As I’ve talked about before, The Great Lie of the modern political era is that big government that supports and bails out big banks and corporations is “capitalism,” when in fact that is corporatism, which is capitalism’s opposite.

There is a second Great Lie, perhaps as prevalent as the first one. It is a world-wide, fundamental misunderstanding of the word, “democracy.” This lie/misconception is broken down into three parts:

1. Democracy is the best form of government.

2. Democracy means freedom.

3. The United States was always meant to be a democracy.

All three of these things are false, yet there are probably a billion people in this world who believe otherwise. Let’s tackle each.

Democracy Sucks

Democracy is not the best form of government.

Let’s say you lived in a country where a national election took place. 60% of the population voted that if you drove a blue car, the police would come to your house and chop off one of your fingers.

Let’s assume that the voting system used in the election was one you agreed with. Let’s also say it was 60% who voted for this, instead of 51% which could be within some kind of margin for error.

Is this a good thing? Do people with blue cars deserve to get their fingers removed because the will of the people said so? It’s democracy right? It’s the will of the people, isn’t it? The people have spoken, haven’t they? Does the government have the authority to step in and override the will of the people when they clearly wanted this new law?

We’ll get back to that in a minute.

Since government is a fundamentally corrupt, incompetent, and a coercive system, no form of government is good. However, since I’m a minarchist and not an anarchist, I grudgingly admit that in the real world, human beings like governments. If you waved a magic wand and made all the governments in the world disappear, the very next day people would start getting together and form governments again.

I don’t like that, but as always, I make sure to acknowledge the way the real world works regardless of my personal feelings. Thus, we have to pick a form of government. Our job is to find a form of government that is least bad. Remember that least bad is not the same as good or best. It’s just the least bad.

Few would argue that systems like a dictatorship or communism is better than democracy. I know a few people who would argue that, but these people are thankfully in the minority. So yes, as compared to all of our shitty options, democracy looks least bad. But is it?

No. The least bad government we have invented so far is the constitutional republic. This looks like a democracy, but isn’t. It’s when you vote, but instead of voting for laws, you vote for representatives who you think will vote the way you want them to vote.

More importantly, these representatives can’t vote for anything they want, or even anything their constituents want. There are very strict limits to what they can vote for. They can only vote within the bounds of a document called a constitution. If the constitution of your country says the law must treat all people equally, then these representatives can’t vote to remove the fingers of people with blue cars, even if the vast majority of their constituents wanted them to. A properly functioning constitutional republic often overrides the will of the people, and should.

Is a constitutional republic a good system? No! It’s a terrible system. Eventually these representatives will start ignoring the constitution and doing whatever the hell they want in order to get more votes. This is what happened in the United States.

A constitutional republic sucks… BUT… it is, at least so far, the least bad system of incompetent, corrupt, coercive government we have come up with. This makes it less bad than democracy, which is even worse.

So no, democracy is not the best form of government.

Democracy Doesn’t Equal Freedom

People think democracy equals freedom. Not only is this untrue, but it’s flat out stupid to even believe it.

Take a look at the Index of Economic Freedom, which lists the freest countries in the world, listed in order. The two freest countries in the world that always top this list are Singapore and Hong Kong. In Singapore, the “right” to vote is not officially recognized and most people there are not allowed to vote.[*] In Hong Kong, people can only vote for half of their legislature.[*]

But wait a minute! If democracy equals freedom, how do you explain the fact that the two freest countries in the world are not democracies? How come all the so-called “democracies” in the world are less free than these two non-democracies?

Hmmmmm.

If you want socialism or something close to it, then yes, democracy is what you want. You want to make sure as many people vote as humanly possible, including illegal immigrants, morons, criminals, lazy people who don’t want to work, young people who don’t know much about the real world yet, high school dropouts, and all kinds of other people completely unqualified to manage a large and complex nation. These folks are far more likely to vote for more free stuff from others, i.e. socialism, not freedom.

This is why left-wingers in the US are always screaming about letting criminals and non-citizens vote in elections.

This is why socialist countries like Australia actually require you to vote, by law(!).

