Direct Democracy
Sam Carana
should be exercized more directly by people, instead of by dictatorial
bureaucracies. Three instruments will achieve more Direct Democracy,
i.e. tax deductions, vouchers and competition law.
- tax deductions
There should be a shift away from government committees deciding who
gets funding. Instead of allocating research grants to specific
organizations, tax deductions should be granted to those who invest in
worthwhile research projects, which could be any organization, company
or individual. Government should only specify the areas where tax
deducation are applicable, instead of privileging one organization over
another, such as on the basis of a charitable or non-profit status.
More generally, tax deductions should be granted if money was spent on
worthwhile causes. As an example, tax deductions should be granted when
parents spend money on education, health and safety of the children in
their care.
- vouchers
Currently, many people receive welfare in the form of a deposit on
their bank account. Sometimes, that money is spent on gambling,
smoking, drugs or other addictions. Vouchers are more effective in that
regard, especially if they are personalised to avoid transfers and if
they are specific, so that they can only be spent only on, say, food or
housing, or telephone calls or whatever is deemed to be part of a
social welfare package. Vouchers allow the recipient to select a
supplier to provide the services they need.
In health care, there should be a shift away from direct funding by
government of suppliers of medical services. Instead, government should
give vouchers to the poor, so that they can get insurance that will
cover their needs. Where people are unable to make good choices, such
vouchers should pay for counsellors to assist them. If some people
somehow don't get the necessary medical care, their counsellors and
insurance companies should be held accountible for negligence.
- competition
Where there is little choice, competition law should be strengthened to
order such structural separation, so that large organizations such as
insurance companies, hospitals, state schools and airports will be
broken up into multiple pieces. Competition law should also be
strengthened to avoid collusion, exclusive contracts and other
practices that deminish competition.
In education, there should be less discrimination by government in
regard to the various types of education. Families should have more
direct choice, not only for a particular school, but also for
homeschooling, correspondence methods or online tutoring, without
government giving one of them financial or regulatory privileges.
Families should be able to choose the education they want for their
children more directly. To achieve this, large public schools should be
split up into multiple smaller ones and poor families should receive
vouchers to allow them to make that choice more directly.
- security
Such reform will and should affect the way universities, specifically
scientific research, is linked to the military-industrial complex. Many
people call for reform in various sectors of society. Many talk about
basic services that should be available for the poor. Yet, security is
pretty basic. How can we get better security services? Few people even
think about reforming the military. But given the crucial role of the
military in security, it is vital to have a closer look at the way the
military is organized.
Curently, around the world, the military is organized on a monopoly
basis. In fact, the military are part of a larger monopoly, in which
the military focus on foreign events, while police operates
domestically, with coast guards and custom officers operating on the
border. But a monopoly is not the best way to provide security
services. There are some strong arguments against organizing things on
a monopoly basis:
- Experience in economics shows that a monopoly is inefficient and
wasteful. A competitive environment will result in more innovation,
dynamics and accountability;
- A monopoly is prone to dictate its terms, not only to customers, but
also to government itself. This is why most governments have anti-trust
and cartel legislation;
- A monopoly is less responsive to customer demand and has less respect
for our rights. A more competitive situation inherently reflects our
rights better, as it gives people more direct choice.
In line with these arguments, reform of the military should embrace
structural separation. The military should be split up into numerous
pieces, so that each of these pieces competes without collusion for
customers who select their preferred security services more directly.
Competition policy can establish such a split-up of the military into a
number of structurally separate organizations. To facilitate that
security services will be selected more directly by customers, instead
of determined by a wasteful and bureaucratic monopoly, tax deductions
should be granted to those who spend money on security. Furthermore,
the poor should get vouchers to enable them to get the security they
need.
To make service providers more accountible, indemnity provisions
against liability and litigation will need to be removed. Service
providers should take insurance coverage where they are unable to pay
possible claims for negligence.
In conclusion, the same three instruments can and should be implemented
in each sector to facilitate more direct democracy: competition policy,
tax deductions and vouchers for the poor. Over time, the implementation
of these policies will make it ever less necessary for government to
control things, while instead, we will have more Direct Democracy.
