ogy is the study of parasites.
The definition of a parasite sounds like a perfect description of what government has become. The political class, its cronies and its dependents are parasites. The host is the productive sector of the economy. One lives at the expense of the other. One is "taking," the other "making."
Thomas Jefferson observed:
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. ... I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.
More than 150 years ago, Frederic Bastiat commented on what he saw happening in France:
It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
Even the fall of Rome, widely attributed to "bread and circuses," attracted Will Rogers' attention:
Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what's going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?"
The parasite-host analogy would seem to be a reasonable basis for a general theory explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. Assuming someone has not already milked it, it could make an interesting dissertation topic. However, in most academic settings implicating the State in the failure of civilizations could jeopardize your career.
Politicians, unlike actual parasites, generally understand the ramifications of decisions. Other than those with IQs below room temperature (make your own estimate of how many that be), politicians know the precarious condition of the host.
Is it rational for an understanding parasite to destroy the host upon which it feeds? After all, if the host dies, so do the parasites.
Self-interest in government is especially troublesome because constraints imposed by markets are absent in government.
Those in power are constrained only by the laws they impose upon themselves and periodic ballot box judgments. The power of incumbency suggests the latter is of limited effect. If self-interest conflicts with public service and laws are ineffective, self-interest is served.
Non-economist David Brin suggests politicians have less character than the average citizen. He attributes this to a perverse self-selection process:
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.
Albert J. Nock preceded David Brin and was even more damning in his assessment of the political class:
Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those of a professional-criminal class
If Public Choice theory is valid (and it is), how does one explain the unwillingness of the political class to save the host? When the host dies, so do the parasites. Do we have an instance here where politicians are not acting in their own self-interest?
The answer is that political parasites are acting rationally by allowing the host to perish. The key to understanding this anomaly is that curing the host would require radical medicine in the form of massive spending cuts. These cuts would require dismantling of various entitlements and much of the welfare state. Even with this medicine, it might be too little, too late to succeed.
The reason that the cure will not even be tried is that any attempt to do so would be politically fatal for whoever proposed it. Voters believe that government is the source of free goodies. Too many believe they are entitled to be supported by government. Anyone proposing meaningful spending cuts would likely be subjected to political execution at the earliest election.
Nothing is more valued to the political mind than attaining and retaining office. That is why the debt ceiling deal was such a fraud. Neither party pushed for meaningful spending cuts. Both postured for voters. Both wanted a new credit card and got the largest one ever issued.
Political parasites rationally chose to continue the plunder and exploitation knowing that it ensured long-term death of the host. In classic Keynesian short-termism ("in the long-run we are all dead"), politicians chose to remain in the trough to continue feeding on the host.
The decision to destroy the host may not seem rational to the rest of us, but it is clearly in the best interest of the current parasites. Death for them at some future uncertain date is a better than death at the next election. They chose what was in their best interest but not the country's.
Until the host dies, the current parasites will exploit for as long as they can. They have chosen a form of Kevorkian economics, managed suicide for the host economy. Unlike Kevorkian, they intend to keep the host alive as long as possible enabling them to maximize their time in the trough.
The rest of us will be left to pick up the pieces when the collapse occurs. The parasites will be dead in a political sense but likely living in a different country.
By Monty Pelerin
-Charles (m.a I)
Million true!
That's why i started to invent a pesticide that illuminate our politicians... Hehe..| My understanding of politics and politicians is to plan, scheme and manipulate situations to benefit oneself. So you're right on target with this :3| indeed perfect adjective..:D share it for more.. blood suckers!!!| but its the voters who produce these parasites| but we don't have any choice to choose.. If we don't vote it is an illegal when it comes to their law.. Ryt?| Haha, maybe we need to choose the less bloodsucking politician. :|Time to give the power back to the people.| but we still patronizing this parasite during election...because of money...they bribe us... how could we elimanate this parasites in our society...they bloom like lilys in the pond....| bt how can we IDENTIFY POLITICIANS who are more CONCERN of d PEOPLE and not of THEIR SELF-INTEREST???~it's ALL bcoz of ds so-called MONEY!
GOOD GUYS tend to become BAD PARASITES! tsk. .tsk. .|
