I think Lam indicated before that he likes to receive subsidies and that he is entitled to them by nature of the work he does.
Historical evidence. More historical evidence. Even more historical evidence.
Your argument is invalid.
Sure, if you want to call it that. But be careful to avoid the nirvana fallacy: the relevant issue is which system can best minimize tyranny and protect liberty. And here the answer is market anarchy: the incentive structure of market competition is superior to the incentive structure of government bureaucracy.
The problem with representative government is that the masses rely on politicians to represent their interests. Politicians do not naturally have an incentive to represent your interests or mine; they have every incentive to pursue personal reward. We must constantly force them to behave ethically. Absent the ever-present vigilance of the public eye, the system descends into corruption.
Likewise, invent a hypothetical “anarcho-capitalism” is which legal matters are handled by private firms. These private firms do not naturally have an incentive to be honest unless the outsiders are constantly watching out for every indiscretion. Remove public participation, and the system becomes as corrupt as can be.
Anarcho-capitalism is basically a form of representative government. Both degenerate toward corruption unless firmly controlled by the populace.
Whereas in direct democracy, cutting deals behind closed doors becomes literally impossible. Under direct democracy, no law can ever be written unless everybody first reads it and the majority of them consent.
Taxes would be nonexistent, because they could not pass a majority vote. (And even if it did, no police force would be in place to enforce it. And if a police force was created, public outrage would be so high that it would be abolished.) Taxes are not in the interest of the populace. They are in the interest of politicians. Get rid of politicians, and taxes disappear.
Likewise, virtually every form injustice or corruption could not survive in direct democracy.
Wrong. Apply an economic analysis. They have an incentive. The profit motive. They also have a natural pressure on them to meet consumer demand.
Competition.
Even if we believed that, how better to control something, than to force it to be accountable via competition? How can you establish a monopoly government, and then not expect it to behave in a monopolistic fashion? The vigilant public. But if the government is the final arbiter of what the law means, then how can the public ever call it to account? You’re right back to where you started.
But in a direct democracy, individual liberty can be subverted if it is a minority position. And by going to a direct democracy, you institutionalize a system to do specifically this. Any minority decision for negative rights is an act of individualism, and so, every minority possession repressed, ignored or countered, is in fact a subversion of individual liberty.
There are always special interests who want taxes to be collected for the purpose of subsidizing those industries or providing privilege to some individuals/groups/firms. Look at every time taxes have been instituted. Always with gradualism (only on the rich aka the minority) and then over time, they apply to everyone because bureaucracies are established to implement the strategy of gradualism.
Sure it could. As soon as the majority voted to impose it. First on the minority, and then later, through gradualism, on themselves.
How would inter-democracy disputes be settled?
What’s an example of an “inter-democracy dispute”?
I belong to one democracy while you belong to another democracy, and there is a dispute between us. How do we go about resolving the dispute?
Depends on which democracy has regional jurisdiction.
If you commit murder in California, you will be arrested and tried in California under California law–even if you live in Nevada or Texas, or if you prefer to be tried in Nevada or Texas.
Direct democracies would operate the same way. You would be dragged to the nearest jury, not whichever jury you prefer (or whichever one your accusers prefer).
Ama Gi can you just admit I am right so I can go to sleep? [;)]
So, if I am the sole member of a democracy, and that democracy has jurisdiction on my property, and I am the jury in that jurisdiction, and I commit a crime on my property, I will be juror to my own prosecution?
You must have a pretty loose definition of the word “jury”.
Almost like the Fed’s loose definition of the word “dollar”.
Bad, bad definitions.
How are you defining jury?
The profit motive won’t do jack diddly unless consumers are capable of making informed choices. People can’t make informed choices concerning laws unless they are personally reading and signing proposed legislation and personally sitting on juries.
I’m sitting here writing about direct democracy and you are asking me “how can the public ever call it to account?” Isn’t that self-explanatory?
Capitalism increases everybody’s standards of living and allows everybody to own property. If everybody owns property, then naturally they are going to write laws that favor private property.
You’ve never read de Tocqueville, have you?
A random selection of unbiased citizens who have volunteered (for free or for pay) to oversee a trial.
Who would choose them?
Doesn’t matter, as long as it’s random.
Whats Ironic in Ami G’s argument is that he believes a market is in-sufficient. So what he puts in its place is a system thats to function as much like a market as possible but with all the deficiencies that democracy brings with it. In other words he’d like to replace a market with a retarded market.
Perhaps whats most frustrating is Ami G’s direct democracy carries with it all of the problems thats developed the system we have today. Complete and utter monopoly over positive law. It is lunacy to replace a failing system with another one that carries the same problems. Nothing gets resolved. He pretends that his courts will some how magically work in harmony, and that somehow a market provided court would be wrought in corruption, despite the need to please the consumer. Where in his system there is no insentive to please anyone but themselves and his judges are just as subject to being bought off as anyone else.
The difference is, in the market bought of judges get fired or clients leave those firms. Scandles get handled on a market level.
Negative. If the firms want to even exist they must please the consumer. If there is no satisfaction of the consumer they simply do not exist.
Wrong again. Removing the public would remove the firm. The firm operates on consumer participation. If there is no consumer, there is no firm. In other words, the firm does have all the natural intensive it needs to please it’s consumer base.
I hope very much you are not conflating voting and democracy with market activity. In a market even the minority gets what they want. This does not occur in a democracy.
A market is not a democracy in any sense of the word. Big analogous mistakes are made when people believe this.
"What are the two most historically important people to Western Civilization?..
Arguably, but I think agreeably - Socrates and Jesus Christ…
Who killed Socrates and Jesus Christ?
…
…
…
… Democracy did."
So I could randomly choose myself?
If you’re right about this, then that’s exactly how the market will function. If you’re wrong, then no worries.