by Benjamin Marks, Economics.org.au editor-in-chief

Congratulations to Sam Kennard, of Kennards Self Storage and the Liberal Democratic Party, on his triumph in yesterday’s North Sydney by-election. Congratulations also to his campaign team, led brilliantly by Trisha Jha, Brian Marlow and Austen Erickson.

Idiots in the mainstream media, ignorant of democracy, are parroting that the “Liberal” Party’s Trent Zimmerman won. But it is more democratic to appraise the outcome on the quality, rather than quantity, of votes. After all, favouring quantity over quality is the philosophy of the pack hunt, the lynch mob and the gang rape.

But Sam’s large victory margin should not lead us to complacency, especially as the quality of votes attracted could have been higher. For example, Sam could have emulated that great demagogue Donald Trump. Just as Trump ran a campaign to see President Obama’s birth certificate, because he wasn’t sure he was an American citizen, so Kennard could have run a campaign to see Zimmerman’s birth certificate, because he wasn’t sure how long it was that Zimmerman hadn’t had a real job — that is, a job that wasn’t tax-funded or funded by those trying to receive taxes. (It was revealing that in the survey on Zimmerman’s campaign website, asking which of a list of issues did the community consider important, lower taxes and deregulation were not even listed by Zimmerman as options to preference.)

Another way Sam could have increased the quality of votes he attracted is by correcting the many supporters who were advertising that his business experience would help him in politics. Unless they were proposing he refit Parliament House into a Kennards Self Storage. There is no doubt that a good job could be done of this, given Kennards Self Storage proven record of saving beautiful oversized buildings that housed operations that became uneconomic (or never were economic without government largesse), and converting them into useful and valued enterprises — useful and valued as judged by the fact customers choose, with their own money, to use what is offered. But I don’t think that’s what those supporters of Sam were thinking. Which is a pity, because it’s amazing what a little paint can do.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that Federal Parliament should operate in a Kennards Self Storage facility; I trust Sam would not allow such activities on his property. No. Federal Parliament should move into smaller premises, as befits a proudly free enterprise country. And rather than on a hill, Parliament should be on land that is low-lying, as befits politicians.

So, if turning Federal Parliament into a Kennards Self Storage is not what those supporters were thinking, then why do they think that Sam’s business skills would help him make a positive impact in Parliament? How can Sam’s proven ability to attract and satisfy customers, in any way, indicate his potential to attract votes? In business, customers choose to spend their own money on specific products. In sharp contrast, in politics, voters are forced to get their name marked off the electoral roll and then they can vote towards confiscating and redirecting vague and shifting combinations of the money, property and freedoms of others.

Moreover, voting requires appraising multitudes of complex issues as a package that we can’t mix and match, like bundling Subway sandwiches (agriculture policies) with smartphone plans (communications policies) with health insurance (healthcare policies) with much more. Citizens are not meant to be smart enough to make decisions regarding government services, except at election time when those decisions are made more complicated and inextricable than any market service purchase. When deliberating between these plan combos, we should also be considering that never are they delivered as promised. If Sam promises his customers something that he doesn’t deliver on in total, then he is not merely voted out in a few years; he has to refund the customer and pay any damages. He can’t respond to complaints with, “Oh, you are right, I broke my promise to you, but we live in a ‘democracy’ so just wait a few years and if your one vote is added to a massive quantity of other votes, then you can vote me out.”

If Kennards Self Storage units were funded by “democratic election” processes, then those who actually fund it would likely be separate from those who use it, just like government services today. This would mean that Sam’s storage units would tend to be abused by those using them, since those who get something for nothing tend to treat it as such. This would mean prices, like taxes, would tend to go up, whereas in the free market prices tend to go down.

Another difficulty running a business along “democratic election” lines is that, thanks to the secret ballot, Sam would not know who voted for and who voted against. What if he only wanted to charge those who consent to the storage service product that Kennards Self Storage offers?

I know people say politics is like a public company where shares are bought on the understanding that a certain shareholder voting arrangement chooses the management. But this analogy fails, because: (1) there was no contractual foundation in politics; and (2) we cannot sell our shares and keep the proceeds.

So how would Sam’s business skills help him in politics? I agree his skills would be transferable if he was one of those businessmen who lobby government for special favours, but he is not one of those. In fact, he wants government to do absolutely nothing to help him at all. He wants them to leave him alone. He wants it to be easier for competitors to arise against his established business. Maybe when people say that Sam’s business experience will help him in politics, they are referring to his ability to access capital, juggle finances, delegate tasks, communicate effectively, negotiate wisely, maintain trust with different stakeholders, choose his words carefully, etc. Well, that may be so, but those skills are also possessed by all the more established Mafia protection rackets.

In fact, government has much more in common with a Mafia protection racket than with business. Consider the little fact that taxation is not a consensual payment in any dictionary sense of the word. As Prof Dr HHH says, government is an expropriating property protector, same as protection rackets. After all, they also provide valuable services, like protection and looking after the family, and have firm rules for day-to-day operations, electing gang leaders and distributing the loot.

So why do people say that Sam’s business experience will help him in politics? Surely an experienced career criminal would have skills far better suited to a life of politics. The policies of the Arts Party are a case in point. They literally want to force people to contribute financially to the arts, even if they vote against it and don’t want to spend money on the same artistic endeavours as the Arts Party. How is this not literally criminal? Why is it okay for the Arts Party to do this on a large scale, but not for some lone criminal to do it on a smaller scale?

I don’t mean to be singling out the Arts Party; it’s just that they got top spot on the ballot.

Maybe Sam should have run on a platform pledging to beat by 10% each and every promise that each and every one of his competing candidates made. Guaranteed. Swearing that it was a promise, a campaign promise. He’s rich; he could afford it. Although he’d only use taxpayers funds, of course, because that’s what politics is all about: spending other people’s money.