Sam Carana
yossarian
from.
I cant help thinking that this has been tried before... It was
communism. It doesnt work. Capitalism is the best of bad systems.
I dont think we can change to a direct democracy one day to the other
but i think if it is the solution, then it will happen with time,
slowly...
(i didnt have time to read your whole post, going to school...)
Sam Carana
> A very interesting post, and one that politicians today should learn
> from.
Hi yossarian, good to get some feedback.
> I cant help thinking that this has been tried before... It was
> communism. It doesnt work. Capitalism is the best of bad systems.
Perhaps the proposal should be rewritten, to make things more clear.
The proposed direct democracy advocates diversification and is as far
away from communism as you can get. Communism has a single army, a
single telecom supplier, a single health service, etc. In short,
communism is opposed to competition. To get more direct democracy, more
competition should be introduced, as proposed.
> I dont think we can change to a direct democracy one day to the other
> but i think if it is the solution, then it will happen with time,
> slowly...
Indeed, it won't happen overnight. Declaring that there should be more
competition is one thing, but actually introducing competition where it
has been absent for so long, that's another thing. That's why the
proposal uses tax deductions and vouchers.
> (i didnt have time to read your whole post, going to school...)
I hope you'll have more time to read things later and I look forward to
further feedback.
Cheers,
Sam Carana
Michael
The paragraph on tax deductions is what got me. It seems a bit
reflective of positive reinforcement and I think it could also apply in
other ways.
What do you think about something like this:
Specifically target publicly traded companies - target capital gains
tax in an effort to give each company a conscience (a reason to
maintain a common sense of integrity), so that the bottom line is no
longer the only motivating factor for their behavior.
Companies that achieve the five star rating would be given the biggest
tax break for their shareholders - whom would then get a break on
their 'capital gains' tax.
The five stars representing five separate governmental organizations,
which would be:
1. Better Business Bureau - to gauge consumer complaints
2. Environmental Protection Agency - to gauge environmental
compliances
3. Worker's Bureau (an expanded OSHA) - to gauge worker safety and
job satisfaction - physical and psychological
4. National Commerce Bureau (made up of all the city's Chamber of
Commerce Bureaus) - to gauge community impact (quality of life issues
concerning how the business affects its immediate neighborhood - for
example: was the business an eyesore like some of the MacDonalds, or
Wal-Marts in the 1980s)
5. Corporate Integrity Bureau (a new department which would act in
tandem with the other bureaus) - to gauge the overall intentions of a
corporation - was the product/service a benefit, or a detriment and
what was the apparent intention of each company?
Maybe this tax system could be implemented gradually over a 20 year
period of time, and all corporations could be given a blanket of five
stars. In other words we would start out with a tax increase on capital
gains, but companies would be given all five stars to begin with and as
a result would start out with a capital gains tax break. As companies
begin to lose their stars, the tax breaks would increase for those that
kept their stars.
Maybe an exclusive Federal Five Star Mediations Court would be set up
to handle capital gains (reward) tax disputes.
Of course one of the drawbacks would be the major headache it would
give H&R Block.
yossarian
You speak of favouring competition, but I believe your method is
flawed:
"Competition law should also be
strengthened to avoid collusion, exclusive contracts and other
practices that deminish competition."
The basis of competition is that many companies are all working
together towards a goal. In a capitalist society, this goal is market
domination. Exclusive contracts play a hand in pushing other companies
along. If contracts were awarded in an almost random, albeit fair
manner, then why would CEOs be intent on "beating" the other company?
They have no motivation. They are being induced into being mediocre,
being "part of the pack".
How would you reward companies that excell in your system, I ask?
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
Cheers!
yossarian
Your argument concerning exclusionary deals (ie with car rentals) stuns
me. A customer who seeks out a service provider can choose at will his
company. There will always be more than one rental car company, I think
we can take that as an axiom, and hence if the customer doesn't agree
with the choice of insurance he can choose another company, can't he?
Let's look at this in another fashion: Microsoft completes a new
version of Windows, codename Shorthorn (:P), and makes a deal with
Adobe to include their Acrobat reader software, because it is simply
the best .pdf application out their. Microsoft sees this as an
opportunity to provide a better level of service to its users, and
seizes the opportunity.
