Libertarians have been critiquing (and proposing alternatives to) democracy for a long time. Read Spooner, Hoppe, or Rothbard.
https://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrl8YorTa1U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM
r/EndDemocracy
r/unacracy
A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced.
It's a bit of a joke that we have the Bill of Rights yet:
1. Every cop in the country is allowed to seize the cash in your car, as if it was another fucking legal entity, violating the 5th amendment
2. The NSA basically wiretaps the entire world, violating 4th amendment.
3. Getting raped and stabbed in prison is so common it's a joke, violating the 8th amendment.
4. Some states forcing the non-custodial parent to keep their current high paying job to keep paying alimony / child support at prior levels, or face jail time, violating the 13th amendment. If anyone wants to quit out of spite for any reason, that's their freedom to do so.
5. Brittney Spears, a fully cogent adult, basically forced into indentured servitude (conservatorship) with the full backing of the California courts, violating the 13th amendment.
I completely agree with basically everything you wrote but my concern is that we are supposed to have your exact system. The issue is that all it takes is 4 people in DC to say the words in the Bill of Rights don’t mean what the words say, and suddenly the right no longer exists. So how do we get from where we are today, to a system which actually defends its Bill of Rights?
The Judges were suppose to defend the Bill of Rights, but they pretty much have just legal jargoned or excused around it.
Plus the entire enforcement of it when it's actually enforced is ass backwards. A state can pass a blatantly unconstitutional law violating civil liberties, and it takes someone getting fucked over by it to have standing to sue, and then it takes a year to get to the Supreme Court. After that person wins, the State legislators that passed it doesn't even get punished or censured, it just removes the law.
So a few changes:
1. All laws, local and federal, must pass judicial constitutional review before going into effect. The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution.
2. Supreme Court can force the Congress to create an amendment to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution. Rather than what they have been doing, which is legislate from the bench based on personal interpretation. Basically sequester all of Congress like a Jury until they figure out the answer to the question, with enough consensus to pass the ruling as an amendment. For example, deciding on abortion rights and limits.
3. Consequences for violating the constitution. Whether it's banning a legislator or judge from the profession, to actual prison time if harm was done and the violation was intentional. This might be enforced by a separate branch of the Judiciary.
>The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution.
Absolutely need this. I'm not even American and it pisses me off that there's debate over whether the 2nd Amended excludes a certain calibre of gun. Laws need to be created to account for human stupidity and smart people trying to bend the law to suit their own agenda.
I feel like “shall not be infringed” was perfectly clear and given everything else in the 2nd, it couldn’t be any clearer. Judges don’t misinterpret it. The destroy it deliberately. How do we stop that?
Louisiana just passed a bill requiring all public schools to display the 10 commandments- waiting on the governor’s signature. This is unconstitutional and people’s heads should literally roll for this.
States were supposed to have leeway, the BoR is a limit on federal power. States were supposed to be little political experiments. It's a stupid law but still.
>The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution.
We have something in place that is supposed to guard against that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine?wprov=sfla1
However, it isn't used as aggressively as it ought to be.
All you needed to write as your response was
“Consequences”.
There’s no point to a democracy (which eventually devolves into chaos) or a constitutionally backed democratic “republic”… (which seems to have a shelf life of about 200 years before it rots)… without CONSEQUENCES.
Thanks to liberalism, corporatism and the rejection of universal moral values (we used to go to church on Sunday’s even if we didn’t believe) currently we have ZERO consequences, unless you’re a straight white, successful businessman who occasionally goes to church… in which case you WILL be punished… for… something…
But libertarianism doesn’t reinforce consequences because we water down morality. I LOVE the idea of libertarianism but I think it requires everyone to have the same cultural respect for a singular moral compass… otherwise where does everyone mutually end up agreeing on “do no harm”?
And WHICH moral compass do you pick for all amongst a bunch of free spirits who can’t agree on anything else except “do no harm”? … and God forbid I bring up religion here. (Queue the atheists breaking out in hives).
So there’s a rough repeating loop & road to nowhere.
It doesn’t matter if 4 people in DC or 400 million people all over the country say a right doesn’t exist. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others, exist. And not just because of our citizenship but because of our humanity.
The government will not defend these rights because it limits their power. They have no incentive to abide by this 250 year old document, and every incentive to violate it.
“But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”
- Lysander Spooner
It is up to us, the people, to vigilantly and vehemently oppose attempts to usurp our power. And… we the people have failed.
Protest. Nullify. Become ungovernable.
>It is up to us, the people, to vigilantly and vehemently oppose attempts to usurp our power. And… we the people have failed.
We are not enough. A new system is needed.
If millions of individuals fighting tooth and nail to take back their power isn’t enough, then we’re hopeless regardless of the system. It will always devolve into some overreaching tyranny like we have today.