This is why big government neoconservatives like George W. Bush pushed hard to bring “democracy” to the Middle East. Did you ever hear Bush or Obama talk about bringing small government, or libertarianism, or a constitutional republic to the Middle East? Of course not. They want a big, giant, unfree government they can control and benefit from, so they want democracy in the Middle East.

If you truly want real freedom for your citizens (and most people don’t), you don’t want a democracy at all. You don’t want to be anywhere near a democracy. If there is any voting going on, you actually want the least amount of people voting. Moreover, you want to do your best to ensure that these people are A) extremely well informed and intelligent, and B) have a vested interest in keeping your country reasonably free (as opposed to socialist, communist, or corporatist). You also want to make sure there is some kind of officially recognized constitution that spells out all the things the government CAN’T do, even if people try to vote for them and scream that they want them.

The United States Never Was, Nor Was Ever Meant to Be, a Democracy

The founding fathers of the United States understood everything I just explained above even better than you or I. They were absolutely terrified of democracy. They knew exactly where it would end up if they went that route, which would be socialism; i.e. people voting for other people’s stuff, which is a direct violation of the freedom and property rights they were so intent on protecting.

Just Google “Founding Fathers Democracy” and look at all the anti-democracy stuff they were saying. Look at this list of quotes here. They absolutely hated democracy, rightly so, because they wanted a free country instead.

There’s a lot of talk about women and black people getting the right to vote in the 20th century, but what most people don’t realize is that when the USA was founded, most white men couldn’t vote. That’s right. Read that again. Most American white men couldn’t vote originally. The founding fathers correctly didn’t want a lot of people voting. Way back then, you had to be a business owner, landowner, or similar in order to vote.

I’m not saying we should go back to that system. I’m saying that if you want a free and prosperous country, you need the minimum amount of people voting. Some people may not like that, but they’ll still be free and prosperous.

I would far rather live in a country where I was not allowed to vote, that was free, prosperous, and had a small government that stayed out of my business, then live in a bloated, unfree, quasi-socialist or corporatist country where I was allowed to vote. Voting rights or freedom… if I was forced to choose just one of these things, I would choose freedom every time.

What’s The Least Bad Way To Do It?

I’m no political genius, and I don’t have all the answers, but if you made me Emperor of the United States for a month, this is how I would restructure our “democracy” so we could be a free and prosperous country again, instead of a bankrupt, warmongering, quasi-socialist, oligarchic, corporatist, semi-police state.

1. Add a clause to the US Constitution that states exactly what happens to any politician or government employee who violates it. The only major problem with our original Constitution is that there was no system in place to punish those who violated it.

I would add an amendment that says something like, “Any politician or government employee at any level of government, up to and including the President, who is found to be enacting any law or engaging in any action that violates this Constitution, shall be immediately and permanently removed from office and shall serve no less than 10 years in a federal prison with no chance of parole or early release.”

Could some politician weasel their way around that? Of course, but we’re talking about government here, so we’re talking about the least bad. Having a clause in the Constitution like this would help a lot more than not having it at all.

2. Remove the right to vote from most of the population. One of the reasons the US has become so screwed up in the last few decades is because we have way too many idiots and irrational ideologues voting in our elections. Here’s how you do it:

A. Require proof of American citizenship in order to vote. No non-citizens are allowed to vote, period. When I move to Argentina or New Zealand someday, I will not expect to be allowed to vote in their elections. This makes perfect sense to me and is not offensive to me in the least. As a matter of fact, I would consider these nations to be a little stupid if they did allow me, a non-citizen, to vote in their elections.

B. Require proof of net contribution to the economy before voting. If you don’t contribute to the economy in some monetary way, you can’t vote. This means you need to be gainfully employed (even if you’re only part time) or have your own business or investment income, pay your own bills, and you can’t be on any form of government assistance.

That means that people like unemployed folks, full time students, stay at home housewives, and single mothers on welfare would not be able to vote, at least until they got jobs (or started businesses that actually made money), assuming they wanted to. And no, they wouldn’t like that (young people have been protesting in Hong Kong for the “right to vote”), but they’d still be more free on the overall and benefiting from a more prosperous society.