I find it hard to criticize such a policy: especially when it is
fundamentally based on a prealable competition. Competition has to have
a winner. On its own, it loses meaning, and becomes not competition,
but mediocrity. Without reward differenciating a pioneer from the
"rest", pioneer companies will cease to exist.
I do however agree that the government should do all that it can to
*favour* competition, but should not artificially privatise all its
sectors in order to boost the country's production, for this reason:
Capitalism is the art of getting as much money as you can off the other
bloke for as little work as possible. If the government plays no part
in this transfer of funds, services, and goods, then the market will
become a hostile battleground where human sentiment has no place.
You mention in your first post reorganizing the military into smaller,
more manageable, specialized clusters. This has already been done to
its fullest possible extent, with the creation of a multitude of new
agencies, mainly in order to fight terrorism and direct fast special
forces units.
If the main infantry component of the army is split up further than it
is today, then it can only become more vulnerable and slower when it
comes, one day, to an all out assault/defence of the United States and
its allies (I'm australian but I'm putting myself in the shoes of an
american, since we're pretty much your 51st state anyway...).
You could also end up with renegade generals doing what they feel like
with their new mini armies...
And it is the government's place to govern as it sees fit, put in place
by the "people".
I must say that I disagree with this "Direct Democracy", as:
1. It has never been attempted, let alone been succesful (Athens was
actually more of an aristocracy, and communist nations are all but
dust)
2. Men must be governed. We have a nasty habit of being evil and
seeking power. Its up to our governments to keep us on the right track.
Your idea would work if everybody were good-willed, strong,
well-educated and "nice", but that simply isn't the humane condition,
and the day we change that will be a day to remember.
I suggest you read Candide, by Voltaire.
Sam Carana
Your argument concerning exclusionary deals (ie with car rentals) stuns me. A customer who seeks out a service provider can choose at will his company. There will always be more than one rental car company, I think
we can take that as an axiom, and hence if the customer doesn't agree with the choice of insurance he can choose another company, can't he?
Let's look at this in another fashion: Microsoft completes a new version of Windows, codename Shorthorn (:P), and makes a deal with Adobe to include their Acrobat reader software, because it is simply the best .pdf application out their. Microsoft sees this as an opportunity to provide a better level of service to its users, and seizes the opportunity.
I find it hard to criticize such a policy: especially when it is fundamentally based on a prealable competition. Competition has to have a winner.
On its own, it loses meaning, and becomes not competition, but mediocrity. Without reward differenciating a pioneer from the "rest", pioneer companies will cease to exist.
I do however agree that the government should do all that it can to *favour* competition, but should not artificially privatise all its sectors in order to boost the country's production, ....
...for this reason:
Capitalism is the art of getting as much money as you can off the other bloke for as little work as possible. If the government plays no part in this transfer of funds, services, and goods, then the market will become a hostile battleground where human sentiment has no place.
You mention in your first post reorganizing the military into smaller, more manageable, specialized clusters. This has already been done to its fullest possible extent, with the creation of a multitude of new agencies, mainly in order to fight terrorism and direct fast special forces units.
If the main infantry component of the army is split up further than it is today, then it can only become more vulnerable and slower when it comes, one day, to an all out assault/defence of the United States and its allies (I'm australian but I'm putting myself in the shoes of an
american, since we're pretty much your 51st state anyway...).
You could also end up with renegade generals doing what they feel like with their new mini armies...
And it is the government's place to govern as it sees fit, put in place by the "people".
I must say that I disagree with this "Direct Democracy", as:
1. It has never been attempted, let alone been succesful (Athens was actually more of an aristocracy, and communist nations are all but dust)
More generally, many countries, including the US and Australia, have direct democracy to some extent. What I propose is to make it more direct.
2. Men must be governed. We have a nasty habit of being evil and seeking power. Its up to our governments to keep us on the right track.
Your idea would work if everybody were good-willed, strong, well-educated and "nice", but that simply isn't the humane condition, and the day we change that will be a day to remember.
Michael
certainly agree with your desire to see more competition.
