A lot of Republicans get into trouble for putting earmarks into bills or for using taxpayer money on projects for their own districts. Governor Sarah Palin was criticized for having infrastructure projects funded and recently Congressman Ron Paul is catching trouble for putting earmarks on the Omnibus bill. While using this money is reprehensible and does go against their principles, not doing it will not really change anything. As they have noted, that money will be spent either way and some of it will come from their own districts. The most they can do is try and have the money their people pay go to those they represent. This dilemma is illustrated in the article “The Tragedy of Commons,” written by Garret Hardin. In the article, Hardin points out that given a finite resource, people will consume it quickly rather than lose it to someone else.  While not a perfect analogy, it is still relevant. Here there are two limited resources that lead into each other: votes and tax dollars. Promising other people’s money to voters is the best method of getting votes. As a result, any politician who wants to have a fighting chance simply must promise this. In doing so, competition for tax revenue results, since politicians use this money to buy votes, and said money is limited. Since all politicians are throwing tax payer money around, any politician who wants to keep their job must promise more money than their competitors. If they do not capitalize on the situation, others will. This is seen in the bailout of the states, where successful states that had not squandered their money were forced to pay the ones that were not as fiscally responsible. Several governors decided not to take such money, but this will only result in their states losing money and may even threaten the governor’s careers. It is thus in their best interest to live off other states rather than to be lived off of. This continual process is why the US government spends the largest part of the GDP.

This process is also what leads to a quote by Ben Franklin: “when the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” This buying of votes leads to a viscous cycle that is truly very funny and sad. As politicians pay voters to “solve their problems”, they remove from those people the desire and eventually the ability to solve them themselves. This in turn causes those voters to need the politicians more and thus they continue to vote for them. The politicians almost certainly fail to realize how they turn these people into a loyal and dependent voter block, and so continue to pay them, thinking they are saving them. And so their attempt at virtue leads them to gain power from suffering. Such politicians then become elected for life, allowing them to wield absolute authority through the various agencies, bureaus, departments, and other groups that form an ever increasing alphabet soup that is required to collect and redistribute taxes. This natural progression is what causes democracies to deteriorate, or civilize according to G.K. Chesterton, into dictatorships in a few centuries, which the US is nearing. Civilize because as population increases, democracy ceases to be viable and absolute rule is needed. This of course leads to the question: what can one do to stop this, if one is so inclined to want to stop it? Well, probably not a whole lot. It will take strong leaders who throw away votes for the greater good, and several in a row since few will be elected more than once. However, such people are rare, and the odds of getting enough in a row to make a difference is next to impossible. But at least you won’t have to work much as you lose your liberty. So sit back, relax, and get a gun. They will probably be needed when transition of power becomes less peaceful.

Derek can be reached at derek@umassminuteman.com