Political Viewpoints/Philosophy

[Ancien Régime]

As I and Misty thought it would be way better to keep the Election thread on well...the actual election, let's use this thread to discuss and defend our various political/economic/social viewpoints, whether it be left, right, libertarian, green, Austrian, Keynesian, socialist, anarchist, etc.

Basically, talk about your poliical leanings here, your personal positions on certain issues, your general worldview, etc.

Please do not discuss abortion in this thread; the administration of Smogon generally feels that the topic is too heated and subjective for there to be valuable discussion.


Personally, I think that:

- The state should have as little influence on the lives of people as possible. (I am a Minarchist)
- Free markets (with certain regulations like anti-trust laws to promote competition, even though without other regulations monopolies could never last long) are the best way to go
- The government should not legislate personal morality (stuff that only affects you - drugs/alchohol/sex)
- People are simply not entitled to any "benefits" from the government just because they're in a certain tax bracket. I believe in a flat tax; progressive taxes are simply unjust, as well as economically unsound (why would you provide a disincentive to success). A person's poverty is not the fault of someone else's wealth, yet that is what progressive taxes imply.
- I oppose all subsidies or any other government manipulation of the market (i.e. the Federal Reserve). In that vein, I support the Gold Standard for currency, as it is far harder for government to manipulate.
- I oppose Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security - while they provide benefits to people, they do so at other people's expense, without their consent, and are economically unsustainable.
- I am for the protection of personal privacy - the government should not have the authority to gain access to your personal life without a Court warrant.
- I oppose affirmative action.
- I oppose the concept that government should "help people" - government should be limited to what is outlined in the Constitution, and in general, should not go beyond defense/public safety/infrastructure. The fact is, government is not a charitable organization, it is a coercive entity.
- I am for lowered defense spending; I would close down every overseas base, cut military spending drastically, cut our standing army heavily, and focus heavily on technological research and development.
- Assuming that climate change is a real problem, it should not be up to the government to force businesses to not pollute (though one could argue that they could from a public safety standpoint which is a valid role of government)
- I believe public schooling should be deemphasized; I believe private/home schools should have a larger role in education, mainly because of the terrible state of public education, but also I believe because public education is inherently designed to produce conformity to the State and to "politically acceptable" lines of thought.
- In general, I support the contraction of the state, adherence to Austrian Economic models, the contraction of government social programs. low taxes, fewer laws, and more economic and social freedom.

 

[Kietharr]

tl;dr version of what he just said: RON PAUL '08 FTW. I ascribe to some of his base values but a lot of that rhetoric just goes too far, I'm sorry but nobody is going to vote for a man who says that the department of education should be cut.

Yeah, the government is mindblowingly incompetent, but there are some things that it handles better than most corporations, especially R&D. We need strong space and defense programs because that is where virtually all of our technology trickles down from. Cordless power tools, duct tape, hell the very internet I am using right now were all invented with U.S. government funding. Paul wants to shut NASA down too, not that he'd be able to do it with a democratic congress, but that's absolutely daft. At the rate we're going, Earth is not going to last us forever and I for one do not want our fate as a species eternally linked to the fate of this planet.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Ok, well, I think that a governments primary function should be to protect those who cant protect themselves in a free market, ie children and future generations.

So from that standpoint, education and healthcare for children should be free. The government should be involved in dealing with global warming, and since an intellegently regulated economy will be more efficient than a non regulated one, I am for that too.

Progressive tax is not a disincentive for becoming rich, as the rich will still earn more than the poor. It is a more efficient method for a government to collect tax money.

The government also has an important role in battling corruption, in that publically elected people are more likely to be trustworthy than non elected people.

The problems with the world are predominantly not with our systems, any system we have will be exploitable to the detriment of all but those who are responsible. As our systems will improve so will our methods of exploiting systems. What we need is the system that is the most fluid, that allows us to adjust to prevent exploitation as it occurs. To have it set in stone that the government will not interfere with the market means that when disaster strikes we will be powerless to respond.

Have a nice day.

 

[animenagai]

argh damn, i thought we would have more central debate on political theory ie. capitalism, democracy, communism, social contract etc. o well.

there's not too much to say about specifics. if you want me to ist some random points i think

1. the rich should not get taxed more just because they're rich, esp if they worked their way up there. i believe in a (pretty) flat rate.

