In “Democracy and the Expert” (Political Quarterly, January, 1930), Alfred Zimmern writes:
The old “police state” of the privileged classes was satisfied with the maintenance of order and the protection of property: it required little more than a routine administration. ... But democracy, in Europe at any rate, had been teaching its adherents to expect from the State far more than this old-fashioned type of activity.
It was to become a vigorous agent in removing hindrances to well-being and in the promotion of social services of numerous and varied types. But this, in its turn, involved the need for skilled administration and expert assistance of a kind undreamt of by the earlier democrats. As a result, the democratic state of to-day resembles the ideal state of democratic theory almost as little as the outward civilisation of to-day resembles that of 1750. Thus democracy is faced, at the moment of apparent triumph, with a new danger — that of being displaced by the ruler-class which it has had to call into its councils in order to meet its own special requirements.
A cynic might charge that once people acquired the power to vote, their baser instincts took over and they voted themselves more and more financial perks from the coffers of government. Perhaps there is something to this explanation, but it’s rather superficial. Much of what the government’s involvement with society has to do with upholding basic equality, liberty, and autonomy of the individual — not just with respect to the state, but also to various civil and private institutions which have also grown much more powerful in the past few hundred years.
Democracy requires that people have basic liberties, the opportunity to exercise those liberties, and the resources to exercise those liberties. Because of this, a democratic government has the duty to defend people’s rights by protecting and expanding their opportunities and resources for exercising their rights.
In the old aristocratic systems of government, the state had little responsibility to the average person because people had few rights. Today, it’s different. Early ideas about democratic governments being limited not just in power but also in scope were developed at a time when rights were few, states were undemocratic, and social institutions were limited. Modern democratic societies require larger, more expansive governments because they are necessary to the maintenance of rights without which democracy is a sham.
Quick Poll: Should the state be powerful enough to ensure that people have the opportunities and resources to exercise their rights?
- Yes, rights are an illusion without opportunities and resources
- No, that's the responsibility of individuals to take care of
- I don't know
- I don't care
Read More:
It would be useful to consider that the US is a capitalist democracy (just as some Euro nations are socialist or mixed democracies). There is most definitely an elite class that requires maintenance of order and property rights. The public servant class exists to fill this need. The simple proof of this is to look at places where there is a lack of order; it is also the place where the marketplace does not exist in abundance and where individual ownership barely exists- in the urban inner cities. Call me cynical- people in the upper echelons of government use their access to the public coffers to enrich their friends, and expect the favor to be repaid upon leaving public office.
It is also very expensive to defend one’s rights in court or to seek redress of legitimate greivances. Thus the existance of a group such as the ACLU, just to keep ahead of some of the most egregious violations.
What percentage of our discretionary spending actually pertains to the public support of individual American’s rights? How much of that spending is entangled with private contractors providing services at exorbitant prices? Contractors who invariably have ‘access’?
The rights and opportunities of the very wealthy are supported to the extreme, at the expense of the poor and middle class, in the US. Yet we are reminded by power brokers of how sacred a duty and honor the defense of the nation and it’s ‘ideals’ are. We are led to believe that we enjoy the best country from an individual standpoint, when that is true only for a small minority. We have expectations for social justice that are constantly thwarted by capitalist power.
Ditto.
There is most definitely an elite class that requires maintenance of order and property rights. The public servant class exists to fill this need. The simple proof of this is to look at places where there is a lack of order; it is also the place where the marketplace does not exist in abundance and where individual ownership barely exists- in the urban inner cities.
So the urban inner cities, where there is not much of a free market, order, or individual ownership, is proof of an elite class which requires these things to lord it over the “servant class”? I’m confused. Are you arguing for or against a market economy? (Capitalist economic theory, BTW, requires strong protection of property rights for all.)
I disagree over the existence of an “elite class” and “servant class”, at least in the sense you seem to be describing them, and truth be told these sound like terms used in most anti-capitalist boilerplate talking points I come across. If there is anything like an “elite class” in this country, it is nothing like the aristocratic or ruling classes found in other countries.
Furthermore, the use of the term “servant class” is at best misleading; no doubt many take such a phrase to mean an unfree lower class beholden to their employer masters. (Cue picture of C. Montgomery Burns crowing, “Excellent!”) In fact, the American economy has moved from agricultural to industrial to service-based, so if anything, most of us in all classes could be considered “servants”. With much of our economy having progressed beyond toiling in the fields or factories, this could be considered a good thing.
Call me cynical- people in the upper echelons of government use their access to the public coffers to enrich their friends, and expect the favor to be repaid upon leaving public office.
I won’t call you cynical, because I happen to agree with you on this. I just don’t think this is an inherent property of capitalism. Graft, corruption, fiscal unaccountability, and patronage are common in all forms of gov’t regardless of the presiding economic system. They are most prevalent in govt’s that have the least accountability, and in govt’s that have much power over the economy. A gov’t which is both democratic and limited in scope & power is the best vaccine against this.
It is also very expensive to defend one’s rights in court or to seek redress of legitimate greivances. Thus the existance of a group such as the ACLU, just to keep ahead of some of the most egregious violations.
Perhaps America should adopt a “loser pays” lawsuit system as is found in many parts of Europe.
Continued….
What percentage of our discretionary spending actually pertains to the public support of individual American’s rights?
Not a lot; the federal budget does indeed contain many hundreds of billions in pork and other spending which Congress really has no business engaging in.
To lay all that at the feet of privatization and private contractors though is, I think, unjustified. While taxpayers can and do get ripped off with certain political patronage deals, overall privatization typically means better services at lower costs. Most private contractor work is not sweetheart deals.
The rights and opportunities of the very wealthy are supported to the extreme, at the expense of the poor and middle class, in the US.
Boilerplate class-warfareism….
We are led to believe that we enjoy the best country from an individual standpoint, when that is true only for a small minority.
Of course it depends on what criteria you use, but I would be interested in knowing which other countries the majority of Americans (i.e. the middle class) would be better off in, earning higher wages and enjoying more opportunities for advancement, enrichment, and leisure. I would also like to know how many other countries have a lower class where most poor people have cars, cable TV’s, microwave ovens, refrigerators, CD players, etc. etc. Not a whole lot, especially in countries with not a whole lot of capitalism. And judging from the continued attractiveness of this country to immigrants, how many other countries offer as much opportunity for advancement for the poor as ours does?
It would be silly to argue that America has no room for improvement, but it’s just as silly describing this country as if it were a 3rd-world dictatorship with an impoverished populace under the iron fist of an aristocratic ruling class.
We have expectations for social justice that are constantly thwarted by capitalist power.
I keep hearing this term, “social justice,” but it’s seldom actually defined. Justice for whom? At whose expense? What benefits and entitlements are included in this “justice”? Does this “justice” strive merely for equality of opportunity, or also for equality of results? Is there any solid, actual economic theory involved, or is it all political rhetoric and dogma?
And with “capitalist power,” again, what does this mean? Who exactly has the power, to do what? Are you just referring to the ability of businesses and other private groups to influence gov’t, something which is not a property of capitalism itself? Or are you referring to other things as well, such as the power of businesses to set their own prices and determine their own wage rates?