“A republic, if you can keep it.” We couldn’t keep it.
Can you think of a system that inherently retains the power of the individual instead of chipping away at it “for the greater good”?
I can’t. Maybe I don’t have the imagination for it, or maybe systems by definition are collectivist.
We don’t need a new system, we need no system.
>It will always devolve into some overreaching tyranny like we have today.
Only in centralized systems, not in decentralized ones. Decentralized systems like unacracy are the 'no system' you're talking about.
>A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced.
It doesn't work, and your own examples prove it.
The reason it cannot work is that there is a structural flaw at the root of the political dysfunction you're highlighting. By this I mean that the structure of power must change in order to fix this flaw. And the structure of power that needs to change is ***centralization of power***.
We need to decentralize power and put it back into the hands of each individual. In this day of the internet you do not need a REPRESENTATIVE anymore. Representatives were relied upon because of *communication barriers* that do not exist anymore.
Decentralize and choose for yourself. That is the core concept of unacracy.
Because of the centralization flaw you get the other flaw you noticed, that rights are not enforced. Why? Because the bill of rights is a limit on those in power, yet because they have all the centralized power all you can do is charge the very same people with the responsibility to *respect their own limits of power*.
They're like kids in the candy store, eager to seize more power and money when you're not looking, and all they need is an **inevitable crisis** to justify seizing more of both with public approval.
Run that process forward a few hundred years and the USA will be converted into a tyranny of absolute power.
There exists no mechanism to force them to respect your rights. Courts are no guarantee, they are part of this same structure of power.
But decentralization does give you that power, by letting you walk away at any time.
The USA, and elsewhere, can get away with a great deal of bullshit because people become citizens at birth and cannot easily just leave.
But a decentralized political system is one where you must *opt-in* to even become part of it, and can leave at will.
This effectively means you choose what legal system you want to live under, you choose directly.
When you choose law, instead of having laws chosen for you, that is the difference between being told you are free and **being free**.
"A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced."
That's Utopian lol You will never get a criminal organization to work for you.
>5. Brittney Spears, a fully cogent adult, basically forced into indentured servitude (conservatorship) with the full backing of the California courts, violating the 13th amendment.
Whoa! Brittney is not a mentally capable adult.
She's an adult. And if people take advantage of her financially, her family has standing to sue those who ripped her off, provided they can prove the other party did deals in bad faith.
You have a few options but saying “republic” is a ridiculous response many have given. There is no recognition that representatives are DEMOCRATICALLY elected. I believe your question is “with what would you replace a system of democratic elections”.
I have discussed this here before and hope I can recall what I said in the past. Unlikely
Option 1: abolish the state
Anarchism is very theoretical. But at the same time, it may also be the most moral state of human existence as it denies anyone a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But reality being what it is, we might as well ask for the Moon. It is just not realistic even if it is moral/ethical
Option 2: monarchy
A hereditary monarch who is both the head of state and government. Often referred to as an absolute monarchy. The problems here are obvious. Mostly, people will not accept this even if it is explained as how H-H Hoppe describes it in Democracy The God that Failed. Please note, he is not advocating monarchy. He only points out it is better than democracy.
Option 3: mixed government confederation
The idea here is that there are so many forces acting against one another that liberty is preserved. It does not eliminate democracy. It does not eliminate oligarchy or monarchical tendencies (such as the U.S. president). Instead, it uses each of these groups with their separate sources of authority to prevent the worst excesses of the other two.
Then, combined with a confederal system whereby the constituent states and central government each oppose the excesses of the other, one might be able to mitigate the worst tendencies of the other and prevent the other from usurping too much power and infringing upon liberty.
Bottom line, you cannot eliminate democracy outright so a decentralized system with a true mixed government may be the best we can accomplish.
>Option 1: abolish the state
It's not ready in the sense that the US could stop its current system and transition to anarchy overnight, no.
But that is where we need to get it to.
Think of the eastern block countries leaving communism and building free capitalist democracies overnight!
That kind of radical systemic change IS POSSIBLE if the system is known to be workable and proven.
So our job is obviously to build it in the small scale right now and prove it works.
I suggest seasteading is the ideal test bed.
If we keep this constitutional republic bullshit, then we need a more democratic way of dealing with our so called representatives. I want the option to defer to a representative but I also want the option to vote directly for or against any bill of my choosing. I don’t want the responsibility of reading legal documents but on our “representatives” are easily bought. If they represented us, non-partisan laws that the citizens want would pass more frequently. We do not have democracy. We have democracy theater.
I would suggest a feat of strength, something like that or something magical.
But strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever gonna be any progress…
The problem is that democracy must be subordinate to human rights and it currently isn't. There must be hard limits on what kinds of laws can exist.
The bill of rights in the US is sort of like this but doesn't go far enough. Imagine if the government could never infringe on a citizens right to own guns no matter what anyone voted. Imagine if it just wasn't an option.
