The Problems of Democracy and Its Impact on Family Structure

Here I will outline how democracy promotes egalitarianism, the pragmatic problems of democracy, how these problems damage family structure, why that matters, and a potential remedy.

Social democracy (herein: democracy) is governance by universal suffrage. Democracy results in laws being determined by social attitudes, which increases the range of those with suffrage because social attitudes change to become more egalitarian.

Social attitudes become more egalitarian because marginalised groups—anti-family-behaviour groups—use the proportionally less competent voters to gain governmental power. More marginalised groups then use this stepping-stone to repeat the process. Egalitarians want to remove differences between groups. In practice this means the egalitarian sees one group’s success as necessarily the result of injustice–in their language, privilege.

The problems of democracy:

Problem of incentives—the legal encouragement of negative behaviours, primarily rent-seeking (extracting resources from a society legally without contributing economically). For example, a welfare recipient can vote for a free pay rise. This 'free' money is extracted from contributors—taxpayers—over a societal scale. Such perverse behaviours and laws inhibit capital accumulation for the competent, which reduces overall standards of living relative to the potential.

Problem of competency—as demonstrated by the previous problem, some citizens aren’t capable of making long-term decisions in the interest of the society. Statesmen are led to appeal to frivolous politics and, before long, few are doing much else, showing how the problems of incentives and competency are intimately linked. When considering these problems and modern politics I consider the incompetent population to be the majority.

Problem of family—the previous problems create monetary reward for choices which damage the nuclear family. Examples:

  • Subsidies for single mothers proportional to the number of children.
  • Using children as legal tools for cross-parental wealth extraction.
  • The elderly can live off the state, bypassing the need for family-centric behaviour.

These examples show how the state is used to remove incentives to marry, or for most people, not to have children within those marriages. When continued, these problems exacerbate themselves.

Why does damaging the family matter? Because society is inherited. If the children are healthy and capable, the society is prosperous. To raise such capable children requires high K-selection, which needs the nuclear family structure. Maintaining the family as the societal standard is the most tactful way to ensure societal advancement.

When seeking a doctor, you search for someone who is skilled enough to pass a test: medical school. This approach of test passing to qualify should be used in selecting the voting population. A base example of how the test could be done is that the person must earn over $100,000 gross in that year. The reasoning is that someone who achieves high-percentile market value has demonstrated a longer time horizon coupled with understanding—well enough—the intricacies needed for making policy decisions.

Likely changes to occur if democracy were limited by a test:

  • Reduced government size and taxes.
  • Freer markets and privatisation of some government services.
  • Reduction in progressivism by reduced rent-seeking and increased incentives for normal families, encouraging geneticism and natural hierarchy.

Also published at Occidental Voices