22 12 12 - 08:20
[A] prince is restricted in his redistributive desires because all members of society have learned to regard the taking and redistributing of another man's property as shameful and immoral. Accordingly, they watch a prince's every action with utmost suspicion. In distinct contrast, by opening entry into government, anyone is permitted to freely express his desire for others' property. What formerly was regarded as immoral and accordingly was suppressed is now considered a legitimate sentiment. Everyone may openly covet everyone else's property in the name of democracy; and everyone may act on this desire for another's property, provided that he finds entrance into government. Hence, under democracy everyone becomes a threat. - "Why Bad Men Rule," by Hans-Herman Hoppe
In democracy or any egalitarian system, the idea is that all can participate. This places no interest on the whole, and creates in its place a "collective," or an entity composed of all those who want handouts. I don't see this as an economic question only; it's a question of power, and the struggle for who gets to define the morals of a society. The Crowd wants to control it so they can lower standards to benefit themselves but, being the Crowd, they can only think in the short-term, and thus will produce long-term doom with their limited short-term thinking. Hence societies destroy themselves when they give in to the egalitarian impulse.