C. Require all voters to pass a quick, computerized test right before they cast their vote. The test would ask a few simple questions concerning basic politics (“Who is the Vice President?”), basic world geography (“Find Japan on this world map”), basic economics (“If there is less of a thing, does it cost more or less?”), and basic history (“Who did we fight during World War II?”).

Anyone who fails this test can’t vote, even if you’re an eligible American who is a net economic contributor. Go back home and learn some some basic shit about the world before you start enacting laws that affect the lives of your fellow citizens.

I estimate that enacting these three changes would instantly eliminate 60%-80% of the current voting population from being able to vote. This means that the only people voting would be American citizens who are directly contributing to the economy and who are not complete idiots. This, on top of a new enforceable constitution would make America a much freer and prosperous place, at least over time.

3. Enact one-term term limits on all federal politicians. This means if you become a Senator or the President, you can only do it for one term, and can never run for that office again. Most politicians spend more time fundraising and pandering to get votes rather than voting for what is best for the country. Enacting this change would ensure that more elected officials would vote for what actually works rather than vote for what will get them reelected.

That’s what I would do. Are there problems with this system? Oh yes, many. But again, we’re talking about least bad here.

Democracy sucks. Don’t be fooled.

25 Comments on “Freedom or Democracy… Choose One

  1. I loved every word of that and agree totally. After this election and seeing how absolutely uninformed, misinformed and totally clueless voters have become I am starting to see the benefits of the Monarchy. Great piece.

  2. I am starting to see the benefits of the Monarchy

    Monarchies have benefits, but they are still worse than constitutional republics.

    When people defend monarchies, they always do so with the assumption that the monarch is a wise and kind ruler. But what about when he isn’t?

    I would be willing to try a true constitutional monarchy, where the monarch has real power, but the power is not hereditary (awarded by merit instead), and there’s a real, written, enforceable constitution that clearly limits his power (with a governmental authority that actually enforces those limits, who can actually remove the monarch from power if necessary). Again, this would be very bad, but less bad than a democracy.

  3. “Is a constitutional republic a good system? No! It’s a terrible system. Eventually these representatives will start ignoring the constitution and doing whatever the hell they want in order to get more votes. This is what happened in the United States.”
    CJ, don’t you think that this seriously weakens the claim that a constitutional republic is less bad than the other systems ? If it is more fair, but is inherently less durable and more prone to dissolution, then that should count as an *additional* con, which may cancel out its advantages over some other systems (to what extent I don’t know, but I’m bringing it up because I see it as a real flaw). What good is a “less bad” system that can’t sustain itself and therefore only adds (reversible !) value to a country for a very short time ?
    Maybe it isn’t the libertarian system that’s “best”, but the individual libertarian *attitude*, devoid of any ambition of a country-wide applicability.

    As an aside, do you still have the same opinion about how one should obey the law of the country he’s in (because jail is the opposite of freedom), as opposed to what Harry Browne said (that the state is so inefficient that you shouldn’t be afraid to break a law you disagree with, with some precautions) ?

  4. CJ, don’t you think that this seriously weakens the claim that a constitutional republic is less bad than the other systems ? If it is more fair, but is inherently less durable and more prone to dissolution, then that should count as an *additional* con, which may cancel out its advantages over some other systems (to what extent I don’t know, but I’m bringing it up because I see it as a real flaw). What good is a “less bad” system that can’t sustain itself and therefore only adds (reversible !) value to a country for a very short time ?

    That is a nitpick that I’m not going to bother to answer.

    do you still have the same opinion about how one should obey the law of the country he’s in (because jail is the opposite of freedom), as opposed to what Harry Browne said (that the state is so inefficient that you shouldn’t be afraid to break a law you disagree with, with some precautions) ?

    I have not changed my opinion. Of course I’m not going to worry about driving 10 miles over the speed limit and shit like that though.

