The Ultimate Democracy? That Would Be Capitalism.

A Brief Introductory Rant.

Despite it’s bad rap from, well, practically everybody, there is no system yet to be contrived that can even register on a scale of capitalisms achievements. It has brought the levels of global poverty to an all-time low, and transformed our lives unimaginably to that of even a century ago.

Despite Marxist theory that workers wouldn’t be able to afford to consume the goods they produce, the reverse is true! Not only are we all richer than the Kings, Queens, Commissars and Mr Potters’ from the early 20th century on a basic level, but also on a material level too.

Food is so varied, fresh and of fantastic quality that the richest capitalist alive a few years ago could not afford what we have. I marvel at this on a regular basis, the choice that a £5 note grants us in a store like Tesco is unbelievable. Even just fifty years ago, if I had a hundred private servants on hand I still couldn’t get close to the literally millions of options I have for dinner on a given night. Capitalism has driven the price of food down to the point that it doesn’t even register as a privilege to have an abundance of it. Government bureaucrat’s are even arguing food is too cheap, the poorest are obese!

Then there is technology and free stuff. Practically every household in Britain can afford smart phones, iPod’s, computers, lawn mowers, dishwashers, to the extent that they aren’t even classed as luxury goods anymore. Most burglars will walk right past a plasma-screen TV nowadays. All of these goods save us time and effort improving our lives for the better, and leave us more leisure time to spend with family or what not. The free stuff? What about the hundreds of apps like Facebook and Skype that don’t charge a penny to exploit serve us.

How Is Capitalism Democratic?

One of the main reasons that the free-market is able to flourish so successfully, despite crushing hindrance from the state, is the impersonal yet accommodating nature of every transaction. Capitalism provides us with the ultimate voting potential of any economic or political structure yet discovered. How?

When a consumer purchases a product or service in the private sphere they are contributing to the success of that particular business. Each of us have our own individual belief system, conscience and moral code and are able to express this perfectly in an un-coerced transaction.

Of course there are the obvious benefits as to the competition this process introduces; creating innovation, invention, low-prices and all round progress. Perhaps as important, however, is the unappreciated nature of ethical capitalism.

If you don’t favour Primark and their labour policy in the third-world, for example, then you are able to cease supporting the company and shop elsewhere. Depending on the virility of your own virtue, you might accept paying slightly more at a different business for what you deem better ethically sourced products. Perhaps your a nationalist who believes in British jobs for British workers regardless of price or quality, again the same logic applies. At the risk of sounding cliche’, money talks.

Your “vote” doesn’t stop there, either, as there is nothing stopping you educating and persuading friends and others as to why they should peacefully boycott a particular business or product. The only catch is that this requires a little effort to achieve, but nowadays with our Leftist twitter mobs and echo-chamber Facebook groups, it wouldn’t be too difficult.

No matter how evil a business is, in order to survive they must respond to consumer demand. Just as Starbuck’s must provide a thousand choices of caramel Latte’ in order to compete with Costa Coffee, they must also compete on ethical policy for consumers also. How do we know this? The fair trade and ethical market is growing, proportionally to consumer concerns. Unfortunately for Leftist’s we have never seen an economy thrive enough under government central planning to the point where people are privileged enough to shop ethically, most people were, and are (see Venezuela), fighting over the last stale and moldy loaf on otherwise empty shelves and starving to death.

Think of the number of transactions you complete on an average day. Every pound coin, dollar, you name it, provides you the consumer with far more choice and ethical freedom than any government, no matter how competent, could ever hope to achieve. There would have to be a public referendum held every second to decide on even a fraction of the issues the market offers us decisions on, it simply isn’t practical. In reality all the government can offer is gameshow style elections and campaigns every four years in which a political party will try and bribe us with our own, or other peoples’, money and subsequently renege on their commitments. A private business would go broke by the time another four years had past.

Finally there is the issue of liberty, which can never be overstated in importance. As mentioned earlier each individual will inherently have different opinions and virtues, some that marginally differ, some that are bipolar opposites. The free-market can accommodate all of them.

Government meddling in an otherwise free-market can only seek to disrupt and introduce force into this otherwise harmonious system of voluntary action and cooperation. It allows a third party to enter the transaction, the busybody.
The busybody, coupled with big government, is the biggest threat to a free society. Even though they often hold little or no stake in a particular transaction, business or product, they feel they are ordained to rule over the rest of us by limiting our choices. Occasionally some of them might not have a vested interest in the liberty repressing drivel they chant on about, and have genuinely good intentions.

Without government eagerly willing to  step in and aid their cause, this would not be a problem. We the individual would be able to agree or disagree with them, again voting with our money. These talking-heads would have to convince us about the sweatshop in Bangladesh, or the unhealthy nature of a 32oz soda by using rationality and logic to their cause, but of course using government and overruling us is far easier for the anointed busybody to do.

Russell Brand's Very Boring Interview.

I always feel a little queasy when I hear champagne socialists like Russell Brand whining about an unfair system that mistreats the poor and rewards the rich. The reality is that his success and fortune have come directly from a system of largely free market economics and democracy, both of which are under serious attack.

Usually I wouldn’t have any interest in writing about the, quite frankly, very boring and unoriginal interview with Paxman in which he provided us with a few rants likeable but less articulated, to that of John Lennon’s – Imagine. Furthermore what did Brand actually say that was so profound? To me it just sounded like very repetitive angst-inspired drivel he could have picked up from a Rage Against The Machine concert. For a reason unknown to me the video has gone viral and potentially done an incredible amount of damage to our democratic system, by dissuading voters from voting, so deserves a response.

There is no reason that the rich, like Brand, whom publicly cry for the poor to propagate their careers, cannot give away all their wealth as a blank check to HM Revenue & Customs or a charity of their choosing. If he really cares for the less fortunate, then why wait for the tax rules to change and redistribute his income for him? This is the beauty of a free market system as it allows people who are truly philanthropic to accrue wealth and if they wish, give it away to those less fortunate, which is the most efficient means possible, far more efficient than the state.

You might think I’m being unfair, that perhaps he shouldn’t give away all his wealth within a system that he sees as constitutionally unfair and corrupt.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt lets see how much money and effort he puts toward setting up a new political party or getting this revolution of his going. The trouble I have with millionaires like Brand is that if a revolution did take place both he and the rich would be immune to any disastrous consequences, probably responding by fleeing to America to escape ‘redistribution’. Not that I’m concerned about Brand leaving personally, but when he and the rich depart for America, they will take all their money with them leaving us a poorer but more equal place.

Where we do agree, sort of, is that mainstream politicians have not faced real opposition for decades (with exception to UKIP’s recent successes) and instead politics has become a cosy club for Eton graduates. Ironically, the biggest reason for this predicament is that 40% of people do not vote. To put this number in context; the Conservative Party gained the highest percentage of votes in 2010 with 47% of votes, which when considering only 60% of people voted, is a tiny percentage. The 40% of disenfranchised non-voters that Brand talks about already hold the democratic power for change, should they wish to exercise it. There are countless options; stand as or vote for an independent, vote for a fringe party, tactical voting, there is no excuse not to vote and then bellyache about politics afterwards.

Can you imagine the change that would be brought about if that 40% of non-voters voted for The Green Party and won as a majority? There would certainly be a revolution. This kind of revolution would be my idea of hell on earth, mind, but nevertheless it could be attained through our democratic process. Brand’s wealth could be redistributed amongst the poor; instead he could be placed on a state farm with the rest of us, growing organic wheat crops without the use of machine tools or fossil fuels and receiving food vouchers instead of monetary payment. In fact sign me up; I’m with Brand… viva la revolucion!