>What kind of taxes would be most applicable to
>help us establish more competition?
Well, I think it would be hard to do, but what if taxes were based on
'positive reinforcement' and were doled out according to good
behavior (tax breaks), than could that be a way? Especially if their
five star rating was publicized in a very public way, than wouldn't
force a company to think about how they're hurting the competition if
the local Chamber of Commerce's were taking away star #4? - because
the Mega-store was squashing the little stores 4xample.
Maybe if we abolished capital gains tax for companies that had all five
stars? Then would it force companies to worry more about product
integrity without people having to march in front of their store (to
get McDonalds to serve healthier food - 4xample). ;)
Not only that, but it might also simplify tax filing.
But to abolish the c-tax altogether would probably have to happen
gradually - otherwise it might cause investors to rush to a tax-free
market - over inflate the market and cause it to eventually crash.
>instead of having committees grant selected companies
>privileges, which requires setting up a bureaucratic system
>to assess who would be applicable. Such a system is
>prone to corruption, favoratism, nepotism, while it's also a
>wasteful bureaucracy and an administrative burden for companies.
That's why such a system would have to be based on bureaus that are
largely already in place.
Like the BBB, which is directly influence by individual complaints. Not
too dissimilar from voting.
Or, the Chamber of Commerce organizations made up from each and every
local community.
By having it made up from - individual - local - state - and
national organizations would that not be a way to keep it more fair and
honest. A more true reflection of how the public views any given
company?
And yea a flat income tax does seem pretty cool.
But what if we, as individuals were also graded on our behavior - the
higher the ranking the lower our individual taxes would be, or would
such a change be to radical?
Right!
> Direct Democracy means more power by the people. Power and control
> should be exercized more directly by people, instead of by dictatorial
> bureaucracies. Three instruments will achieve more Direct Democracy,
> i.e. tax deductions, vouchers and competition law.
================================================================
Sam, Interesting post. Your note to my post brought me here for a look
see (i.e., Is there an obligation for government representatives (our
representatives in government) to be ethical & moral?
http://groups.google.com/group/opinions/browse_thread/thread/79f30922e1ae6fc5).
Many of the details are interesting and debatable, however there is
one gap and that is that many Americans choose to not participate in
the Democracy that we have, much less one that requires even more
participation.
It strikes me that to achieve any utopia in a Democracy require enough
like minded voters to actually go out and vote. And unless people have
a reason to vote, they don't. It was a sad footnote that more people
watched the Super Bowl than voted in the last Presidential election.
The people that do vote either: a) feel an obligation to vote, b) are
activists and advocates for one position or another, c) part of a
special interest group that recognizes the power of a group to vote the
same way , e.g., NRA, AARP. And finally, sadly, research indicates
that people are more apt to go out and vote if they are opposed to
something or someone (more than if they support something or someone)..
Well, to make a long story short, I have worked professionally around
the world in a number of countries. I spent the longest (4 years) in
Australia, hence became much more familiar with their form of Democracy
than any other besides ours. Besides Australia being a parliamentary
form of government, they also are not a republic. Like Canada, they
retain their position as part of the United Kingdom where the Queen's
appointed regent retains the authority to disband the government and
call a new election. In fact, the regent can ultimately fire the Prime
Minister. It is very interesting that every referendum held regarding
dumping that system and becoming a republic has failed at the polls.
Evidently the majority of Australians like the idea of having a "big
brother" or parent that will step in to intervene if the voters get it
wrong and put in a terrible government. Or if a government stops
acting in the best interests of Australians, they have a parent or big
brother that can legally get rid of them and set things straight.
But I have strayed from my point. That being it is a legal REQUIREMENT
that all Australian Citizens over the age of 18 MUST VOTE IN EVERY
ELECTION. The Australians are very serious about this. If you don't
vote, they will immediately issue a warrant for your arrest. Violaters
will receive a fine (that is not insignificant) - normally thousands of
dollars. Violaters can also received jail time.
They view participation in their democracy as more than just a
privilege of citizenship. It is a requirement of all good citizens.