  5. No, after all, I’m not feeling like acting neutral today.
    You’re not going to bother answering a legit objection to an economic/political system that is a cornerstone of both your blogs ? That’s absurd, unless you actually don’t have a response and prefer to handwave my comment as nitpicking. I read your blogs because I’m still in the process of developing opinions on these matters, and because you’re usually very rational and honest. Can’t say this isn’t a bit incongruent.

  6. Hi Caleb,

    1. I don’t disagree with this post but the only way to make it happen is for you to be emperor of the US for a month. Is there a realist way you or somebody else can think of (even a long shot) to make people vote for politicians who will likely take away their individual right to vote (unless they work much harder and study more) and to get politicians to pass laws that will prevent them to become reelected?

    2. Would you accept letting the “can’t” poor on welfare vote but not the “won’t”? The friend of a friend lost limbs in Afghanistan and now receives a paycheck from the state as he is unemployed and has ptsd. It will be really unfair IMHO to take away his right to vote after sacrificing so much for his country. And the same would apply to cops and firefighters and firefighters, and even perhaps to regular civilians who got into accidents that weren’t their fault.

    3. Reading your article about corporatism I see you oppose the use of both monetary and fiscal policy to influence the economy. This sounds like 19th century classical economics. Is there any XXI country who practises something close to this this or any important XXI economist you know of who recommends this?

  7. You’re not going to bother answering a legit objection

    Your objection isn’t legit. You’re pointing out a problem with a constitutional republic that I already enumerated in my article, and then are stating that because of that one problem, democracy (which also has a limited lifespan) is automatically less bad. That’s a nitpick.

    to an economic/political system that is a cornerstone of both your blogs ?

    Democracy nor constitutional republicanism is not a cornerstone to my blogs. How silly.

    That’s absurd, unless you actually don’t have a response and prefer to handwave my comment as nitpicking. I read your blogs because I’m still in the process of developing opinions on these matters, and because you’re usually very rational and honest. Can’t say this isn’t a bit incongruent.

    A. I don’t respond to nitpick points. B. I don’t like repeating myself. If that emotionally bothers you, great, go post on someone else’s blog.

    1. I don’t disagree with this post but the only way to make it happen is for you to be emperor of the US for a month.

    Correct.

    Is there a realist way you or somebody else can think of (even a long shot) to make people vote for politicians who will likely take away their individual right to vote (unless they work much harder and study more) and to get politicians to pass laws that will prevent them to become reelected?

    In the US or Europe as they stand today? No. That’s why these civilizations are fucked long-term.

    In some hypothetical future country? Sure. But you and I could speculate forever on that.

    2. Would you accept letting the “can’t” poor on welfare vote but not the “won’t”?

    Only if the can’t poor was gainfully employed and making their own money to support themselves (i.e. the “working poor”). Otherwise no.

    The friend of a friend lost limbs in Afghanistan and now receives a paycheck from the state as he is unemployed and has ptsd. It will be really unfair IMHO to take away his right to vote after sacrificing so much for his country.

    Ah yes, you pointed out a valid flaw in my system. Yes, wartime veterans who fought for the country would have to be exempted somehow if the reason they couldn’t work was directly caused by physical or psychological damaged they suffered during wartime. Good point.

    And the same would apply to cops and firefighters and firefighters

    Perhaps, but you’re stretching now.

    and even perhaps to regular civilians who got into accidents that weren’t their fault.

    Annnnnd now you’ve stretched it too far. No. How the hell do we define that it “wasn’t their fault?” That would be a logistical nightmare, and government sucks already. Nope, people with no income will almost always vote to get free stuff from other people; we can’t let them vote if our goal is freedom and prosperity. If our goal is socialism, then sure, let them vote, and in vast numbers.

    3. Reading your article about corporatism I see you oppose the use of both monetary and fiscal policy to influence the economy.

    In general, yes, but I’m not a hardcore Austrian; you could probably convince me that a little money printing might be okay under certain conditions and under massive constraints.

    This sounds like 19th century classical economics. Is there any XXI country who practises something close to this this or any important XXI economist you know of who recommends this?

