|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Introducing the Party: the Basic Approach taken here |
||||
|
Many have thought to improve society if only government officials would listen. However, politicians listen mainly to power. If one has political power, one can use the power of the state to put across one’s ideas. If not, to dream of a better society is a futile exercise of imagination. The discussion should be focused first on how to gain state power. If all the voters in the United States agreed on certain policies, it would be no problem to find government officials who would put them into practice. But it is unlikely that everyone will agree on something. One person’s opinion cancels out another’s so that little can be done. It is problematic, then, that a political party can gain state power by force of its better ideas. Competing interest groups frustrate that end. |
||||
|
Let’s try another approach. If people cannot agree on a certain program, they can perhaps agree that they all want to achieve state power. An organization can be formed devoted to that aim. Such an organization might be a political party. Let’s call it “Gold Party”. Why this name? Are we proposing to return to the Gold Standard? No, it’s about owning a political party. Gold is ownership of wealth. There would not be a single owner of Gold Party but many. Think of this political ownership as analogous to money. Money is individually owned yet no one owns the whole economy. Each person owns a small part of it. Unlike money, however, political power must be assembled in a certain quantity to become effective. So the situation is a bit tricky. A political party needs to be formed with a sufficient base of support to win a majority of votes in an election. People need to be motivated to seek an ownership interest in that party. As owners acting together, they control the party; and if the party elected enough people to public office, it would control the government. Ownership of the government is the key to all other power and wealth. |
||||
|
This scheme depends upon unequal ownership interests within the party. Yes, democratic elections are based on the principle of “one man, one vote”; but that does not mean that political parties internally must give an equal voice to all its members. In fact, to do so would defeat the purpose of growth through the proper incentives. And the party needs to grow to achieve its own purpose which is gaining control of government and exercising political control of society. We’re talking here of voting strength. Theoretically it’s possible for a political party to give one member three votes in deciding its affairs and another member five, even as it’s possible for one shareholder to own three shares of stock in a publicly-held corporation while another owns five shares. This can be done without overturning the “one man, one vote” principle that governs democratic elections. |
||||
|
Why should a political party consider adopting a system of unequal voting? Political parties need to motivate people to work on building their organization. If people receive an equal vote in the affairs of a party regardless of contribution, they would not be motivated to work on behalf of the party. All they would need to do is show up when party elections are held. That’s the system we have now. It’s why political parties are presently weak. There is insufficient motivation for members to help the party because rank-and-file members lack a sense of ownership. Party members hope they can back candidates who win elections. But there is no assurance that elected officials will return the favor. The real power lies with moneyed groups that contribute money to campaigns and then lobby for favors after a candidate is elected. Typically such groups contribute to both sides in a campaign. People who work in political campaigns are volunteers, hoping that something good will come of their effort. Yes, the volunteers have earned a certain good will with public officials whom they have helped to elect; but this is only good will, not ownership. |
||||
|
There is a reason that this proposed political party is called “Gold Party”. Gold implies riches. It suggests money. The party's structure of voting mimics the mechanism of money earned in a business. While idealistic in our aims, we are realists with respect to the effort we expend to help someone else win public office. As owners, we retain some control. Gold is also a type of medal that an athlete receives for winning first place. Election to public office requires finishing in first place. Plato proposed that political rulers concoct a myth that the human race was created in three metallic grades: gold, silver, and bronze. Democratic society would not support the concept of humanity’s unequal worth, but unequal voting according to contribution within political parties might pass muster if the results are right. That's the way the empires of money work.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||