Consider this for a minute. How would our democracy change if all
citizens were required to vote? I am certain that special interest
groups would have less power to influence elections if all citizens
were required to vote. Special Interest groups only influece the vote
if many citizens do not vote. Once all citizens vote, special
interests are unlikely to swing elections one way or the other.
I believe that politicians would be less likely to get away with their
typical rhetoric of making promises they have no intention of keeping,
or continue making policies that hurt a majority of Americans - e.g.,
Social Security, healthcare, energy policy.
And if all Americans were required to vote, I believe that we could
extend the referendum system to the Federal level. Of course the
number of signatures in a set number of states would be required to get
an initiative on the ballot would be much higher than today (even
signatures to get initiatives on State ballots would have to increase).
All in all, I think 100% voter participation would be a good addition
to your proposed list on your posting.
In any event, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on 100%
voter participation as a requirement of citizenship.
Regards
Sam Carana
.... what if taxes were based on 'positive reinforcement' and were doled out according to good behavior (tax breaks), than could that be a way? ... Maybe if we abolished capital gains tax for companies that had all five
stars? ... But to abolish the c-tax altogether would probably have to happen gradually - otherwise it might cause investors to rush to a tax-free market - over inflate the market and cause it to eventually crash.
... such a system would have to be based on bureaus that are largely already in place. Like the BBB, which is directly influence by individual complaints. Not too dissimilar from voting. Or, the Chamber of Commerce organizations made up from each and every local community. By having it made up from - individual - local - state - and national organizations would that not be a way to keep it more fair and honest. A more true reflection of how the public views any given company?
And yea a flat income tax does seem pretty cool.
But what if we, as individuals were also graded on our behavior - the higher the ranking the lower our individual taxes would be, or would such a change be to radical?
As said, the main aim of tax deductions should be to encourage competition in areas that currently lack comeptition. Companies should not receive direct hand-outs from government for providing "good" services. What was "good" should be decided more directly by people and creating more competitive environments will enable people to make such decisions more directly.
Sam Carana
... there is one gap and that is that many Americans choose to not participate in the Democracy that we have, much less one that requires even more participation.
It strikes me that to achieve any utopia in a Democracy require enough like minded voters to actually go out and vote. And unless people have a reason to vote, they don't. It was a sad footnote that more people watched the Super Bowl than voted in the last Presidential election.
The people that do vote either: a) feel an obligation to vote, b) are activists and advocates for one position or another, c) part of a special interest group that recognizes the power of a group to vote the same way , e.g., NRA, AARP. And finally, sadly, research indicates
that people are more apt to go out and vote if they are opposed to something or someone (more than if they support something or someone)..
.......all Australian Citizens over the age of 18 MUST VOTE IN EVERY ELECTION. The Australians are very serious about this. If you don't vote, they will immediately issue a warrant for your arrest. Violaters will receive a fine (that is not insignificant) - normally thousands of dollars. Violaters can also received jail time.
Michael
first couple of paragraphs. I wasn't aware that this was practiced
anywhere.
I'm sure that the effect would be positive on many levels.
However, I wonder if there have been any studies on how many ambivalent
voters simply flip a coin, or whatever, simply because they're
required?
yossarian
This is something that I see a lot in today's society. People are so
quick to criticize their government, and the way it functions, when it
is they in fact who are at fault. It is so easy to use the word
"government" and say they should do this and that and that they are not
doing this and that right. But it is the people who put them in power,
and the "power" is also made up of people. Its not some alien body
totally detatched from the nation: its part of it.
This is why I think we already have direct democracy in my country,
Australia, where it is not just a right to vote, but a duty. That is
the basis of true democracy. If you want to be a citizen of Australia,
then you MUST endeavour to improve and guide its government through the
elective process. And hell, you could even become a politician
yourself.
I can then only feel sorry for america and the bumhole of a leader they
ended up with, because voting is not compulsory: only radicals vote.
Sam Carana
More Sense
disagree on some points.