I’d propose we return to some of our original checks and balances. The modern republic is more democratic than the founders intended. They studied Greece and Rome and understood both had merits; and they tried to balance them.
State representatives should elect Senators again. This would return power a lot of power to the States and also provide a way to stop money from other states from influencing your elections.
Additionally, I don’t think everybody should be allowed to vote. It is not an inalienable right that your opinion should matter, only that you can have one. I think there should be a list of things you could do to earn you a vote. Ex. Military service, hold a job, bear a child, own a business, own property (this one was OG). The original concept was that you had to have skin in the game in order to be heard. Some random who’s contributed nothing to society doesn’t get a vote. The biggest issue with this is it provides an easy avenue for corruption. I’d like each state to make their own list and have as much local influence over the decision of who can or cannot .
While we’re at it we can abolish income tax again
I like what you say but if a state can make the rules as to whom can vote that’s were you could get some states that would disenfranchise, those they may consider in there political rivals parties from voting. But I like the aspect that you gotta have skin in the game though that makes the government know more about you then I’m even comfortable about.
For sure. I think I mentioned it provides an easy avenue for corruption. I would still be in favor of anti-discrimination laws being enforced by the federal government. Nothing is perfect. Like economics, there are only tradeoffs imo.
(I am from Turkey, so my statement may differ from the US mentality.)
First of all, I find Democracy fundamentally very flawed and wrong; Democracy is an illusion dear community members, Democracy is just a dictatorship of the majority and the majority is always stupid.
The regime I wish to be established instead of Democracy is; that there is no monopoly power other than the law, and that the only duty of the state is to protect the regime by agreeing with the law and the military. It is a regime in which an individual cannot be prosecuted unless he violates the individual rights of another individual without his consent. I believe that the way to achieve this is to establish a Libertarian Council, thank you.
95% of the takes you get in here directly are anti-libertarian, so that should give you some onus to the user base.
Most are edgy teens trying to be active in politics, understanding there is portions of government they do not like, and are interpreting that as being libertarians. There's a few handfuls of people who are very well versed in political theory, but most are rug-lickers.
Gang rape is democracy. A constitutional Republic really is ideal as it limits government and promotes individual freedoms but this modern America is a corrupted shell of its origins.
The origins you speak of counted some people as 3/5ths of a person. You're largely free to do as you please in this country as long as you don't impede on the freedoms of others.
It’s not a direct democracy it’s a representative democracy in a constitutional republic, that’s the current system. Replace it? In my opinion nah, just update it with some amendments on what the morons in congress can do…
A social order in which initiation of uninvited physical interference against peoples' persons and property are illegal: a free market order. For a more elaborated view, I recommend Chase Rachel's *A Spontanous Order: the capitalist case for a Stateless society*.
What happens when your mind is caged for so long is that you can't fathom a world with no cage. It's just unimaginable to you. Its like living in the Matrix. What you have to do is step back and think what if ..... nothing was there to attempt to control you. Would you rape and murder? Probably not. First, because most of us aren't murderers, second because some of us would then assert our natural born right to defend ourselves.
What you would do is adapt and continue on with your life but with a weird sense of ....... freeeedom. Somethings would get weird, people would start walking in the middle of the street because no cops are there to arrest them. But then a few close calls with my truck and they will learn sidewalks are safer. Some people will abuse the freedom and become annoying to others. But this stuff already happens. It would just be of a different form
anyway, go sit down and think.
I’ve spent a decent amount of time thinking about it in the past and I think we have a historical example to point to. At the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the local wealthy elite built their own forces of defense and local defenses built. This evolved into the feudalism of the Middle Ages where those local wealthy elite became kings and absolute monarchs.
My question is, without government, what stops Jeff Bezos from conquering California and naming himself king?
I never said local warlords wouldnt try to seize power. What you have there is another group of people trying to institute their version of government on everyone else. Its the same thing we have now. Right now you have 2 mobs with power fighting to control everyone else. Democrats want all your money and property to pay for their nonsense ideas. Republicans want to shove Jesus down your throat and tell you how its their moral highway or prison.
In a free society you better have the ability to protect yourself. Thats what makes it free. Today you just think you are free. You are not. You can't even earn a living without government stealing it by printing money.
What prevents the State from doing that? Why should we want an expropriating property protector to avoid the possibility of an expropriating property protector?
What prevents those who protect rich peoples' property from just stealing said rich peoples' property?
Clearely there are people who want to make money through the honest work of protecting property, which hinges on one's reputation of not stealing from those you protect from.
A republic.
The will of the majority should NOT be the supreme authority. The supreme authority should be a written understanding of freedom and natural rights.
The United States is supposed to be a republic. Our founding philosophies are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution which are the supreme authority here - even over and above a majority vote.