2. welfare is a slippery slope, but it's one a society like the US could not do without. if it was a more disciplinary culture, it'll ironically be less needed because people believe i working hard for themselves. i'm for the safety net system.

3. i dislike capitalism but if we live in a capitalist society we should live in a free economy. too many contradictions occur if you try and nanny state a capitalist state.

 

[Haitian]

General disagreements with AR:

What is your position on cigarettes?

Progressive taxes don't imply that one's wealth is because of another's poverty; it makes up for the fact that taxes do not affect people equally. Taking 15% from someone making $10,000 isn't the same as taking 15% from someone making $100,000; progressive taxes realize that and restructure accordingly. While I don't think it has to be fully progressive (we shouldn't prohibit or penalize the rich for being so), it should account for the inherent inequality in taxes.

I support minority race-based affirmative action, but politically push for class-based affirmative action. America has had a LOT of majority race-based affirmative action programs (20th Century GI Bill, FHA, etc.) and it's fair to accomplish the reverse. With that said, I believe minority race-based affirmative action is politically untenable (much like removing the welfare state is, though I don't have huge problems with it) and class-based affirmative action is fair as well.

I disagree that government, in general, must be held to the Constitution in all cases; if the needs of the state surpass those of the Constitution, it must be rectified - this is in a hypothetical sense. But I agree that our government must stand by the Constitution and shouldn't infringe on the rights provided in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Misty]

My beliefs are as follows -

1) Government is inherently inefficient and inflexible. Anything that the free market can reasonably do, should be done by the free market. Socialism is right out.

2) Government policy should be dictated by long-term goals; short-term goals are easily accomplished by the free market. This includes things like environmental regulation and space exploration, which are at odds with the free market since there is little short-term demand for these things.

3) Welfare should be tied to work, except in the cases of those who cannot (children, the elderly, the disabled). Our foster care system is a disgrace and needs a massive revamp.

4) Government should encourage good morals but SHOULD NOT ENFORCE THEM. Coercion is necessary only in areas where social stability is at risk (i.e. punishing murder, theft, etc.); abortion is not a threat to the general welfare (we're still here 35 years after Roe v Wade!) and should be allowed. Gay marriage should be legal by any assessment.

5) Foreign policy should be dictated by strength and diplomacy hand-in-hand. Unilateralism may be necessary (I say this as a US citizen) but should be restricted to covert regime undermining, not full-scale war. Negotiating with regimes like Iran is important but entirely useless unless you have leverage over them; every option should be taken to attain that leverage (think of Reagan's arms buildup prior to negotiating with the Soviets).

(On a side note I think we should negotiate with Syria ASAP - they're practically asking us for relations.)

6) Our health care system needs a massive revamp. I'm sorry to say, but I favor mandates; the unfortunate truth is, someone has to subsidize unhealthy people, and if it's not healthy citizens, it will be the taxpayers at large, which means we get more government one way or another (barring unpalatable, immoral options.) The implementation details are sticky, though.

7) The retirement age on Social Security needs to be raised. 65 simply doesn't mean what it did in 1937. This is a cold solution but nothing else works (no, tax hikes don't help.)

8) The Fed should fight inflation except in cases of recession, where deflationary pressures permit mild inflationary tactics. Greenspan's loose money policies of 2003-2007 were a disaster and we'll be paying for them for years.

9) The US government needs to tackle its debt problem. That means cutting wasteful military spending and concentrating on counter-insurgency rather than on ridiculous future wars with China that I am almost certain will not happen.

10) Steelicks is a big

EDITS:

11) Affirmative action is a terrible idea and should be torched. If a company is going to reject skilled applicants based on skin color or gender or whatever, it is their loss, plain and simple.

 

[Surgo]

- I am for lowered defense spending; I would close down every overseas base, cut military spending drastically, cut our standing army heavily, and focus heavily on technological research and development.

Isn't that a subsidy? Focus heavily on technological r&d means paying people or corporate entities to do technological r&d and that is, in fact, a subsidy.

I'm quite libertarian, but I greatly dislike Ron Paul. I also think that wholesale elimination of subsidies is a really bad idea and the government should be able to subsidize things if it's in the public interest. Good example: vaccines. Something that really needs government subsidies for development, because otherwise it's just not as profitable as development of things like Viagra (not to mention the DECADES of liability). And that means new vaccines won't be developed, and that's bad.