- flat tax -
I think it's better to work towards a flat tax. The whole world seems
to be moving that way. It's less bureaucratic, as it typically comes
with abolition of most deductions. It gives more incentive to those who
perform well and with a high treshold it's also better for the poor. By
getting rid of deductions, it moves away from money being put into less
productive areas and having our best brains studying to become an
accountant or lawyer, solely to understand and challenge the
over-complicated tax system. Let's clean out the system and give both
companies and individuals the same flat and low tax rate, so that
society as a whole become more productive and more competitive with
Europe, Japan and China.
- rights -
It seems that Sam makes competition into a goal itself, even where this
would violate our rights. As I've often pointed out, rights are
inalienable and cannot be compromised, whatever good the cause may be
claimed to be. Encouraging competition is OK, but should not come with
violations of our rights. Competition law often is intrusive and
compromises the right for people to own property. Government should
protect the right for people to own property. Rights come first.
Government is instituted by people to protect our rights. If some
politicians come to the conclusion that our rights should be
compromised, then that's a reason for me not to vote for them. I'm
confident that the majority of people will agree with me on that.
- military and welfare -
Some areas are more open to discussion than others. Some areas require
long term planning, like infrastructure (roads, canals, etc), and
things cannot switch from one extreme to another overnight. Investment
in the military is long-term and people are not likely to pay for that,
without getting visible short-term results. If we want to make
progress, let's first of all focus on area where it is more likely that
we can make progress, such as in trade, education, hospitals, etc. If
we change things where we can, then other areas will be affected by the
resulting change in society as a whole, so the rest will follow, as we
focus our attention on the cutting edge. At the moment, that cutting
edge is financial services, Internet, computers and telecommunications,
bio-technology, etc. If we can make it possible for industry to be more
productive there, effects on employment, education and society as a
whole will follow.
More Sense
=============== Sam Carana wrote: =================
Sam Carana
> Good discussion! In many ways, I can relate to Sam's view, but I
> disagree on some points.
>
> - flat tax -
>
> I think it's better to work towards a flat tax. The whole world seems
> to be moving that way. It's less bureaucratic, as it typically comes
> with abolition of most deductions. It gives more incentive to those who
> perform well and with a high treshold it's also better for the poor. By
> getting rid of deductions, it moves away from money being put into less
> productive areas and having our best brains studying to become an
> accountant or lawyer, solely to understand and challenge the
> over-complicated tax system. Let's clean out the system and give both
> companies and individuals the same flat and low tax rate, so that
> society as a whole become more productive and more competitive with
> Europe, Japan and China.
>
RE: flat tax -
(Sam) The tax reform that I propose focuses on a gradual reduction (and
eventual abolition) of capital gains taxes, while income tax deductions
should be granted more on the basis that there was a contribution to a
worthwhile cause or a welfare need. My proposal aims to create more
competition. That will lead to ever less tax, i.e. lower taxes compared
to a flat tax economy with less internal competition. So, the society
as I envisage it will be more competitive, while there will also be
less taxation. Note that tax reform in my proposal is part of a package
of reform measures that include the introduction of vouchers and wider
implementation of competition policy. The mere introduction of a flat
tax may seem attractive to some, at first glance, but in the longer
term, I'm convinced that my proposal will be result in lower taxes.
>
> - rights -
>
> It seems that Sam makes competition into a goal itself, even where this
> would violate our rights. As I've often pointed out, rights are
> inalienable and cannot be compromised, whatever good the cause may be
> claimed to be. Encouraging competition is OK, but should not come with
> violations of our rights. Competition law often is intrusive and
> compromises the right for people to own property. Government should
> protect the right for people to own property. Rights come first.
> Government is instituted by people to protect our rights. If some
> politicians come to the conclusion that our rights should be
> compromised, then that's a reason for me not to vote for them. I'm
> confident that the majority of people will agree with me on that.
>
RE: rights -
(Sam) My proposal uses three instruments : competition policy, vouchers
and tax reform (income tax deductions, reducing capital gains tax). The
aim of such a reform package is to improve society as a whole, for the
rich as well as for the poor, and from an economic perspective as well
as from the perspective of our rights. I'm convinced that the society
as I envisage it will reflect our rights better, as it will alow people
to make decision more directly. So, the overall effect of my proposal
is beneficial in regards to our rights.