Unfortunately, we've been trending further and further away from those principles and closer and closer to the mentality that the majority can do whatever it wants.
Here's a whole sub full of reasons, plus the side bar even has books on it.
r/enddemocracy
Short answer? It gives the majority power to control you which means you're not free but a part slave to the majority. Also, the very idea of 'majority rule' is inherently anti-individualist and pro-collectivist, and therefore gives a political advantage to all collectivist policy, which is why the USA continually slides left politically and towards communism.
If you want the socialists to win, you need only continue supporting democracy. Time is on their side.
The solution is a political system premised on *individualism* and that means majority-rule must go, and with it all forms of democracy.
Our task is to discover what an individualist political system looks like and operates like.
This will complete the task of the enlightenment and create a new era of Liberty for humanity.
A real republic is not a "representative democracy" - it's a government based on supreme law or stated principle.
I am against democracy. It's a silly idea to think that people have moral authority over one another by simple virtue of their larger numbers. I can tolerate arbitrary decisions being made by vote, or officials being chosen by popularity, but I firmly reject any concept along the lines of the majority being the supreme authority.
Technically "Democracy" = direct Democracy i.e. popular vote. We live in a Republic, which is similar but less primitive because it's based on representative votes in the end.
I'm not an anarchist so I don't believe in zero government, but anarchists will tell you that the free market is more than enough to accomodate what we use conventional voting to accomplish. I don't disagree, however my opinion is that the vast majority of people will voluntarily choose to let some of their wealth be stolen (taxed) in order to pay for publicly owned property, laws, and law enforcement. The response may be "fuck the majority"; okay then leave. Go somewhere else.
Instead of erasing government and career politics entirely here's what I think makes more sense:
* Stricter term limits - 3 years max and 1 term only for all elected offices.
* Take big money out of politics. No more PACs or lobbying.
* Extremely strict word count & page limits on bills, and of course no more omnibus bills stuffed full to burst with pork intended to steal even more money from the people.
* Get rid of fiat currency.
That’s not true though. The use of the term “direct democracy” is an admission that direct democracy is a form of democracy and not the full definition. Democratic republic is another form of democracy. Democracy just means that power is derived from the vote.
In a similar vein, republic does not necessarily need to be a democracy. It just means representatives of a population make decisions. Similarly, these representatives could be selected by an autocratic board and chosen to represent a population similar to how China operates.
I bring this up because I know of no country on earth that is a direct democracy. So saying you’re against direct democracy feels like saying you’re against Hitler running the United States. It may be true but it’s hardly a meaningful point or a bold stance to take
I understand that, however when I say "Democracy" (in quotations) = direct Democracy, I'm trying to account for the fact that many people, not even just libertarians, think "direct Democracy" when they hear the word "Democracy". Yes it's ambiguous and it sucks but it's a very important distinction to be aware of when conversing about the topic. If there's anyone responsible for conflating Democracy to be as broad as it is, you can thank leftists.
The very idea that a majority should get to tell the majority what to do is an expression of *might makes right* and inherently unethical already.
At the very least the majority should choose what it wants and then allow the minority to choose what it wants as well and create parallel systems.
Sure but that's kind of missing the point. Libertarians are against both democracy and representative democracy i.e. a republic, so what's the point of bringing that up?
Constitution with a voting system more similar to what we had. Send the senator choice back to state representatives and open local politics voting to all residents.
I've been working on a system that is closer to a bicameral shareholder system where those that own hold longer, more solid representation in exchange for exclusion from the representation that actually exacts/proposes law.
I propose we look at what policies are put in place and how are they being prevented from being undermined by corruption, and just not even care about what system we’re using. If everyone can afford rent and groceries, and people aren’t being killed in their homes by secret police, and it’s not going to fall apart in a few decades, then it could be a dictatorship for all I care.
Use a lottery to pick representatives. For example anyone who lives in a district can put their name in them every two years a name is drawn and that person goes to Congress for 2 years. The Senate could be done the same way. This eliminates many of the problems inherent to the current system in the US
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others.
Democracy doesn't need to be replaced. We have an amazing constitution and it should be followed and changed when needed. Changing the constitution to restore fiscal sanity seems like a #1 priority in this environment.
Decentraloze government.
No need to elect federal or even regional establishment, people can control their local governments and there will be no rule of 51% over 49%, because all decisions will affect much smaller part of the society .
I don't propose we replace it. We have to reverse the attack on our liberty culture by fascists and big tech.
As long as you have a liberty culture - and believe in the bill of rights and promote restraint, then democracy overlays well.
I’m in favor of granting certain individuals the privilege of voting, but only the few who I deem to be sensible individuals. And before anyone comments, yes this is by far my most narcissistic political opinion.
Just a short list of who I think shouldn’t have the privilege of voting:
- Those who voted for either Biden or Trump in the primaries. Both these candidates suck and proof that democracy is a flawed system.
