💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-democracy-with-a-small-d.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:47:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: democracy with a small “d”
Author: Anonymous
Date: 1962
Language: en
Topics: democracy, the market, panarchy
Source: Retrieved on 30th August 2021 from http://www.panarchy.org/anonymous/democracy.1962.html
Notes: Note by John Zube: This is an article that introduces the basic panarchistic idea very well. The original article was printed in “THE REGISTER”, Drawer 1318, Santa Ana, California USA, an Independent Freedom Newspaper, January 12, 1962. Their policy is thus expressed: “The Register believes each and every person would get more satisfaction in the long run if he were permitted to spend what he earns on a voluntary basis rather than having any part of it distributed involuntarily.”

Anonymous

democracy with a small “d”

“In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority

candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of

affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence

policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent

has the power to work upon the production processes.... The decision of

a consumer is carried into effect with the full moments he gives it

through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.”

(Ludwig von Mises, Human Action)

There is much confusion in this nation over the term ‘democracy’. The

word comes from the Greek and in its structure means ‘rule of the

people’ or possibly ‘rule by the people.’ But when the word is not

capitalized its actual functional quality relates to marketplace rather

than to political activities. When it is capitalized, as it usually is

in this country, the concept changes.

In a Democracy, majorities make decisions which are binding upon all

people. When the democratic concept is employed in the market place each

individual makes decisions which are binding only upon himself and those

others directly involved. The democratic process (small ‘d’) does not

suppose control of some by others; it supposes control of each by each.

Let’s see how it works.

In the market place you go into a store and buy a can of beans. You are

bound by your decision. You have, for reasons known only to you, decided

to purchase a can of beans put out by X company. Its name is on the

label.

You don’t know there will be beans in the can. You can’t see the beans.

But, partly because of the label, and partly because of experience, you

trust the company. You exchange your money for the can. This is a ballot

cast in the market place. This is your vote in favor of the company you

patronized.

It is binding upon you. You must pay for the beans the price quoted. You

don’t have to buy it at all. But if you do buy it, you must pay for it.

You may pay for it later if the storekeeper will give you credit. If he

does, it is because he trusts your label. He believes, either through

experience or through long practice in reading labels, that he will

eventually get paid. He could be wrong. But he won’t be wrong many

times.

You might be wrong. The can might contain marbles, soup or mashed

potatoes. But you won’t be wrong many times, either. If you buy a can

from X company and it does not contain what it says it contains, you

will be mighty reluctant to patronize that company again.

But let us see what happens as a result of your ballot cast in the

market place. Your vote is tabulated by the storekeeper either at the

end of the day or the end of a few days of marketing. He will find, when

he does his tabulations, that some (like yourself) have voted for X

brand. He will know this because he will have to re-order X brand.

He will also find that some others have voted for Y brand. Still others

will have voted for brands Z, ZXY, XX, YYYY. He will re-order these

brands too in precisely the quantity he thinks necessary to take care of

his customers in the future.

What happens at the various companies which process these beans? The

vote comes in, each time numerically different for each firm. Each firm

is encouraged by each vote cast. Such encouragement leads it to continue

the process by which it pleased you or others.

Let us suppose that X brand, the kind you voted for, was the most

popular. Let us suppose that this brand got 100 votes, each of the other

brands getting fewer than 100. If we had Democracy (capital D) in the

market place, this would mean that an order would be issued which would

say in effect, ‘Only X brand need be processed any more, The voters have

clearly shown that X brand is the best bean. Therefore, all other brands

are hereby discontinued.’

But we don’t have capital D Democracy in the market place. We have small

d democracy. Therefore, even though X brand proved to be the most

popular, others were popular enough to encourage them to some degree.

So, all firms which were voted on favorably enough continue to produce

their product. Your action in buying X brand does not compel us to

purchase X brand. Personally, let us suppose, we happen to like YYYY

brand. We cannot prevent you from buying X brand. You cannot prevent us

from buying YYYY brand.

This is true democracy. It is the process wherein each governs each.

This process is always moral and provides the greatest food, the

greatest variety, the lowest prices for the largest number.

MAJORITY BECOMES MONOPOLY CONTROL

In the foregoing we have attempted to show how democracy (small d) works

in the market place. But the argument perpetually arises, this is not

the same thing as politics. In government two men will run for office.

Both of them can’t possibly hold that office. Thus, the votes through

the majority process select the one best suited. He will hold the

office. The other one will not.

What is wrong with this?

The same thing is wrong with it as would be wrong if you went into a

store seeking to buy X brand of beans and you were informed that because

more people only liked YYYY brand, that would be the only kind of beans

you could buy.

Further, you would be told that you could not solve the problem for

yourself simply by abstaining from buying beans. You must buy them. And

you must buy brand YYYY. Further, you must eat the beans. At this point

democracy would have been capitalized. And this is what we have done in

government in this country.

Let us suppose that two men run for the presidency. Let us further

suppose that one of them, brand YYYY, is Mr. Biden. Let us further

suppose that the other one of them, brand X, is Mr. Trump. Mr. Biden

gets more votes than Mr. Trump. But the voters who voted for Mr. Trump

do not obtain their choice. They wanted Mr. Trump to run their affairs.

They got Mr. Biden. They are frustrated.

Of course, those who voted for Mr. Biden are delighted. Not only do they

get the man to run their affairs, they get a man who is now empowered to

run every one’s affairs.

But there is always a third category of people, those who want neither

Brand X nor Brand YYYY. There may be those who wanted Brand Z. There

might even be those who don’t want any brand at all. They want to run

their own affairs entirely without having a Trump, a Biden or a ZZZZ to

run them.

But by the majority process, all of them regardless of their personal

wishes or convictions, must now pay for brand YYYY. And they are bound

to use brand YYYY even if they’d rather not. Suddenly, we see what has

happened to our support of Democracy: we have moved away from the

concept of rule by the people. Instead, we now have monopoly rule. All

minorities, regardless of their interests, desires or whatever, are

compelled to go along with the monopoly.

Now if we practised small d democracy in this country, those who voted

for Trump would have him running their affairs; those who voted for

Biden would have him; those who voted for someone else to regulate their

lives would have him. And those who didn’t want anyone to run their

affairs for them would be left without anyone running their affairs.

This would be moral: Each would then get to pay for what he himself

voted that he wanted. The man who refused to participate would not have

the ‘advantages’ he would have gained had he done so. Perhaps he would

regret this later.

But that is his business. Just as it is your business to refuse to buy

beans and to suffer from hunger if that is what happens.

We can virtually hear the cry of alarm: ‘But this would mean that we

would have many presidents? at least two. And how could we get everyone

to go along on a given policy in that case?’

The answer is that you could not. But would this be bad?

The concept of representation is essentially a concept of agency.

Someone is to act for you. But how can someone act for you if that

someone is completely committed to actions contrary to your own best

interests? To suppose that he represents you because others have chosen

him is to suppose a lie. He can only represent you if you select him,

and then, if he confines himself to your interests.

It is capital D Democracy that is doing us in. Men who are opposed to

your own best interests obtain power over you through actions taken by

others; Democracy (capital D) means majority control of all. Majority

control of all means monopoly. And it always results in monopoly control

in the hands of a minority. This is never moral, nor is it necessary.