    Ludwig von Mises was born in the 1800s, but is considered a 20th century economist. So other than that, I can’t think of anyone off the top of my head. Most of these guys (Hayek, Rothbard, Hazlitt, etc) are all in the 20th century.

  8. “You’re pointing out a problem with a constitutional republic” and “Democracy nor constitutional republicanism is not a cornerstone to my blogs”:
    No, I’m saying libertarianism is a cornestone of you blogs and that that’s what the system you’re advocating in this article stems from. When I said “what good is a system that can’t sustain itself etc”, I was clearly alluding to the fact that more libertarian states tend to be less able to further their existence than other states. That’s why I added [Maybe it isn’t the libertarian system that’s “best”, but the individual libertarian *attitude*, devoid of any ambition of a country-wide applicability]. That is anything but a nitpick, I’m referring a to a weakness in libertarianism-inspired political systems that makes them less durable than others.

    “and then are stating that because of that one problem, democracy (which also has a limited lifespan) is automatically less bad”
    No I didn’t. I said that *maybe* your system exceeds others in ONE of the drawbacks they have in common, lack of perennity. Whether that makes it worse than democracy was the question for me, not the conclusion.

    “If that emotionally bothers you”:
    Where did I look like I was emotionally bothered ? Because I said that something looked a bit incongruent to me ? You assume too much about why I comment, and you read hostility where none was meant. Anyway, this isn’t the first time you elude when a commenter brings up the lesser durability of libertarian systems, I just thought I’d have more luck. My mistake. Have a nice day.

  9. “Annnnnd now you’ve stretched it too far. No. How the hell do we define that it “wasn’t their fault?” That would be a logistical nightmare, and government sucks already. Nope, people with no income will almost always vote to get free stuff from other people; we can’t let them vote if our goal is freedom and prosperity. If our goal is socialism, then sure, let them vote, and in vast numbers.”

    1. A drunk driver crashes his car and becomes paralized, and before that crashing he runs over a hard working blue collar worker who also becomes paralized. In the first case it was his fault and in the second it wasn’t. I understand taking the right to vote in the first case but not the second, even if he is on welfare.
    2. Yes, it is would be a logistical nightmare and very expensive to distinguish each one, plus people would keep cheating the system to get free money instead of becoming productive members of society. But taking away their voting rights as a step to then take most welfare would put many “can’t” poor at risk of horrible living conditions and premature death (at least in my mid income country). Its a trade-off but I rather err on paying extra taxes than letting innocent people suffer. If private donors want to be fill the gap that would be much better but until then the state should help the needy while doing its best to incentivize the “won’t” poor to work harder/smarter.
    3. Btw, I currently pay a tax rate of around 12% and thats fine by me. I wouldn’t vote to have it reduced. Some goes to corrupt politicians pockets or ineficient bureocrasy but still, some helps the needy and allows the state to give vital services to the country. But if I lived in a welfare state that keeps 40% of my income I would ran for my life.

  10. A perfect system doesn’t need changing. Imho, if you are going to go towards the democracy route at least make it a proportional representation democracy which allows for more competition and more friction between parties so that laws don’t get easily passed. Also I would make it so that in order for a law/referendum to be passed it needs at least an 80% approval rate, not 51%.

  11. @GilGalad,

    What you’re saying doesn’t match reality.

    First, there is no fully libertarian nation, just like there is no fully communist nation. There is only a spectrum with countries moving from less statism to more statism.

    Second, the reason is that there aren’t many libertarian-esque nations is because they become very expensive that it makes the barrier for entry very hard. Switzerland, Luxembourg, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Singapore, Andorra, etc.. are way more libertarian than the US, most of these nations have economic DEFLATION not inflation, because their currency is so powerful. They are also against central banking or have a very lax central banking system. Central banks love to create inflation, because socialists love immigration as they need more and more poor to come to their countries and produce so they can pay off the older populations pensions since there is a declining birth rate (which ironically is also caused by socialism via feminism and gender equality).

    Switzerland for example doesn’t even have a head of state, instead it has a rotating council.