Also what Hipmonlee said on the progressive tax; and adding onto it that the regressive tax like the sales tax puts a more heavy tax burden on the poor than the rich. Regressive tax, I feel, is really not the way to go here.

 

[evolutia]

11) Affirmative action is a terrible idea and should be torched. If a company is going to reject skilled applicants based on skin color or gender or whatever, it is their loss, plain and simple.

You think that the person rejected because of skin color or gender doesn't lose anything? They lose out on a job that they are qualified for because of something superficial that shouldn't even have an effect.

Affirmative action is a double edged sword to me. I think it's wrong to reject an applicant just because a certain company has certain minority quota to fill. It's wrong to reject a qualified candidate for a job just because of race or gender. That said I'm for Affirmative action as long as it takes to stabilize and rebuild relations with minorities(or perhaps just looking at a person on an individual level) so that such superficiality won't prevent them from getting a job and perhaps lead to the "job quota of minorities" disappearing.

 

[Surgo]

That doesn't make any sense. The lack of Affirmative Action isn't racism where people reject you because you're black, it's where people ignore what your skin color is. It's with affirmative action that people lose out because of "something superficial that shouldn't even have an effect".

 

[evolutia]

That doesn't make any sense. The lack of Affirmative Action isn't racism where people reject you because you're black, it's where people ignore what your skin color is. It's with affirmative action that people lose out because of "something superficial that shouldn't even have an effect".

Like I said, it's a double edged sword. One side loses out to the other with or without it. What would getting rid of it without attempting to solve the underlying issues do? Would it make it better for both sides?

 

[Vineon]

- Assuming that climate change is a real problem, it should not be up to the government to force businesses to not pollute

and if it is a real problem who else exactly does that leave to force them to?

- People are simply not entitled to any "benefits" from the government just because they're in a certain tax bracket. I believe in a flat tax; progressive taxes are simply unjust, as well as economically unsound (why would you provide a disincentive to success). A person's poverty is not the fault of someone else's wealth, yet that is what progressive taxes imply.

Because a poorer person will spend a higher % of his income on essential needs than a rich person would it makes little sense to have a flat tax rate on income as it is pretty clear who this is unfair to.

 

[Hipmonlee]

3. i dislike capitalism but if we live in a capitalist society we should live in a free economy. too many contradictions occur if you try and nanny state a capitalist state.

I disagree. I think that this represents a gross oversimplification of society. It is important to recognise that any country is made up of thousands of individuals each with individual opinions, attitudes, etc. To expect that any generalised solution to economic problems will be appropriate for every contingency is imo naive. The main problem I guess I have with a truly free market is there is no guarantee that a person with significant wealth will do anything no matter how logical it may be for him to do that thing. Ideas like the wealthy will be rich enough to support the disabled are great unless they dont. In which case the disabled are left with no recourse.

Of course governmental interference is not flawless either, but I prefer my chances that way.

Have a nice day.

 

[Ancien Régime]

argh damn, i thought we would have more central debate on political theory ie. capitalism, democracy, communism, social contract etc. o well.

We'll get there eventually; we need to know where we all stand as a starting point. We need to know what we are before we can ask why we are that.

Personally, I feel that capitalism is the best economic system by far, not just because it's the most successful, but because it's the most ethical in that it doesn't seek to restrict the way humans interact with each other.

Ok, well, I think that a governments primary function should be to protect those who cant protect themselves in a free market, ie children and future generations.

Well, what are said children and future generations being protected from? Basically, it's naive to think that government can protect everyone from everything.

since an intellegently regulated economy will be more efficient than a non regulated one, I am for that too

Intelligent regulation of the economy is impossible. Read - it is impossible. The "economy" is every exchange of goods that occurs between human beings. There is no human, group of humans, computer, or group of computers that can intelligently regulate the economy, because the value of goods is based on what people will pay for them, and if you regulate the economy away from what people will pay for, you create economic distortions (for example, subsidizing gasoline in India = higher gas prices everywhere else, ethanol production = global food crisis, deficit spending = weakening of the dollar = lack of buying power for people) that cannot be predicted.

but there are some things that it handles better than most corporations, especially R&D.

Not neccesarily true. When you consider that invention in the 19th century (i.e electricity/steam power/combustion/steel) was in the private realm, and the fact that governments in history generally did not sponsor R&D, you can't say that historically.