But getting votes from people regarding how other people’s money is spent is not real democracy. So Sam did the opposite. All the other parties promised more government action and spending. Sam campaigned for less. That’s why he won. He beat the other candidates because he provides services that voters choose to purchase with their own money.

Sam did not merely win by a majority; he received the unanimous consent of those who, more than voting in secret, tangibly chose to use his services by paying him with their own money. Those who don’t wish to use his services, aren’t forced to pay for it or to follow his rules. This is the opposite of the policies of the Liberal Party, the Arts Party and the rest.

Last but not least, congratulations and best of luck in the future to all the losing candidates, who all conducted such honourable campaigns in favour of the use of force to solve moral, economic and social problems. They all wanted Sam and his supporters to be forced to pay for what they voted against. In sharp contrast, Sam did not want those who voted against him to be forced to pay for any of his activities or for any the businesses, charities, non-profits and educational institutions he supports. It’s great to live in a world where tax consumers and tax producers can be side-by-side on a ballot to better access the funds of tax producers. Hooray for equality. Hooray for democracy. Hooray for Australia.

(in order of appearance on Economics.org.au)
  1. Acquiescence
  2. Why Sports Fans Should Be Libertarians
  3. Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures
  4. Government Schools Teach Fascism Perfectly
  5. Deport Government to Solve Immigration Problem
  6. The Drugs Problem Problem
  7. Self-Defeating Campaigning
  8. Gittinomics: Economics for Gits
  9. Exclusive Ross Gittins Interview on The Happy Economist
  10. Population Puzzle Solved
  11. An Open Letter to the CIS
  12. Principled Foreign Policy Options: Reinvade or Shut Up and Get Out
  13. WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Political Corruption Exposed!
  14. Feedback please: Is this worth doing?
  15. CIS and IPA Defend State Schooling
  16. A Thorough Review Without Spoilers of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
  17. Dead Reckoning and Government: A Proposal for Electoral Reform
  18. Quadrant Defends State Schooling
  19. The MPS 2010 Consensus
  20. Slogans for Property Rights Funeral
  21. Government is Impossible: Introduction
  22. Government is Criminal: Part 1
  23. Exclusive John Howard Interview on Lazarus Rising
  24. Response to Senator Cory Bernardi and the IPA
  25. Earn $$$$$ by Justifying Government Against Anarchocapitalism: Survey
  26. Statism is Secrecy: WikiLeaks vs Economics.org.au
  27. One question the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens, the CIS, the IPA, Ross Gittins, Ross Garnaut, Ken Henry, Gerard Henderson, John Quiggin, Clive Hamilton, Tim Flannery, Catallaxy Files, Club Troppo, Larvatus Prodeo, Phillip Adams, Robert Manne, Michael Stutchbury, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Dick Smith are scared to answer
  28. Libertarian Philanthropists Should Exploit Tax Evasion Convictions
  29. Ronald Kitching Obituary
  30. The Minarchist Case for Anarchism
  31. Libertarianism in a 300-word rant
  32. Economics.org.au in the news again
  33. Libertarianism In An Executive Summary
  34. The Banking Bubble Blow-by-Blow
  35. WARNING: Libertarianism Is NOT ...
  36. Would Anything Possibly Convince You that You Are Living Under a Protection Racket?
  37. An Open Letter to Dick Smith
  38. Economics.org.au at 42
  39. "My boyfriend calls himself a Marxist and votes Labor, what should I do?"
  40. "He says if I leave him due to politics, I should leave the country too."
  41. No Booboisie at Gülçin’s Galt’s Gulch
  42. "Hey, Mr Anarchocapitalist, show me a society without government"
  43. The Three Epoch-Making Events of the Modern Libertarian Movement
  44. Government is Criminal: Part 2 - Methodological Individualism
  45. Government is Criminal: Part 3 - Subjective Utility
  46. Government is Criminal: Part 4 - Praxeological Synonyms
  47. Government is in a State of Anarchy
  48. Limited Government is Absolute Government
  49. Why the 2012 double Nobel laureate is coming to Sydney
  50. Exclusive Oliver Marc Hartwich Interview on Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  51. A Critique of the Opening Two Sentences of the "About CIS" Page on The Centre for Independent Studies' Website, www.cis.org.au
  52. An invitation for ANDEV members to the Mises Seminar
  53. Sell the ABC to Rupert Murdoch: Lid Blown on ABC Funding Disgrace!
  54. www.inCISe.org.au, The Centre for Independent Studies new blog
  55. The Unconstitutionality of Government in Australia (demonstrated in under 300 words)
  56. The Best Libertarian Film Is ...
  57. Launch Southeast Asian Military Operations to Free Australian Drug Dealers and Consumers
  58. Workers Party Reunion Intro
  59. Hoppe's Inarticulate Australian Critics: The Hon Dr Peter Phelps, Dr Steven Kates and James Paterson
  60. Vice Magazine Westralian Secession Interview
  61. Sideshow to Dr Steven Kates' criticism of the Mises Seminar: Davidson vs Hoppe on Adam Smith
  62. The Best Australian Think Tank Is ...
  63. Announcing a new magazine to rival Time and The Economist
  64. The exciting new Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
  65. Neville Kennard Obituary
  66. Contrarian Conformism
  67. An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar
  68. Westralian mining legend Ron Manners of Mannkal belongs in The Property and Freedom Society
  69. What would Bert Kelly think of the Mises Seminar and Walter Block?
  70. Bad news about the Mises Seminar
  71. Gina Rinehart Fan Club gives big to Australian political education
  72. Sam Kennard wins North Sydney by-election by unanimous consent
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5