- Those who use science as proof that human caused climate change from carbon emissions is real, while simultaneously denying that a fetus is biologically a human being at the moment of conception. OR Vice versa. Both of these statements have 95% consensus among the scientific community, so I find those who support one but deny the other are often ideologues who lack reason or logic. Should not have the right to vote. (Note: agreeing or disagreeing with both statements doesn’t indicate a policy stance, one can believe in climate change but be against government intervention, just as one can believe life begins at conception while still being pro-choice)
3. People over the age of 85.
4. People younger than 25.
5. People who receive government contracts, direct assistance or who have government debt.
I would personally be in favor of people getting votes proprotionally to taxes paid. No taxation without representation.
This would solve many problems, one of which is people voting themselves money.
More like merit based democracy. Tbh I do find it pretty bad that everyone has equal voting power. Politicians just go influence the most gullible people and in most cases win elections only based off of that.
Would this not create a perpetually widening wealth gap? The rich vote for policies that make them richer and the poor poorer, and win because their votes are worth more. This makes them richer, making their votes worth more, meaning they win more elections, etc.
Do you not see rich people today constantly lamenting the plight of the poor, donating millions of dollars, setting up their wealth not to be inherited by offspring but donated to charities? No, I do not believe it would lead to this outcome you think it would lead to.
Libertarians have been critiquing (and proposing alternatives to) democracy for a long time. Read Spooner, Hoppe, or Rothbard. https://www.riosmauricio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Hoppe_Democracy_The_God_That_Failed.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrl8YorTa1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k12teOokSqM r/EndDemocracy r/unacracy
A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced. It's a bit of a joke that we have the Bill of Rights yet: 1. Every cop in the country is allowed to seize the cash in your car, as if it was another fucking legal entity, violating the 5th amendment 2. The NSA basically wiretaps the entire world, violating 4th amendment. 3. Getting raped and stabbed in prison is so common it's a joke, violating the 8th amendment. 4. Some states forcing the non-custodial parent to keep their current high paying job to keep paying alimony / child support at prior levels, or face jail time, violating the 13th amendment. If anyone wants to quit out of spite for any reason, that's their freedom to do so. 5. Brittney Spears, a fully cogent adult, basically forced into indentured servitude (conservatorship) with the full backing of the California courts, violating the 13th amendment.
I completely agree with basically everything you wrote but my concern is that we are supposed to have your exact system. The issue is that all it takes is 4 people in DC to say the words in the Bill of Rights don’t mean what the words say, and suddenly the right no longer exists. So how do we get from where we are today, to a system which actually defends its Bill of Rights?
The Judges were suppose to defend the Bill of Rights, but they pretty much have just legal jargoned or excused around it. Plus the entire enforcement of it when it's actually enforced is ass backwards. A state can pass a blatantly unconstitutional law violating civil liberties, and it takes someone getting fucked over by it to have standing to sue, and then it takes a year to get to the Supreme Court. After that person wins, the State legislators that passed it doesn't even get punished or censured, it just removes the law. So a few changes: 1. All laws, local and federal, must pass judicial constitutional review before going into effect. The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution. 2. Supreme Court can force the Congress to create an amendment to clarify ambiguity in the Constitution. Rather than what they have been doing, which is legislate from the bench based on personal interpretation. Basically sequester all of Congress like a Jury until they figure out the answer to the question, with enough consensus to pass the ruling as an amendment. For example, deciding on abortion rights and limits. 3. Consequences for violating the constitution. Whether it's banning a legislator or judge from the profession, to actual prison time if harm was done and the violation was intentional. This might be enforced by a separate branch of the Judiciary.
>The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution. Absolutely need this. I'm not even American and it pisses me off that there's debate over whether the 2nd Amended excludes a certain calibre of gun. Laws need to be created to account for human stupidity and smart people trying to bend the law to suit their own agenda.
I feel like “shall not be infringed” was perfectly clear and given everything else in the 2nd, it couldn’t be any clearer. Judges don’t misinterpret it. The destroy it deliberately. How do we stop that?
No income tax fell way faster than that.
Louisiana just passed a bill requiring all public schools to display the 10 commandments- waiting on the governor’s signature. This is unconstitutional and people’s heads should literally roll for this.
States were supposed to have leeway, the BoR is a limit on federal power. States were supposed to be little political experiments. It's a stupid law but still.
>The new law also can't be ambiguous or have possible loop holes that might be misinterpreted to violate the constitution. We have something in place that is supposed to guard against that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness_doctrine?wprov=sfla1 However, it isn't used as aggressively as it ought to be.
