-Ari Armstrong

http://www.co-freedom.com/2000/11/will.html


Myth of the 'Will of the People'

by Ari Armstrong, November 16, 2000

The difference between the Easter Bunny and
the "Will of the People" is that most people
realize the Easter Bunny is a fantasy.

"The people" are just a collection of 270 million
(or so) individuals who happen to live within
arbitrary geographic boundaries in North
America, who share a variety of cultural traits,
and who are fleeced by the same centralized
bureaucracy. Each of these persons has an
individual will, but there can be no will of the
collective.

Quite possibly the most destructive thinking error
in the history of humanity is the error of
reification, or treating abstractions as if they were
concretes. Existing in reality are the 270 million
individual human beings who live in the United
States, each with his or her own tastes,
preferences, and beliefs. And will. What does
NOT exist in reality is some transcendent
"people" capable of purposeful activity.

Sure, there is such a thing as a "culture" which
arises among a community of people, involving
language, habits, government, mores, commonly
held beliefs, and so forth. Through voluntary
cooperation, individuals share ideas and goods
with one another leading to mutual influence and
mutual gain. Certainly trends are noticeable in
the progression of human culture. At different
times, different philosophies and psychologies
become dominant. So what I am advocating here
is not a belief in a radical atomistic individualism,
but just the ordinary kind of reality-based
individualism. Each of is, after all, an individual.

When we think of the 2000 presidential election
in this manner, avoiding the error of reification,
divining the "will of the people" as it pertains to
selecting the next president becomes patently
absurd. The "will of the people," if it means
anything at all, means only that one person gains
the majority of votes, in a pre-established system
of voting procedures. Outside of those arbitrary
guidelines for voting, there is no such thing as
the "will of the people." Of course, it's probably a
good thing that those rules be objectively defined
(as they do not seem to be in Florida), and that
the rules be followed. The rules help create
social stability. As bad as the American system of
government has become, it's a lot better than
most alternatives.

Voting rules necessarily determine who can vote
and how and where people vote. Al Gore's
campaign team takes us down a dangerous path
if it wants to suspend the established rules of
voting in order to realize the (non-existent) "will of
the people." This campaign must have been
particularly frustrating for Gore, what with the
"Nader factor." In a two way race, probably Gore
would have won handily. However, this only
proves the point that an election is a process
bound by rules, and not any sort of
approximation of the "people's will" -- two
candidates is as arbitrary as three or ten, and in
no case can the victor claim to be the highest
preference of even a single voter. (I mean, surely
each of us can think of at least one other person
besides Gush or Bore we think would make a
better president.)

The "will of the people" becomes even more
obviously absurd if we play a simple numbers
game. I never heard the exact percentage of
registered voters who cast a vote for president --
let's say it's 70 percent. (Republican turnout was
lower than expected, probably because gun
owners remember that Pappy Bush banned the
importation of select rifles and Junior claims he
wants even more restrictions, along with a myriad
of other big-government programs.)
Approximately 80 percent of those who could
register to vote bother to do so, which brings us
down to (around) 56 percent of the eligible
population that voted. Both Gush and Bore got
around 48 percent of the total votes cast, or about
27 percent popular approval. So let's not hear
any more talk about the "will of the people" as it
pertains to this election.

In general, though, there is one more problem --
call it a technical glitch -- with the concept of the
"will of the people." Whether that "will" is
interpreted in a transcendental version or simply
as majority rule, sometimes "the people" are just
flat wrong. Surely we have not forgotten that
some who are popularly elected can be real
brutes. The "will of the people" has at various
times resulted in torture, slavery, the Inquisition,
witch hunting, genocide, and religious wars.

In America, individuals are supposed to be
protected from mob rule. Our country is great to
the extent that individuals retain well-established
property rights, they can cooperate voluntarily
with others to achieve social change, and their
civil liberties are respected. The best things in life
are those NOT subjected to majority rule.

* * *

Perhaps a cousin of mine said it best: do we
really want to leave the presidential election in
the hands of the stupidest people in Florida? I
mean, casting a vote is not rocket science. I have
successfully used both "punch out" ballots and
"color in the circle" ballots. Not once did a break
a sweat from the stress of it. This is kindergarten
stuff. I say, if you're too dumb to successfully
punch out the appropriate hole in a piece of
paper, you don't deserve to vote. "Dimpled
chads" -- please.

* * *

The wonderful thing about this presidential
election is that it may well foster grid-lock.
However, a Bush victory might be worse than a
Gore victory. Bush has already made a
reputation for "crossing the aisle" in order to
"compromise" away our rights. I'm afraid he'll try
to "heal our nation" by passing new bi-partisan
socialist programs. For example, Gore's
gun-grabbing proposals would be more obvious
and more far-reaching. The Republican
Congress would balk, leaving us in glorious
grid-lock. However, that same Republican
Congress might be willing to go along with
disarmament laws proposed by "W." The NRA
has already thrown its support behind Bush,
knowing full well he wants to expand Brady
registration checks. Bush will have stronger
sympathy among those who voted for him
precisely because of the contentious election.
This could spell trouble. On the other hand, this
election could spell exactly what the state does
best: nothing.

Ari Armstrong