Why Do We Need "Political Representation"?

In yesterday's post on the forthcoming assembly elections in Bihar, I said, very rudely, "Take this vote and shove it." Continuing on the same theme, today I would like to pose the all-important question: Why do we need "political representation"? Why do we need to vote at all? Let us examine the issue from a historical perspective. And let us look at England - from where it all began.

In the good old days, kings ruled England. That is, they collected taxes, built castles, and waged wars. What is noteworthy is that they did not make law. The happy Anglo-Saxon tribes lived under the "common law" - which was based on custom and usage, which was largely unwritten and uncodified, and which was "found," not "made." I guess we can call theirs a "private law society."

The kings of England were supreme in only one area - and that was public administration; particularly, the administration of justice. Here, the king had no peers.

Then, one day, sometime in the 14th century, one king had a problem with raising taxes - and it is he who first called for a "parliament of representatives." These were representatives of the towns and boroughs, the church and the nobility: all those who had to fork out these taxes. Since the English value tradition - and this has always been their strength - a precedent was set, and parliaments of representatives were thereafter regularly called to agree on the king's demand for taxes. Nothing else. There was no "legislation." Once parliament had agreed on the king's demands, it was dissolved, and the king ruled as usual - without parliament.

Those were the good old days.

Let us now look at the present day.

Today, the government comes from within parliament itself - and they do not depend on taxes any more. If they are short of money, they print it, or borrow. The "representation of the taxpayer" has ceased. This is what Ludwig von Mises had to say on this unholy development:

Modern constitutions, the political systems of all nations that are not ruled by barbarian despots, are based upon the fact that the government depends financially upon the people, indirectly upon the men that the voters have elected for the constitutional assembly. And this system means that the government has no power to spend anything that has not been given it by the people, through the constitutional procedures which make it possible for the government to collect taxes. This is the fundamental political institution. And it is a fundamental political problem if the government can inflate. If the government has the power to print its own money, then this constitutional procedure becomes absolutely useless.

[This quote is from lecture notes taken by Bettina Bien Greaves. These notes are now available in book form. You can read more about this lecture - and this book - here.]

Of course, not all British prime ministers have ignored the taxpayer. Here is a video of the great Margaret Thatcher telling the people that "there is no such thing called public money." Do watch the video and then think of our Chacha Manmohan and his senseless spending based on the printing press and colossal borrowing. Or think about the USSA - where the central State has all the money it needs without bothering about the taxpayers' consent, or the consent of their representatives.

So, we have come a long way on the Highway to Hell since the good old days. Now, our political representatives no longer represent us as taxpayers; rather, they represent tax parasites - and their lobbies.

And what is worse - we live in a world of what Bruno Leoni accurately called "inflated legislation": we have rules, rules and more rules. We are ruled, not represented. And do recall that the kings of England never made law.

So why do we need the vote?

Why do we need all these MPs and MLAs?

Indeed, why do we need a Prime Minister and Cabinet?

As I have detailed in my latest book - which you can read here - there is a "natural order" in civilized human society. I am certainly not the first to think along these lines - in my collection of Basiat's essays, which you can read here, the second essay is on "natural order." Adam Smith too looked at human society as self-regulating and self-ordered. That is, Thomas Hobbes was wrong. It was Hobbes who recommended Leviathan to us all - and in that book he predicted that without the State, society would degenerate into a "war of each against all." Hobbes said that human interests are always in conflict. Bastiat said there was harmony. Which view is right?

Consider this thought experiment: Suppose you carry a tray of bananas to any crowded Indian bazaar, will anyone snatch and steal them - except for the cop? On the other hand, if you carry a tray of bananas before a group of monkeys, they will all snatch and steal - and there will ensue the Hobbesian war of each against all. Humans trade; they do not snatch. Monkeys snatch - because they cannot trade.

And why do cops snatch bananas? Because power corrupts. It is as simple as that.

There is also this hard-hitting article by an American, on American cops, that is worth reading.

To conclude: It is my considered opinion that we Indians would be infinitely better off if we abolished our The State and all its works. We will live freely, peacefully, gainfully and honourably in human society. Today, thanks to the fucking vote, we inhabit the planet of the apes.