In the modern world, democracy is the most effective form of government we have found for advancing personal freedom and human well-being. As Winston Churchill allegedly said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others. Look at the countries that are the wealthiest, healthiest, with the most output of creative talent, and are most likely to respect civil liberties, and you are looking (without exception, I believe) at democracies.

Democracy, at its best, means more than mere majority rule. A democracy in which a majority of voters approve of cannibilizing a minority is hardly an ideal society. As this example (admittedly, far-fetched) suggests, the rule of majority vote, absent other restrictions on public or private behavior, is a cruel one.

And so today, John Derbyshire argues that government employees should not vote, nor should they be allowed to unionize, lest they drive public finances to the abyss, and limited government from the land. The dangers of a large public sector workforce, enabled with the franchise and equipped with a union, are seen in New York State. Excessive government spending there–egged on by public sector unions–has lead to a public deficit of $11.5 billion out of a total budget of $40 billion.

Just how has this ballooning of public obligations occured? Listen as Derbyshire paraphrases Fareed Zakaria:

If a group of 100 farmers got together to petition the government to give them $10 million, the benefit to each farmer is $100,000. The cost to the rest of the country is about 4 cents per person. Who is more likely to form a lobby, them or us? Multiply this example by thousands and you understand the central problem of American democracy today.

In other words, each proposed increase in spending brings an intensely motivated collection of voters–and in politics, intensity is key. Each successive demand on the taxpayer is mild enough (though the cumulative effect is large) that it is irrational for most people to push back against the “more” crowed. That’s why taxpayer advocacy groups are so small in comparison with organized groups of people whose livelihood depends on the tax-collect-redistribute system of government.

Public sector unions, such as the NEA (the union for government-operated schools) and AFSCME (the union for everyone else) are never satisfied with their pay–nor the size of government programs. Again, to quote Derbyshire:

Can you vote yourself a pay raise? No, and neither can I. Bill Bureaucrat and Pam Paperpusher can, though, and they do. Bill and Pam have no problem at all with ever-swelling public budgets, with ever-expanding public services, with the creeping socialism that is slowly throttling our liberties out of existence.

Lest you think that Derbyshire, or I, am being too hard on government employees, I know from experience (having worked for the Defense Department) that many, even most government employees are well-intentioned folk who work hard. But given the choice between a candidate who hopes to cut government programs and budgets, and one who wants to expand them, which is the logical choice for the public sector employee?

(A dirty little secret, by the way, is that many nonprofits depend heavily on government funding. So they, too, lobby for ever-higher taxes, and ever-increasing government budgets.)

Derbyshire recommends revoking the franchise of public sector employees. He admits that it is a fantasy, a dramatic idea that will never be enacted. And given the fact that, like the nonprofits, statutory employees of government are not the only ones who prosper from the machinations of bloated government, it’s an impractical suggestion as well. At least, though, this private sector worker has done a good public service by pointing out the problem.

Not surprisingly, the single largest employer in many states is not an icon of American business–GE, Sears, or even the ubiquitous McDonalds–but government.