I was thinking more decentralization, more limitations on what could be voted on, less things the government could do, and bracket style elections.
I was thinking I could live under majority rule, so long as there were more limitations on what the majority could vote for.
How would you improve democracy other than abolish it? I would abolish it, but that would never be possible.
It would not be possible to reform it either, since it does not exist.
The politicians decide how the system works, not you, and so the system works in their favor.
We have right now about the best democracy. Namely, the farthest thing from proportional representation.
The constitution was written for that exact purpose. Off course, as Hoppe explained, such a limited government is impossible.
Turn it into a Monarchy
Convince enough people of the benefits of liberty, so we can be in the majority for once!
The only way to improve it is to withdraw support.
Us a majority? I’m beginning to wonder if I’ll ever see the day.
Good replies:) Anyway, democracy usually equates to tyranny, but there have been times when great majorities have given us liberty. Unfortunately, it’s only been like 6 Presidents out of 44.
I know this may sound so optimistic to the point it may be retarded, but I’m expecting a Ron Paul Republican to become President in 2012 and for them to have a strong presence in Congress. My logic behind that, how flawed it may be, is that after having tyrannical leaders like Obama for so long (Coolidge was the last good president, even if he wasn’t perfect), people will elect liberty. That’s what tends to happen–Harding got elected after Wilson, and the Bourbon Democrats were popular after Reconstruction.
Let the government keep up it’s pace of implosion, and that sucker will go supernova before you know it! And who will be there to pick up the pieces?
This reminded me of the remnant or what Mencken called the technique of boob bumping in this Albert Jay Nock article.
"In the year of Uzziah’s death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. “Tell them what a worthless lot they are.” He said, “Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don’t mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you,” He added, “that it won’t do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life.”
Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job — in fact, he had asked for it — but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so — if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start — was there any sense in starting it? “Ah,” the Lord said, “you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it.”
That’s not an improvement. That’s just plane old Democracy at work.
Tyranny of the majority doesn’t mean Tyranny unless …
I think we’ve had this discussion already. When your view is in the majority, then we won’t need a majority any longer anyway.
As long as there is such a thing as a “majority”, freedom will never prevail.
Exactly.
Democracy is mob rule. It is a barbaric tribal system of living. Democracy cannot be improved or reformed. I’d much rather live in a monarchy than in a democracy if possible because monarchy offers much greater freedom. Democracy has to be replaced by self rule and the market should decide all laws and perform the tasks of upholding the law, basically anarcho-capitalism. Let the market decide, not the mobs.
LOL, that’s so very true.
My take on this:
1) Theory: Mises upheld democracy only because it avoided civil war when the king needed to be replaced. Yet Hoppe clarified that caretakers, as actuated by orthodox democracy, are by far the worst ruler one could have. Can these two ideas be used to produce a more decent form of democracy? Sure, let us have a King, but allow for him to be deposed by referendum. The referendum could be called only by gathering a given number of firms (say, 50’000) and would only succeed if more than 50% of the voters would check out the same person to replace the king. In this way, we still manage to avoid a violent overthrowing of the government, and we avoid caretakers. Actually, the “consul” would be a King at all effects, and would be ‘deposed’ by such a referendum only once in 50 years.
And again, allowing any 10’000 people to referend their way into independence (or autonomy, with the Consul only retaining defense) would produce by far the most decent government imaginable.
2) Practice: government is not a machine which can be tuned by the wills of the rulers, or even a majority of people. I’m now believing that the form of government at any age is set only be the distribution of “breaking points” in the population: many breaking points, you get autocracy, fewer breaking points, you get a more representative form of government. No breaking points (or similar breaking points) you get “total” democracy, which is by far the fastest-decaying form of government. Who know what shall happen after the west goes bankrupt?
Yes, it could be improved - by actually implementing it. Dissolve the legislative bodies and have them replaced by bi-yearly plebiscites. Voila: improvement!
I like it. It’s hard to steal from yourself.
For what it’s worth, which ain’t much… I’m somewhat convinced that it’s not fixable in its current form.
abolish elections. Representatives picked at random. Previous gov’t service at any level is a disqualifier.
one term only
token or zero pay for service
limited sessions - maybe one month per year
all laws passed have an automatic sunset , maybe 7 years, unless renewed
all previous laws start counting down immediately
Obviously, this is all designed to ensure that almost nothing ever passes.
How about some of that stuff in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” ?
I have only one question for people who propose these reforms to democracy: how are you going to take control of the state?