Voters only insist upon one single thing of their elected politicians. Lies: If a politician wants to get elected and then re-elected, he must lie to voters, avoid the truth, obfuscate the truth, and most importantly, promise to give them stuff at the expense of others, all while leading them to believe they’re getting it for free. This is what’s known as being “artful.” That’s euphemism for getting caught in your own lies less than the other guy gets caught in his.
This is the basic ethos of all voters worldwide. Either they want someone to spend their time, energy, and other people’s money enforcing the biggest mob’s (euphemism alert: “majority”) “values,” or they simply want them to steal from the “rich” and give it to the “poor” in turn. Voters get weepy reading Robin Hood.
Bread and Circuses has been around since 100AD, folks (and that’s just its metaphorical insertion into the political discourse of the day). It used to be simple appeasement, paid for often enough through State expansion and conquest. That’s what Kings & Emperors did. They had the common decency to steal from people in lands far, far away. Now, democratically elected politicians just steal from your neighbors and you’re totally fine with that.
It took an unelected State figurehead to deliver this message the other day: Dutch King Willem-Alexander declares the end of the welfare state. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”
So let’s get to The King, and then to why it’s good to be King.
King Willem-Alexander delivered a message to the Dutch people from the government in a nationally televised address: the welfare state of the 20th century is gone.
In its place a “participation society” is emerging, in which people must take responsibility for their own future and create their own social and financial safety nets, with less help from the national government. […]
“The shift to a ‘participation society’ is especially visible in social security and long-term care,” the king said, reading out to lawmakers a speech written for him by Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government.
“The classic welfare state of the second half of the 20th century in these areas in particular brought forth arrangements that are unsustainable in their current form.”
Here’s the funny thing and why “it’s good to be King.” I posted that article link on the FTA Facebook Page earlier today and got the typical, predictable responses:
- So get rid of the UNELECTED King!!!
- He’s just reading the Prime Minister’s speech.
Both points are moderately valid, but they both also miss the wider picture. In the first case, on a practical level, all of the expenses for all of the old world figurehead royalty don’t amount to a drop in the bucket for even one State’s overall welfare burden. Worse, it implies that there’s an important distinction to be made between monarchy and democracy in the post-enlightenment west.
The second is far more important, and is what motivated this post. It misses the nuance of the whole thing. How come the King had to deliver a message from the government? BECAUSE HE DOESN’T FACE RE-ELECTION PRESSURES. DUH!
Voters are so daft that they don’t even recognize this simple point. European Socialism is like years now into “austerity measures.” That’s euphemism for running out of other people’s money to steal and redistribute, incidentally. They’re so clamorous to be led to safety…
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H.L. Mencken
…that they’ll suborn further lies, and lies upon lies, and shielding of the reality of things—all orchestrated by the politicians they elect. It’s all about feeling comfortable. Democracy is the problem, and that fact is made manifest by the simple act of professional politicians in charge having a King deliver their hard truths to their constituency. What’s old is new again, I guess. It’s convenient to imagine that this really began going downhill fast with women’s suffrage; but, as Lysander Spooner pointed out a very long time ago in opposition to women’s suffrage…
Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience.
I’m giving the King of the Netherlands a pass on this one. It demonstrates clearly the utter bankruptcy of democracy and of the attempt to be in the bigger mob—to make 49% the slaves of 51%—via the vote. In these terms, I’d far rather be the hapless, defenseless, at-the-mercy-of SUBJECT of the King, than a pathetic piece of shit voter (“voter” …that’s euphemism for petty thug).
I wrote this in a post in 2007, making fun of Mark Levin for getting stiffed by George Bush:
So: the great king of 2000 is now the bad king of 2007. Wonder who’ll be the great king of 2008…
I guess we know the answer to that, now. What’s funny is that you ridiculous voters really think you’ve got the power. You proudly wear it on your lapels every 2-4-8 years.
Yep, you’ve got ’em just where they want you. What a laf you all are and I get to see clear evidence of that every day. So, there’s that; and thank you very much.