The government may have provided part of the basic infrastructure and concept of the internet, but they NEVER would have innovated with the medium to the extent that private citizens have. Notice that part of the power of the internet is that it is so unregulated; there is an incredible amount of expansion (imagine if you had to get a government permit to open a website for example).

Isn't that a subsidy? Focus heavily on technological r&d means paying people or corporate entities to do technological r&d and that is, in fact, a subsidy.

Hmm, never really thought of it that way, tbh.

Something that really needs government subsidies for development, because otherwise it's just not as profitable as development of things like Viagra

I really really really really disagree with this premise, that if "government doesn't fund it nobody will". Vaccination, considering its immense utility, would be incredibly profitable if it were not subsidized, as people would gladly pay for its benefits.

This includes things like environmental regulation and space exploration, which are at odds with the free market since there is little short-term demand for these things.

Uhhhhhh, kind of iffy on the environment; I tend to believe that under a purely free market people would go "hey company x is dumping toxic waste in our water lets not buy stuff from them" repeat 1000x times and you have a legit short-term profit motive for not wrecking the environment.

Space exploration is where I'd agree, though it should not be wholly under government auspices; mainly because we went to the moon in 1969 and we haven't been *close* to repeating that in nearly 40 years. I just can't think of a free-market space exploration solution though.

Let's talk about the Constitution - I believe that the Constitution should be strictly adhered to, and not too much interpretation of clauses like "general welfare" should be allowed. Similarly, I think the 10th Amendment should be upheld (i.e. no more department of x/agency x).

Because a poorer person will spend a higher % of his income on essential needs than a rich person would it makes little sense to have a flat tax rate on income as it is pretty clear who this is unfair to.

So it's basically "we'll take more of your money simply because you have more to give". Imagine if a store did that - they charged you double because you wore Armani or something.

 

[animenagai]

hip i think this talk of the poor not being able to rebound is grossly exaggerated. when i say a free market, i don't mean complete anarchy, i still believe in a basic support for education etc. i just don't want to see tariffs on everything, or GST like we have in NZ where the good is taxed 12.5% in every step of the production line. i very much like the incentive debate in right wing politics. i want people to feel that they have to work hard/be innovative and not just nannied by the state.

tangerine, i disagree that we need all this discussion to realize what we are. a political system has certain themes in mind in the very construction of the state. i think just by looking at voting systems vs royalty, ruling by the majority vs an elitist group etc. should say a lot about a society. it's a bit different from what we're talking about now, what we're discussing are small fixes in particularly the US government. political theory is bigger picture stuff.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Intelligent regulation of the economy is impossible. Read - it is impossible. The "economy" is every exchange of goods that occurs between human beings. There is no human, group of humans, computer, or group of computers that can intelligently regulate the economy, because the value of goods is based on what people will pay for them, and if you regulate the economy away from what people will pay for, you create economic distortions (for example, subsidizing gasoline in India = higher gas prices everywhere else, ethanol production = global food crisis, deficit spending = weakening of the dollar = lack of buying power for people) that cannot be predicted.

I dont think it is impossible. I think our current system is better than a free market, despite being in a generally shocking state. For instance the global food crisis is only in part being caused by ethanol production, it has more to do with rising oil price, which has more to do with speculation than a subsidy in India. And I dont think anyone with any understanding of the problem thought that ethanol production of this sort was an intellegent subsidy. You yourself said that supporting the armies r&d is a good idea, and that is among the largest subsidies of anything in America.

Farm subsidies in Europe may seem inefficient and a waste of money, but I firmly believe they are necessary. Farms are not easily created out of nothing, and food is necessary. In a free market a large majority of these farms would be closed, they are not economically viable, and they are not likely to be in the foreseeable future, but should more efficient producers of agriculture become unable to support European countries for some reason, then these farms become absoutely necessary.

Also stores charging rich people more makes sense to me.

Have a nice day.

 

[Misty]

Uhhhhhh, kind of iffy on the environment; I tend to believe that under a purely free market people would go "hey company x is dumping toxic waste in our water lets not buy stuff from them" repeat 1000x times and you have a legit short-term profit motive for not wrecking the environment.

The problems are two:

1) Companies tend to hide this kind of information.

2) Consumers rarely notice until things hit a crisis level.


