Interesting Political Action – Econlib

We are witnessing a strange event that is not only affecting America but is currently looking very cruel in this country. (Before the fall of the Soviet regime, it was very noticeable in Europe.) When the elections come, each of the two main competing parties shouts that if another 50% (and 1% or whatever) wins, disasters will happen. This trend has gradually increased. Both sides seem right: the government has become so powerful that it can seriously damage the interests and lifestyles of members of both sides. No one seems secure in their freedom and security.

It is not that the politicians of one side promise to do nothing (slogan: “We will allow you to continue your peaceful and happy activities”) while those of the other side intend to harm the 50% of the opposition (“We will follow you”). and we may recognize that there is a moral and economic difference between doing nothing to help someone and harming them. But this is not what happens.

The talk that the new president will be the president of all (of all Syldavians) is a hoax. He cannot be the president of all by taking the side of a section against another section. “What can I do for you? What can I forbid you or allow me to please you?”

The side that lost the election, regardless of 50%, feels threatened and angry. And here is the most surprising thing: the losers do not conclude that the government should not have the power to harm them (whether they are 49% of the population or whatever); no, they concluded that the candidates should win next time to take revenge and satisfy their claims against the other nation. From one election to another, from one change of guard to another, the power of the government continues to grow, and the people are more and more dissatisfied. It is admitted that at least one-third do not see what is going on and do not vote, despite their freedom being reduced by one-third and then another third.

The strange phenomenon is understandable, especially after the development of social choice analysis in the last seven decades. Once the political authorities have gained enough power to seriously damage the losing side’s freedoms and opportunities, when the domain of choice has penetrated far enough into the domain of individual choice, politics becomes the only game in town.

For several centuries, the ancient liberals and libertarians, whose understanding is neglected at the moment, have opposed this absurd and dangerous race for power, like two angry queens running to take the throne. This system promotes politics, conflict, and injustice, and represents a growing threat to prosperity and freedom. Although libertarians and liberals continue to argue about the exact limits of political power, their mission can be summed up in a slogan. live and let live. This is very different from competitive authoritarianism whether it is democratic or not.

It is worth thinking about Anthony de Jasay’s definition of freedom at the same time as strong and logical (classical) as “the broad assumption of individual determination about any subject that lends itself, with almost comparable ease, to both individual and collective choice.” Since the 18th century, economic analysis has shown how individual choice with an appropriate institutional background produces a free and self-regulated society.

******************************