>
> - military and welfare -
>
> Some areas are more open to discussion than others. Some areas require
> long term planning, like infrastructure (roads, canals, etc), and
> things cannot switch from one extreme to another overnight. Investment
> in the military is long-term and people are not likely to pay for that,
> without getting visible short-term results. If we want to make
> progress, let's first of all focus on area where it is more likely that
> we can make progress, such as in trade, education, hospitals, etc. If
> we change things where we can, then other areas will be affected by the
> resulting change in society as a whole, so the rest will follow, as we
> focus our attention on the cutting edge. At the moment, that cutting
> edge is financial services, Internet, computers and telecommunications,
> bio-technology, etc. If we can make it possible for industry to be more
> productive there, effects on employment, education and society as a
> whole will follow.
>
RE: military and welfare -
(Sam) No, reform won't be achieved overnight, it's a gradual process
over many years. Where we're dealing with long-term investment, we need
to be able to compare performance and hold the supplier accountible
many years later. Many point at lower prices, innovation and efficience
as the major advantages of competition. But in case of long-term
commitments, we also need suppliers with a good name and reputation,
with sufficient provisions in place to remedy possible errors. In other
words, we need to start now, in order to see benefits that may well
take years to become manifest. I'm convinced that a monopoly is NOT
better in this regard than a more competitive environment. But by all
means, let's discuss this, in places like this group here! I have put
forward the following arguments in favor of more competition:
- Experience in economics shows that a monopoly is inefficient and
wasteful. A competitive environment will result in more innovation,
dynamics and accountability;
- A monopoly is prone to dictate its terms, not only to customers, but
also to government itself. This is why most governments have anti-trust
and cartel legislation;
- A monopoly is less responsive to customer demand and has less respect
for our rights. A more competitive situation inherently reflects our
rights better, as it gives people more direct choice.
Cheers!
Sam Carana
Sam Carana
people can make an informed decision. As I understand it, TV in
Australia is run by a cartel of organizations with the government
itself being a major participant. In most cities, newspapers operate on
a monopoly basis. Telecommunications is dominated by a single
organization, majority-owned by the government. One of the largest
banks is also government-owned, and so is the largest airline. Such a
society breeds monopolies and it's no surprise that, in such an
environment, opposition against mandatory voting seldom gets the
attention it deserves. As I said earlier, the same goes for discussions
about a Bill of Rights that is sadly lacking in Australia.
The suppression of such views makes a mockery of the idea that people
can make an informed decision, when they are forced to vote. As you
say, they may just flip a coin. As in the US, the voting system in
Australia encourages a two-party system. Many people feel that voting
for smaller parties effectively means a lost vote. The voting system in
Australia therefore often requires people to rank politicians, rather
than to select a single one of them. The argument is that this will
remedy this situation, i.e. you may give the highest ranking to a
politician with lesser prospects to win, but because you rank all of
them, every vote counts towards the end result. Of course, such a
system requires even more that voters can make informed decisions about
the politicians they are supposed to rank. But, not suprisingly,
research shows that most people have never heard about the majority of
people that they are supposed to rank, let alone that people are aware
of the policies proposed by each of these politicians. As a funny
footnote, one candidate even took the absurd step of officially
changing his name into Free Marihuana, to ensure that this was what
appeard on the voting paper and that people understood what he
proposed.
As proposed, people should be able to take decisions more directly,
instead of having a bureacratic system take the decisions for them (and
all so often against them).
Cheers!
Sam Carana
yossarian
fundamentally good, and that their first and primal impulse is to
improve their country.
Although this would be great, it simply isn't the case. Most of "the
people" simply want to live their lives, they don't care about the
administration, as long as they get by.
Enforcing people to go and vote would at least get them off their bums.
They can of course put a blank paper into the ballot, like in
Australia, but at least they'd be taking part in the democracy they
benefit from.
Regards.
Sam Carana
Your entire argument relies on one postulate: that people are
fundamentally good, and that their first and primal impulse is to
improve their country.
Although this would be great, it simply isn't the case. Most of "the
people" simply want to live their lives, they don't care about the
administration, as long as they get by.
Enforcing people to go and vote would at least get them off their bums.
