohibit them. These behaviors should be prohibited precisely because they interfere with their victims’ rights to govern themselves.

The precise means of deciding which behaviors the law should prohibit, as well as how to enforce these prohibitions, is debatable. I don’t wish to weigh in here on the dispute between anarcho-capitalists and advocates of limited government. Reasonable people can and do disagree about just how far we can go in ridding ourselves of the state, although no reasonable person believes that society can exist without laws protecting each of us against coercive threats against our persons and property.

But the state today does far more than enforce laws against murder, theft, and other obviously predatory acts. Almost all that today’s state does offends the idea of self-government. Government in America today doesn’t hesitate to coerce those who are politically weak to do the bidding of those who are politically strong. Nor does government today hesitate to treat its subjects as foolhardy imbeciles in need of strict guidance from the state. In both ways, today’s government denies people their right of self-government. The state governs; its subjects obey. Each of us is ruled to an increasingly large degree not by ourselves, but by others.

Consider: regulations mandating that we wear seat belts; minimum-wage legislation; government restrictions on drug use; state blue laws; truancy statutes; the regulation of advertising; tariffs and other import restrictions; government controls on which foreigners we may associate with on American soil; building codes; occupational licensing; the command that every worker contribute to the Social Security and Medicare schemes; taxation that consumes around 40 percent of our income—the list of offenses against self-government is endless.

Many people who reflect on all that government does today will insist that it simply must do these things, for otherwise, too many people will fall into traps that they are either too stupid or too weak to avoid.

I don’t doubt that each of us will make some choices that we later regret. Nor do I doubt that some of us will prove to be especially inept at making wise choices. And surely from time to time these unwise choices will lead to terrible consequences.

But what is self-government if not the ability to govern yourself as you choose—with you taking responsibility for yourself and leaving others free to take responsibility for themselves? Those who insist that government must take responsibility for the safety and welfare of people should stop proclaiming their allegiance to liberty and self-government. They should instead forthrightly proclaim an allegiance to the principle of government by the elite few of the irresponsible many.

I would resolutely object to this principle, but at least its advocates would be forthright. They would no longer be masquerading as friends of the noble ideals that motivated Jefferson and Madison. They would, instead, honestly reveal themselves as patrons of the notion that ordinary men and women are incapable of self-government and, hence, unworthy of liberty. The result would be a more enlightening debate. Liberty and self-government stand clearly opposed to the exercise of intrusive state authority. People advocating intrusive state authority would then be explicitly aware that they reject liberty. They would be forced to concede that they do not believe in the principle of self-government.

URL to article: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/self-government-2/