One could almost feel a pang of sympathy for the Brazilian electorate, were it not for the enduring, if misguided, faith they, like so many, place in the apparatus of the state. As the wire reports, Brazilians are heading to the polls, not with enthusiasm, but with a palpable sense of resignation, caught between the old socialist guard of Lula and the populist, yet still deeply statist, inclinations of Bolsonaro. It’s a choice, if you can call it that, between Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, each promising to alleviate the populace's woes through the very mechanisms that created them. One might be forgiven for thinking this a unique dilemma, but alas, it is merely the latest iteration of humanity's Sisyphean struggle against its own political creations.
This, of course, is the natural consequence of elevating the state to the role of societal savior. When all problems, from economic stagnation to social unrest, are framed as solvable only through the heavy hand of government intervention, the menu of options invariably narrows to various shades of authoritarianism. Lula, with his echoes of socialist grand design, promises a return to an expansive welfare state and increased government control over the economy. Bolsonaro, while waving the banner of individual liberty in some respects, has shown an equally keen desire to direct the lives of citizens and businesses through decree and top-down policy, albeit with a different ideological flavoring. Both represent the perennial temptation of power: to believe that one can, with enough centralized authority and good intentions, engineer a better society. History, and indeed, every failed state intervention, screams otherwise.
The lament of the Brazilian voter—"I don't want either"—is not a sign of apathy, but rather a profoundly rational response to an irrational system. It is the sound of an individual recognizing the futility of selecting a 'lesser evil' when both options are, at their core, commitments to expanding the very institution that stifles individual flourishing. F.A. Hayek, that oft-ignored prophet, warned us decades ago about the "fatal conceit" that underpins such endeavors: the belief that central planners possess the knowledge and foresight to orchestrate complex societies. The Brazilian economy, perpetually buffeted by political whims and bureaucratic caprice, stands as a testament to this folly. Whether it's Lula's petro-socialism or Bolsonaro's market interventions disguised as liberalization, the outcome is inevitably distorted markets, wasted resources, and diminished liberty.
What these voters are truly yearning for, though perhaps unable to articulate it within the narrow confines of political discourse, is an escape from the binary trap of "state A" or "state B." They long for the freedom to solve their own problems, to innovate, to trade, and to build communities without the constant specter of government overreach. They want opportunity, not promises of redistribution or protection from vaguely defined threats. But the political machinery is designed to present only more government as the solution, thereby perpetuating its own necessity. Every election becomes a referendum on which set of elites will wield the cudgel of the state most effectively, not whether the cudgel itself is necessary.
Consider the irony: a vast, resource-rich nation, yet its citizens are caught between political figures whose primary offering is more political power. This isn't just about Brazil; it's a global phenomenon. From the developed West to the developing South, the political spectrum is frequently presented as a choice between varying degrees of state control, with genuine alternatives—like radical decentralization, robust property rights, and unfettered free markets—consigned to the fringes as utopian pipe dreams. Yet, it is precisely these "pipe dreams" that consistently deliver prosperity and individual liberty wherever they are, even partially, implemented.
So, as Brazilians reluctantly cast their ballots, let us not pity them for their limited options, but rather recognize their plight as a symptom of a deeper malaise: the widespread, almost instinctive, belief in the efficacy and necessity of the omnipotent state. The true tragedy is not just that they have no desirable candidate, but that the very system ensures that such candidates, those who would genuinely shrink the state and empower the individual, are rarely given a platform.
The choice between Lula and Bolsonaro, then, is not a failure of the candidates, but a failure of the underlying premise. It's a failure to understand that prosperity and freedom are not granted by governments, but often thrive *despite* them. Until that fundamental truth is widely embraced, citizens across the globe will continue to face this grim Hobson’s choice, forever cycling through various iterations of state control, while blaming everything but the state itself for their troubles. The voters know something is wrong; they just haven't been allowed to consider that the state itself is the problem, not the solution.