    So libertarian-esque do exist, yeah they’re not fully anarchist/libertarian, but they’re way close to that part of the spectrum than the rest of the world. Also, I think it’s a good think they’re extremely expensive, they weed out 90% of the dumb population who has a victim mentality and instead of improving itself, they want to drag the the winners down to their level with “equality”.

  12. Caleb,

    It was pretty amusing to hear the left screaming that Trump must accept the election results right before and then when they lost start saying “hey we don’t accept these results! Recount!!!”. You can’t make this shit up nowadays. The flip flopping at least use to span months or years-no they flip in a matter of hours.

    In regards to the electoral college, which of course the left hates now since it didn’t work in their favor, I don’t believe it’s a great system either BUT what are your thoughts on going from a winner take all to a proportional system? Take California for example-out of those 55 votes, not all would be Democrat (though obviously most would, let’s say maybe 40 Dem to 15 Republican. On the flip you could use Texas as an example. There would be some Dem votes in that state (cities like Austin). Seems like it’s a bit closer to fair but I haven’t flushed out the theory.

    Agree on the voting rules too-the age should be increased too. I don’t know about you but I didn’t know squat when I was 18 and had no business making decisions for the greater country. I’ve always said you should have some skin in the game to vote-be a citizen, employed, not a felon, etc…

  13. A drunk driver crashes his car and becomes paralized, and before that crashing he runs over a hard working blue collar worker who also becomes paralized. In the first case it was his fault and in the second it wasn’t. I understand taking the right to vote in the first case but not the second, even if he is on welfare.

    In a free and prosperous country with micro-low taxes and micro-low cost of living, that guy would be easily taken care of by his family, churches, and/or charities. Google “Calebjonesblog.com How To Handle The Poor” and read the three articles I wrote about that for more detail.

    If private donors want to be fill the gap that would be much better but until then the state should help the needy while doing its best to incentivize the “won’t” poor to work harder/smarter.

    It’s exactly because of democracy that private donors can’t fill the gap. Democracy = big government = shittier economy = high taxes and higher cost of living. In most “democracies,” private donors are too busy paying their own taxes and living expenses to help anyone else. This would not be the case in a country with a tiny government.

    But if I lived in a welfare state that keeps 40% of my income I would ran for my life.

    Yep. You just described my country. And yeah, I’m getting outta here.

    Imho, if you are going to go towards the democracy route at least make it a proportional representation democracy which allows for more competition and more friction between parties so that laws don’t get easily passed. Also I would make it so that in order for a law/referendum to be passed it needs at least an 80% approval rate, not 51%

    If you must have a “democracy,” then yes, I generally agree.

    It was pretty amusing to hear the left screaming that Trump must accept the election results right before and then when they lost start saying “hey we don’t accept these results! Recount!!!”.

    I know. It’s fucking pathetic. Welcome to the two party system. I can’t wait to get the hell outta here.

    In regards to the electoral college, which of course the left hates now since it didn’t work in their favor

    And if Hillary won the electoral vote but Trump won the popular vote by almost 3 million, the right would be against the electoral college too. It’s all bullshit and they’re all hypocrites.

    what are your thoughts on going from a winner take all to a proportional system? Take California for example-out of those 55 votes, not all would be Democrat (though obviously most would, let’s say maybe 40 Dem to 15 Republican. On the flip you could use Texas as an example. There would be some Dem votes in that state (cities like Austin). Seems like it’s a bit closer to fair but I haven’t flushed out the theory.

    I have an article coming up on the electoral college and I’ll talk about it then. I wanted to get this article on democracy up first, since it provides the context.

    Agree on the voting rules too-the age should be increased too. I don’t know about you but I didn’t know squat when I was 18 and had no business making decisions for the greater country. I’ve always said you should have some skin in the game to vote-be a citizen, employed, not a felon, etc…

    If you followed the system I outlined in the above article, the vast, vast majority of young people (18-24 or so) wouldn’t be able to vote, which would be a very good thing, yes.

    As I said, people who want dumb 18 year-olds voting in elections are people who want socialistic government.