All you needed to write as your response was “Consequences”. There’s no point to a democracy (which eventually devolves into chaos) or a constitutionally backed democratic “republic”… (which seems to have a shelf life of about 200 years before it rots)… without CONSEQUENCES. Thanks to liberalism, corporatism and the rejection of universal moral values (we used to go to church on Sunday’s even if we didn’t believe) currently we have ZERO consequences, unless you’re a straight white, successful businessman who occasionally goes to church… in which case you WILL be punished… for… something… But libertarianism doesn’t reinforce consequences because we water down morality. I LOVE the idea of libertarianism but I think it requires everyone to have the same cultural respect for a singular moral compass… otherwise where does everyone mutually end up agreeing on “do no harm”? And WHICH moral compass do you pick for all amongst a bunch of free spirits who can’t agree on anything else except “do no harm”? … and God forbid I bring up religion here. (Queue the atheists breaking out in hives). So there’s a rough repeating loop & road to nowhere.
It doesn’t matter if 4 people in DC or 400 million people all over the country say a right doesn’t exist. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others, exist. And not just because of our citizenship but because of our humanity. The government will not defend these rights because it limits their power. They have no incentive to abide by this 250 year old document, and every incentive to violate it. “But whether the constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” - Lysander Spooner It is up to us, the people, to vigilantly and vehemently oppose attempts to usurp our power. And… we the people have failed. Protest. Nullify. Become ungovernable.
>It is up to us, the people, to vigilantly and vehemently oppose attempts to usurp our power. And… we the people have failed. We are not enough. A new system is needed.
If millions of individuals fighting tooth and nail to take back their power isn’t enough, then we’re hopeless regardless of the system. It will always devolve into some overreaching tyranny like we have today. “A republic, if you can keep it.” We couldn’t keep it. Can you think of a system that inherently retains the power of the individual instead of chipping away at it “for the greater good”? I can’t. Maybe I don’t have the imagination for it, or maybe systems by definition are collectivist. We don’t need a new system, we need no system.
>It will always devolve into some overreaching tyranny like we have today. Only in centralized systems, not in decentralized ones. Decentralized systems like unacracy are the 'no system' you're talking about.
People behave to be willing to stand up
Exactly, it's a flawed concept.
>A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced. It doesn't work, and your own examples prove it. The reason it cannot work is that there is a structural flaw at the root of the political dysfunction you're highlighting. By this I mean that the structure of power must change in order to fix this flaw. And the structure of power that needs to change is ***centralization of power***. We need to decentralize power and put it back into the hands of each individual. In this day of the internet you do not need a REPRESENTATIVE anymore. Representatives were relied upon because of *communication barriers* that do not exist anymore. Decentralize and choose for yourself. That is the core concept of unacracy. Because of the centralization flaw you get the other flaw you noticed, that rights are not enforced. Why? Because the bill of rights is a limit on those in power, yet because they have all the centralized power all you can do is charge the very same people with the responsibility to *respect their own limits of power*. They're like kids in the candy store, eager to seize more power and money when you're not looking, and all they need is an **inevitable crisis** to justify seizing more of both with public approval. Run that process forward a few hundred years and the USA will be converted into a tyranny of absolute power. There exists no mechanism to force them to respect your rights. Courts are no guarantee, they are part of this same structure of power. But decentralization does give you that power, by letting you walk away at any time. The USA, and elsewhere, can get away with a great deal of bullshit because people become citizens at birth and cannot easily just leave. But a decentralized political system is one where you must *opt-in* to even become part of it, and can leave at will. This effectively means you choose what legal system you want to live under, you choose directly. When you choose law, instead of having laws chosen for you, that is the difference between being told you are free and **being free**.
And the 10 th amendment
Good points. But Brittany is seriously unwell…
"A Constitutional Republic where the Bill of Rights is actually enforced." That's Utopian lol You will never get a criminal organization to work for you.
>5. Brittney Spears, a fully cogent adult, basically forced into indentured servitude (conservatorship) with the full backing of the California courts, violating the 13th amendment. Whoa! Brittney is not a mentally capable adult.
She's an adult. And if people take advantage of her financially, her family has standing to sue those who ripped her off, provided they can prove the other party did deals in bad faith.
You have a few options but saying “republic” is a ridiculous response many have given. There is no recognition that representatives are DEMOCRATICALLY elected. I believe your question is “with what would you replace a system of democratic elections”. I have discussed this here before and hope I can recall what I said in the past. Unlikely Option 1: abolish the state Anarchism is very theoretical. But at the same time, it may also be the most moral state of human existence as it denies anyone a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. But reality being what it is, we might as well ask for the Moon. It is just not realistic even if it is moral/ethical Option 2: monarchy A hereditary monarch who is both the head of state and government. Often referred to as an absolute monarchy. The problems here are obvious. Mostly, people will not accept this even if it is explained as how H-H Hoppe describes it in Democracy The God that Failed. Please note, he is not advocating monarchy. He only points out it is better than democracy. Option 3: mixed government confederation The idea here is that there are so many forces acting against one another that liberty is preserved. It does not eliminate democracy. It does not eliminate oligarchy or monarchical tendencies (such as the U.S. president). Instead, it uses each of these groups with their separate sources of authority to prevent the worst excesses of the other two. Then, combined with a confederal system whereby the constituent states and central government each oppose the excesses of the other, one might be able to mitigate the worst tendencies of the other and prevent the other from usurping too much power and infringing upon liberty. Bottom line, you cannot eliminate democracy outright so a decentralized system with a true mixed government may be the best we can accomplish.
