Improving Democracy - A New Theory

[Solreyus]

Hi Jean Paul,

So you mean Nietzsche was just against blind faith and such (I agree)? I haven’t read any of him yet, so I’ll do that when I have some spare time.

May I ask what syle of democracy you are referring to? Many countries around the world (like Switzerland for example) have a great deal of experience including minorities by way of decentralized voting systems in the cantons. The roots of the American government are also founded upon the principle of protecting the minority from the will of the majority and such is the case in almost all “democratic” governments in the world. Do you think that these efforts are not visible or not practiced? Or are simply not enough to really matter against the majority? What about the ability for minorities to have laws reviewed through lobbying or the judiciary or ombudsman? I ask just to know more about your perspective, it’s very interesting!

I’ve been in Geneva, and the place is far nicer (for example, public transport) than say, Belgium (where I live now). This could be a result of a higher decentralization, which I of course approve of. But even this is not enough. My main problem with all democracies, is that they do not allow secession. In the fight of minority vs. majority, the ultimate minority is the individual. As an individual, I do not wish to pay taxes, nor do I wish to receive the government’s services. For example, I would feel much safer with a gun for self-defense, than a lazy, incompetent police force that always arrives too late. But, the government has outlawed gun use (which simply means that outlaws still have guns, while law abiding citizens do not), and instituted a monopoly on the police, paid for not voluntarily but with coercive taxes. If I do decide to pay for police services, then the government shouldn’t be my only choice. If they allowed freedom of competition within the provision of security, there would be far greater efficiency, and less corruption. But of course, the government would be unable to compete in a free market, they are far too inefficient and corrupt. The very fact that they use violence to uphold a monopoly and restrict competition, is proof that they themselves admit their incompetence.

Basically I’m saying that I want to secede from the government. The other people around me can participate if they want, but I want no part in it. Government should be voluntary, not compulsory. However, this is not the case. If I decide to not pay taxes, I will be sent to jail, or shot if I resist.. You can look up Voluntaryism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism). Look up Gordon Kahl, how he was violently arrested, and eventually shot (his family also imprisoned) for resisting to pay taxes. This is but one of the example cases the government makes every now and then to keep people in line.

While governments may claim to be interested in protecting us and our rights, I think its all an elaborate farce. If a man walks up to you on the street, and tells you, at gunpoint, to give him your money so that he can protect you and your property…well, most people will think he’s insane, or at least not at all interested in your safety. Yet govermments do this spectacle every time we pay taxes, and nobody seems to notice… Simply put, democracy is a far more efficient way of keeping people under control. They provide us with the illusion of choice, they place two or more lies on stage, and then laugh as we scuttle to decide which of the liars is telling the truth. We have the choice between one tax, or another, or sometimes we only choose how these taxes are allocated. The third choice we never get is to not participate at all. Thus, voting is a false dichotomy.

I find your points on the double standard quite good. They resonate back to the critiques of the social contract in that we never exactly got to make one. It also speaks to a theme in my research that perhaps written constitutions nowadays aren’t really that relevant anymore. After WWII and the massive diaspora of various ethnic groups to many different countries in the world have created a more mixed society that may not be represented well enough by the standard constitution. Do you think that constitutions should be re-written periodically (say something arbitrary like 50 years or so) or wholly revised through a long-term referendum aimed at including as many citizens as possible?

The social contract actually has none of the features of a contract. 1) I never signed it. 2) I never agreed to its contents or negotiated it. 3) This is the most crucial part, I can’t leave it! I mean I can move to a different country, but i’ll just be subjected to another social contract. This situation is incredibly immoral. Even in somalia, where the people finally came to peace and living standards started going up after the civil war, and without the government (http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880), the UN decided to intervene and send in an army, despite the fact that nobody wanted this. Not very democratic!

If only the social contract were voluntary… the fact that it isn’t shows the control-freak nature of government.

Regards.