  14. You consider Australia – a nation that is economically freer than 99% of the world – socialist? Interesting.

  15. You consider Australia – a nation that is economically freer than 99% of the world – socialist?

    1. Yes. Since pretty much the entire world is socialist to some degree, it’s not hard to be both socialist and economically free as compared to other shitty, socialist nations.

    2. Are you seriously implying that Australia is not socialist? (As always, when I say “socialist,” I mean the Western European flavor of socialism, not the “government owns all production” flavor.)

  16. How would it be decided who gets to determine what goes into the constitution?

    The founders of the country, via some kind of constitutional convention. Hopefully those founders would be people who wanted freedom instead of socialism.

  17. That question was to gauge how much of a free market guy you are. No implications – you’re hallucinating words into my sentence.

  18. That question was to gauge how much of a free market guy you are.

    I’m free market enough to know that Australia is obviously socialist even if it’s not quite as horrible as most other socialist nations.

  19. I love your ideas here.

    I think about this subject a lot. I’m a socialist libertarian. I believe in minarchism. The government should be as small as possible to fulfill the role that society requires from it.

    However where I differ from especially US libertarians, is the socialist part. I believe the government’s role is to enable freedom of all individuals a part of society, and be given powers necessary to do this.

    Therefore at a federal level:

    1. Military should exist but defensive only. Perhaps, only offensive in the case many nations agree that a rogue nation poses a threat to the safety/security/freedom of other nations (North Korea for instance).

    2. Capable of enforcing laws. These laws should apply to all entities, whether real human or paper corporation. Death sentence for people I’m not a fan of, but death sentence for corporations should exist. Corporations that willfully engage in activities that endanger or harm society should no longer exist. Liquidate all assets, and jail those who are responsible for the actions. This would strongly encourage corporations to not take advantage of their monetary / political power.

    3. Only be constitutionally allowed to enact laws that protect / enable freedom of individuals (not corporations).

    4. Be responsible for societal safety nets. No individual should be denied the opportunity of a standard quality of life due to hardships outside of their choice and control. Born disabled to a poor family? You should be entitled to aid from society. I suffer from mental health conditions that only through my exceptional talent am I able to get away with some of the things that would get others fired… and I am lucky because of that. Had I not been so lucky, I would be homeless and struggling just to survive (rather than struggling to maintain a consistent quality of life).

    5. Social responsibilities of the government should include health care / protection and aid due to natural disasters / law enforcement, etc.

    6. A monopoly on infrastructure development and maintenance, with a mandate to minimize costs while maximizing utility. Roads, telecom infrastructure, utilities infrastructure, etc. Service providers can be private, but the development and maintenance of the infrastructure should be owned by the government and leased to the service providers.

    7. Income scaled punishments for violations of the law. Make $10,000 a year and get a speeding ticket? $100 fine. Make $100,000 a year and get a speeding ticket? $1,000 fine.

    Lot of other miscellaneous things as well. The more local you get, the more power the government should have. State level should be only a little be more so than the government level. City level should be least restricted.

  20. And never forget, “the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship”… but good luck finding a competent benevolent dictator…

  21. Remember that (direct) Democracy =/= Representative Government.

    What most people call “Democracy” is actually a shitty Representative Government structure. Indirect Democracy is a mountain of bullshit: it’s Direct Democracy or it’s not Democracy.

    Direct Democracy along with many of the points you bring up would be awesome IF (and only if) each city had a population small enough for the government to be able to really deal with every situation that comes up directly, without stupid, useless representatives who represent only themselves (and their corporative interests).

    The farther a government official is from the people they are governing, the more corrupt and incompetent they are. That’s why I’m for Direct Democracy.

  22. At some point in your post, you changed “economic freedom” into “freedom”. It must be the one freedom you care about the most, or the only one.

Leave a Reply

To leave a comment, enter your comment below. PLEASE make sure to read the commenting rules before commenting, since failure to follow these rules means your comment may be deleted. Also please do not use the username “Anonymous” or “Anon” or any variation thereof (makes things too confusing).

Off-topic comments are allowed, but Caleb will ignore those.

Caleb responds to comments in person, but he only does so on the two most current blog articles.

Related Posts

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search.