>Option 1: abolish the state It's not ready in the sense that the US could stop its current system and transition to anarchy overnight, no. But that is where we need to get it to. Think of the eastern block countries leaving communism and building free capitalist democracies overnight! That kind of radical systemic change IS POSSIBLE if the system is known to be workable and proven. So our job is obviously to build it in the small scale right now and prove it works. I suggest seasteading is the ideal test bed.
I hope it can happen someday.
If we keep this constitutional republic bullshit, then we need a more democratic way of dealing with our so called representatives. I want the option to defer to a representative but I also want the option to vote directly for or against any bill of my choosing. I don’t want the responsibility of reading legal documents but on our “representatives” are easily bought. If they represented us, non-partisan laws that the citizens want would pass more frequently. We do not have democracy. We have democracy theater.
I would suggest a feat of strength, something like that or something magical. But strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Be quiet!
Who made you king? I didn't vote for you!
The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Oh, king eh? Very nice. And how’d you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. If there’s ever gonna be any progress…
Shut up! Will you shut up?! [grabs, shakes peasant] Bloody pleasant!
We should replace democracy with the free market. I resent the fact that people who contribute nothing are able to vote me into poverty.
Exactly so.
The problem is that democracy must be subordinate to human rights and it currently isn't. There must be hard limits on what kinds of laws can exist. The bill of rights in the US is sort of like this but doesn't go far enough. Imagine if the government could never infringe on a citizens right to own guns no matter what anyone voted. Imagine if it just wasn't an option.
I think when people say constitutional republic, they dismiss the representative democracy part and just want a constitution with no public.
Anything but what's happening now. They aren't even trying to hide the bullshit
I’d propose we return to some of our original checks and balances. The modern republic is more democratic than the founders intended. They studied Greece and Rome and understood both had merits; and they tried to balance them. State representatives should elect Senators again. This would return power a lot of power to the States and also provide a way to stop money from other states from influencing your elections. Additionally, I don’t think everybody should be allowed to vote. It is not an inalienable right that your opinion should matter, only that you can have one. I think there should be a list of things you could do to earn you a vote. Ex. Military service, hold a job, bear a child, own a business, own property (this one was OG). The original concept was that you had to have skin in the game in order to be heard. Some random who’s contributed nothing to society doesn’t get a vote. The biggest issue with this is it provides an easy avenue for corruption. I’d like each state to make their own list and have as much local influence over the decision of who can or cannot . While we’re at it we can abolish income tax again
I like what you say but if a state can make the rules as to whom can vote that’s were you could get some states that would disenfranchise, those they may consider in there political rivals parties from voting. But I like the aspect that you gotta have skin in the game though that makes the government know more about you then I’m even comfortable about.
For sure. I think I mentioned it provides an easy avenue for corruption. I would still be in favor of anti-discrimination laws being enforced by the federal government. Nothing is perfect. Like economics, there are only tradeoffs imo.
I wish I could upvote this more than once. Been saying these same points for years.
(I am from Turkey, so my statement may differ from the US mentality.) First of all, I find Democracy fundamentally very flawed and wrong; Democracy is an illusion dear community members, Democracy is just a dictatorship of the majority and the majority is always stupid. The regime I wish to be established instead of Democracy is; that there is no monopoly power other than the law, and that the only duty of the state is to protect the regime by agreeing with the law and the military. It is a regime in which an individual cannot be prosecuted unless he violates the individual rights of another individual without his consent. I believe that the way to achieve this is to establish a Libertarian Council, thank you.
Burada da yakaladım. :=)
Reddit pek küçük bir platform, değil mi :D?
95% of the takes you get in here directly are anti-libertarian, so that should give you some onus to the user base. Most are edgy teens trying to be active in politics, understanding there is portions of government they do not like, and are interpreting that as being libertarians. There's a few handfuls of people who are very well versed in political theory, but most are rug-lickers.
Ancap is not anti libertarian, it is fully consistent libertarianism.
How the hell did you get that from what I said? See above comment and guess where you fit.
Anarchy. Maybe damyos and clans
Gang rape is democracy. A constitutional Republic really is ideal as it limits government and promotes individual freedoms but this modern America is a corrupted shell of its origins.
The origins you speak of counted some people as 3/5ths of a person. You're largely free to do as you please in this country as long as you don't impede on the freedoms of others.