They can of course put a blank paper into the ballot, like in
Australia, but at least they'd be taking part in the democracy they
benefit from.
yossarian
fro?
No decisions would be made, because no one would single handedly be
able to stand up and make them. Direct democracy is great, but it
incites debate and talks about things that honestly don't deserve it.
Imagine how much of a gruelling process decision making would be.
"Nation, Osama has launched a nuke at us, what do we do"
"Oh, well you could do thi---"
"Yeah, but to do this would be bett--"
"No way! We should do this!"
Bla, bla bla. At one point in time, power must be centralized in order
to keep an efficient system.
An ideal system would be one revelled in by 19th century philosophers:
a "good" monarchy, in which a "good" human is singlehandedly
responsible for this decision making. Of course, I realize this is
impossible, but to me, so is direct democracy, if we are to get
anywhere.
What do you think?
Sam Carana
yossarian
I'd like it if you didn't assimilate my views to communist/dictatorship
trends. If that is the way you interpret them then I'm afraid I can't
keep posting here as I'm getting nowhere.
Bye.
Sam Carana
Traditionally, direct democracy was exercized by means of assembly, i.e. people all convening at one place to decide matters of importance. Clearly, it's not practical for large numbers of people to all travel to one place each time an issue of importance comes up. To some extent, this problem can be overcome with online voting. However, there are other problems that are harder to overcome. Voter apathy can lead to activists or a fundamentalist movements highjacking the agenda. Also, there are all kinds of ways corruption, fraud, bias or error can pervert the outcome, e.g. in the way questions are formulated that people are to vote for, in the way it is determined who is allowed to vote, in the way people vote (ticking multiple boxes or selecting only one) and in the way votes are counted (there are several ways to decide who gets the "informal" votes).
yossarian
Having an online voting community taking decisions is a great idea, but
you still need someone/something to undertake them. It's great that the
country says: "tighter security at ports", but you still need an entire
system to be created in order to fulfill such a demand. It can't happen
just by magic?
Individuals just arn't smart enough to run an entire country on their
own: ie, specialization, which engenders a structure put in place in
order to ensure each specialization fulfills the big picture, and
everything fits together.
Sam Carana
> What I don't understand is how such a system is supposed to run.
> Having an online voting community taking decisions is a great idea, but
I'm not proposing an online voting system. I'm advocating more direct
democracy, in which people can take decisions more directly, instead of
relying on government officials and the associated bureaucracy to get
things done.
> ... It's great that the
> country says: "tighter security at ports", but you still need an entire
> system to be created in order to fulfill such a demand. It can't happen
> just by magic?
Indeed, that's why I propose a combination of vouchers and income tax
deductions. That will put both the poor and those who can more easily
afford it, in a better position to choose the security services they
want - they can choose security services more directly, instead of
having government bureaucrats taking the decisions for them. If they
want products that require "tighter security at ports", then obviously
some of the money paid for those products will go towards that goal. As
I explained in the first message in this thread, a monopoly is a bad
idea and that applies across the board, i.e. from selling cars,
groceries and banking to security services. If we want to make things
work, we should establish a more competitive environment in which a
multitude of suppliers can operate without collusion.
> Individuals just arn't smart enough to run an entire country on their
> own: ie, specialization, which engenders a structure put in place in
> order to ensure each specialization fulfills the big picture, and
> everything fits together.
No individual is expected to run an entire country. In most countries,
the current system puts too much power into the hands of a single
person, i.e. a president, a monarch or a prime minister. The problem
with that is that, if one person takes all decisions, it's hard to
predict whether or not the country moves into a dead-end-road.
If, on the other hand, a multitude of companies and individuals are
active, some will go broke and some will be successful, in an
evolutionary process that comes with diversity and choice, giving more
incentives for each supplier to innovate, improve and get their act
together - in other words, more direct democracy.
Again, no individual is expected to run an entire country. No
individual should! No individual or single company should to run an
entire city either. The very idea that a single person or organization
should be put in full and exclusive control, that's a bad idea. We all
benefit from diversity and competition. Therefore, to introduce more
competition, I propose the intruments of vouchers and tax reform.
Cheers!
Sam Carana