If companies were completely transparent and consumers were more vigilant, then this might work, but I think in the real world it fails.


Subsidies are easily the worst idea ever in a "free" market. They completely distort supply and demand. Notice that the price of oil plummeted partly on the news that developing countries were going to lower their oil subsidies - speculators knew that demand was going to drop significantly, so they sold and the price of oil dropped. Speculators are a necessary part of the supply and demand curve; the only alternative is price controls, which have a bad history.

 

[Ancien Régime]

I dont think it is impossible. I think our current system is better than a free market, despite being in a generally shocking state. For instance the global food crisis is only in part being caused by ethanol production, it has more to do with rising oil price, which has more to do with speculation than a subsidy in India. And I dont think anyone with any understanding of the problem thought that ethanol production of this sort was an intellegent subsidy.

You yourself said that supporting the armies r&d is a good idea, and that is among the largest subsidies of anything in America.

Honestly, I thought research and development would be simply a way to make the military more cost-effective (make up for numbers with better tech). Pardon my ignorance.

In a free market a large majority of these farms would be closed, they are not economically viable, and they are not likely to be in the foreseeable future, but should more efficient producers of agriculture become unable to support European countries for some reason, then these farms become absoutely necessary.

So essentially, a country should waste massive amounts of money on economically unviable development, in the case that economically viable development may fail?

Also stores charging rich people more makes sense to me.

Except that they'd fail in a month because they'd have to compete with stores that didn't do that.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Subsidies are vital. I agree they have gotten out of hand, but the market is a lot more efficient with them than without.

Like, funding schools is a subsidy, funding healthcare is a subsidy. These sorts of subsidies are necessary.

Subsidies are needed in cases where benefits are only going to be seen in the not near future, when there is hidden subsidisation for the alternative (carbon would be a good example of this - nobody is paying for the environmental resources they are expending), when there are people involved who are outside of the free market system (people unable to work), and countless other situations that can slip through the cracks of a free market. It is precisely for these situations that we need government.


[edit] -

So essentially, a country should waste massive amounts of money on economically unviable development, in the case that economically viable development may fail?

Yes.

Except that they'd fail in a month because they'd have to compete with stores that didn't do that.

Only in a free market.

Have a nice day.

 

[highstakespkmn]

I'd say I'm somewhere in the middle, not between democrat or republican lets say, but more like between green and libertarian (due south on the political compass). probably voting Nader this year, the 2 mainstream choices are more of a wasted vote IMO than someone you feel would do the best job. it is a democracy after all.

restrict the welfare to those who truly need it (more of a reform than anything), at least partially privatize social security, stop policing the world, stop legislating morality, legalize drugs, stop putting ridiculous restrictions on businesses (smoking bans comes to mind), keep environmental regulations here but also give our polluting trade partners (CHINA) incentives to make their products in an environmentally sound manner because stuff like global warming is a major problem and the way we're contribuiting to it the most is buying from China. fair trade is good, but not the extreme protectionism bs.

a healthy free market is good for the most part, but it's not going to be healthy without a little government intervention.

 

[Ancien Régime]

Subsidies are vital. I agree they have gotten out of hand, but the market is a lot more efficient with them than without.

Well, can you define "efficiency" for me please?

Like, funding schools is a subsidy, funding healthcare is a subsidy. These sorts of subsidies are necessary.

Personally, I feel that healthcare should be completely private (subsidized healthcare is a disaster in most countries except those that have private systems as well like Canada), and schools mostly so. (only "mostly" because children usually can't pay for their own education and are thus not responsible for said education)

Subsidies are needed in cases where benefits are only going to be seen in the not near future, when there is hidden subsidisation for the alternative (carbon would be a good example of this - nobody is paying for the environmental resources they are expending), when there are people involved who are outside of the free market system (people unable to work), and countless other situations that can slip through the cracks of a free market. It is precisely for these situations that we need government.

The goal of a system should not be to attain the involvement of everyone; it should maximize the capabilities of those who are able. Trying to provide for everyone and everything will simply stifle economic growth at best, and bankrupt the economy at worst.

How is not paying for something a "hidden subsidy?" That's like saying that because there is not an economically viable alternative to Coke and Pepsi, there is a hidden subsidy for Coke and Pepsi.

And really, what percentage are those "countless situations" of the total economy? Should we shackle 90% of the economy for the benefit of 10%?

