Thursday, December 04, 2008

Republicanism versus Democracy

I suppose it was only a matter of time before I had to face and dissect my views. I desperately fear Republicanism in its present form, and openly expose that my leanings are definitely more Democratic.
However, these are not opposite terms in current parlance: The normal opposite term to a Republican is a Liberal: One is a Statist, the other a liberator of the people from Governmental control.
The Statist is the Liberal though, not the Republican.
A Liberal promotes the control by the State, which is represented through its leaders, against the perceived tyranny of the powerful in society.
A republican perceives that any intervention of the state upon the economy, (which is always effected through taxation,) is wrong and must be stopped.
If you do not tax the top of the stack in terms of income, which means powerful Corporations and the individuals that lead them, you will run a deficit government in terms of social assistance, housing, medical care, and all other activities that are far from the concerns of the powerful.
You will never please the powerful by showing surpluses in Government funds, especially as the Powerful see this as literally “their” money, not the Government’s.
Both sides, Liberal and Republican, see themselves as “Democracies”, however one seeks a rise of the lower class into the classes that can really influence, because the burdens that prevent them the comfort of actually influencing politics and economies.
The other side sees the “rise” of the lower class as an incessant attack on their purported “free” markets: Free in the sense that they can continue their conniving and manipulations unobstructed by concerns about anything other than their continued excesses.
We hear the media use terms such as “deficit” economies and “surplus” economies but rarely can we make the association necessary. Republican governments have traditionally held “deficit’ economies and therefore we feel sorry for them. “Make people work to correct this darned economy” is the way I generalize this feeling.
Surplus economies have traditionally occurred through taxation and are therefore associated with Liberalism. Then the Republicans get to accuse those darned “Rich Leftists, sitting in academic lounges and drinking fine wine” while they face ever increasing burdens.
Surplus should mean an economy is doing well and that there is a hope that there will be money for infrastructure, hospitals, education, etc. The analogy would be between a family with a balanced home economy (in the Aristotelian sense) and one who recklessly orders their household at a continuing deficit.
When hard times occur, who should be scolded?
Right now, we’re seeing the breakdown of Republican economics with massive bailouts and intervention. Who would have thought that Bush and Brown would acquiesce to such a takeover by Government over the world economies? Intervention sanctioned, but I doubt they’ll ever fess-up.
They’ll come up with a new word for intervention and taxation.
In note that all of the powerful are calling for more bailout: Jarislowski in Canada, Buffet in the US.
Fuel the economy at the expense of the ordinary Joe, since inflation is a sure way to increase the flow-up of funds to their interests. Jarislowski himself is calling for a loosening of controls Canada has, such as the US Fed’s ability to freely print cash.
If we do print the cash more of where it winds up needs to be: In the coffers of the taxpayers. And unfortunate as this word is these days that happens through taxation. It should eventually reproduce a tax surplus worldwide that could solve the evil conditions that lurk after a few years of Republicanism.
Out of this bailout could come a bettered society, it all depends on our “economics”1

1: Aristotle’s definition of Economics had to do with “keeping-house’ or what we now know as “Home-ec.” Out of an analysis of a microcosm of the movement of goods and services within one household, Aristotle provided the first model of how a State’s economy could be arranged.