Only in a free market.

Actually, only in a market that is not completely socialistic; if there is ANY competition at all, or such progressive pricing is not government-coerced, then such a scheme will fail, and fail utterly.

The general problem I have with liberal/social democratic/socialist worldviews is this idea that stuff *doesn't* cost money, or that you can give out goods and services for "free" without feeling the effects somewhere else.

 

[ls]

I hate arbitrariness so socially I hate arbitrary social mores (not morals, they don't deserve to be called morals) codified into law, and I hate leaving people to the arbitrary whim of the "free market" (which does not exist and has never existed) and so democratically-elected governments ought to save us and my fellows from this arbitrariness.

 

[Ancien Régime]

"democracy" is really a joke anyway

"hey let's vote for people to eliminate our rights because it makes us feel safe"

or what democracy has been for most of human history.

also, Democracy =/= Republic.

btw,

And the free market has always existed - people think of wall street and Jews...er..."greedy speculators" when they think of "free markets" but in reality the free market is every economic exchange that occurs between people

 

[Surgo]

I want to talk more about this:

I really really really really disagree with this premise, that if "government doesn't fund it nobody will". Vaccination, considering its immense utility, would be incredibly profitable if it were not subsidized, as people would gladly pay for its benefits.

It might be somewhat profitable, but it wouldn't be profitable enough, and for several reasons.

First, vaccines are a huge investment. Other sorts of drugs like Viagra are also investments that are as much or lesser, but bring in more profit. Now you might say 'eventually the lesser drugs will be all researched and then companies will turn to vaccines again', but that leaves a very large lull when vaccines are not being developed. And that's bad.

Second is an old saying, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Well, this goes both ways. A pound of cure costs a lot more than an ounce of prevention. Given the choice, any company that expects to stay in business is going to want to be paid the pound instead of the ounce. Treatments or cures are by default better than vaccines because the companies get paid again and again and again, as opposed to merely once. While you could price vaccines higher, that's not really much of a help because that severely cuts your ability to sell in certain overseas markets...

Third is the liability issue. I really wish I was at school where I had access to the New York Times archive, because it was an article in there from about a year ago that started me on this whole tangent in the first place and it would help if I could show it to you and go "see, this is what I mean!". Suffice it to say that after a vaccination, a drug company has a decades long liability in the event that stuff goes badly for you as a result of the vaccine. This liability is generally not there when it comes to treatments and cures. The example I give from the NY Times article is an autism vaccine that a decade+ later is causing some issues, due to the fluid it was delivered in.

So are vaccines profitable? Yeah, I don't think anyone is doubting that. But they aren't profitable enough compared to other things and that is seriously the textbook case of why you would use a subsidy. (And other forms of subsidies aside from directly monetary, like shields from that liability issue.)

edit: If someone wants to point out vaccine X to me that doesn't follow the poorly-sourced model I described and was more profitable than Viagra, that is fine (though I doubt you'll be able to do so). Even so, my example is mostly hypothetical, and I feel it shows why subsidies are a necessary tool to have on the table regardless.

 

[ls]

"democracy" is really a joke anyway

"hey let's vote for people to eliminate our rights because it makes us feel safe"

or what democracy has been for most of human history.

also, Democracy =/= Republic.

btw,

And the free market has always existed - people think of wall street and Jews...er..."greedy speculators" when they think of "free markets" but in reality the free market is every economic exchange that occurs between people

Democracy hasn't always produced perfect results but it is of course the most perfect form of politics. And you don't understand what a free market is, you should look it up and then come back and then we can discuss, but of course realize that a free market has never before existed. It is a fantasy, and quite a dystopian one.

 

[Ancien Régime]

A free market is a system where people voluntarily set the value of goods and services without government intervention - pretty simple huh.

How is the free trade ideal dystopian? Most proponents of free trade admit that it won't work 100% of the time and that economic failure can result. However, they also know that government intervention tends to worsen things in the long run (see the last 20 years of forcing inflation, weakening the dollar, running deficits, etc)

Democratic politics isn't perfect at all - while aristocrats/kings tend to be only interested in maintaining their personal power and affluence, average people tend to be interested in using governmental power to impose their personal morality, take away basic rights in the interest of "security", "vote themselves money from the public treasury" (de Toqueville), and generally be complete busybodies about other people's personal lives.