We are all tax slaves now, so they didn't get much better....
Now we keep 3/5 of our income.
It’s not a direct democracy it’s a representative democracy in a constitutional republic, that’s the current system. Replace it? In my opinion nah, just update it with some amendments on what the morons in congress can do…
A social order in which initiation of uninvited physical interference against peoples' persons and property are illegal: a free market order. For a more elaborated view, I recommend Chase Rachel's *A Spontanous Order: the capitalist case for a Stateless society*.
What happens when your mind is caged for so long is that you can't fathom a world with no cage. It's just unimaginable to you. Its like living in the Matrix. What you have to do is step back and think what if ..... nothing was there to attempt to control you. Would you rape and murder? Probably not. First, because most of us aren't murderers, second because some of us would then assert our natural born right to defend ourselves. What you would do is adapt and continue on with your life but with a weird sense of ....... freeeedom. Somethings would get weird, people would start walking in the middle of the street because no cops are there to arrest them. But then a few close calls with my truck and they will learn sidewalks are safer. Some people will abuse the freedom and become annoying to others. But this stuff already happens. It would just be of a different form anyway, go sit down and think.
I’ve spent a decent amount of time thinking about it in the past and I think we have a historical example to point to. At the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the local wealthy elite built their own forces of defense and local defenses built. This evolved into the feudalism of the Middle Ages where those local wealthy elite became kings and absolute monarchs. My question is, without government, what stops Jeff Bezos from conquering California and naming himself king?
I never said local warlords wouldnt try to seize power. What you have there is another group of people trying to institute their version of government on everyone else. Its the same thing we have now. Right now you have 2 mobs with power fighting to control everyone else. Democrats want all your money and property to pay for their nonsense ideas. Republicans want to shove Jesus down your throat and tell you how its their moral highway or prison. In a free society you better have the ability to protect yourself. Thats what makes it free. Today you just think you are free. You are not. You can't even earn a living without government stealing it by printing money.
So if I understand you correctly, you wish for the free society but you recognize that it can’t exist long term? Or am I misinterpreting your words?
Consent of the governed
Or, more immediately, what stops your local private security force/gang from taking everything you have?
What prevents the State from doing that? Why should we want an expropriating property protector to avoid the possibility of an expropriating property protector? What prevents those who protect rich peoples' property from just stealing said rich peoples' property? Clearely there are people who want to make money through the honest work of protecting property, which hinges on one's reputation of not stealing from those you protect from.
We don’t need democracy, we need to restore the Republic to an actual land of freedom.
A republic. The will of the majority should NOT be the supreme authority. The supreme authority should be a written understanding of freedom and natural rights.
How is this republic different than the one practiced in the United States?
The United States is supposed to be a republic. Our founding philosophies are spelled out in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution which are the supreme authority here - even over and above a majority vote. Unfortunately, we've been trending further and further away from those principles and closer and closer to the mentality that the majority can do whatever it wants.
Federal government has too much power. FDR’s policies started this mess
I disagree. We should be against all forms of democracy, including representative democracies or republics
Why. Put out your reasoning out there.
Here's a whole sub full of reasons, plus the side bar even has books on it. r/enddemocracy Short answer? It gives the majority power to control you which means you're not free but a part slave to the majority. Also, the very idea of 'majority rule' is inherently anti-individualist and pro-collectivist, and therefore gives a political advantage to all collectivist policy, which is why the USA continually slides left politically and towards communism. If you want the socialists to win, you need only continue supporting democracy. Time is on their side. The solution is a political system premised on *individualism* and that means majority-rule must go, and with it all forms of democracy. Our task is to discover what an individualist political system looks like and operates like. This will complete the task of the enlightenment and create a new era of Liberty for humanity.
A real republic is not a "representative democracy" - it's a government based on supreme law or stated principle. I am against democracy. It's a silly idea to think that people have moral authority over one another by simple virtue of their larger numbers. I can tolerate arbitrary decisions being made by vote, or officials being chosen by popularity, but I firmly reject any concept along the lines of the majority being the supreme authority.
Freedom
What does that look like in a government?
It doesn't. It looks like the absence of government. People interacting consensually rather than living as tax slaves for their sociopathic overlords.
Technically "Democracy" = direct Democracy i.e. popular vote. We live in a Republic, which is similar but less primitive because it's based on representative votes in the end. I'm not an anarchist so I don't believe in zero government, but anarchists will tell you that the free market is more than enough to accomodate what we use conventional voting to accomplish. I don't disagree, however my opinion is that the vast majority of people will voluntarily choose to let some of their wealth be stolen (taxed) in order to pay for publicly owned property, laws, and law enforcement. The response may be "fuck the majority"; okay then leave. Go somewhere else. Instead of erasing government and career politics entirely here's what I think makes more sense: * Stricter term limits - 3 years max and 1 term only for all elected offices. * Take big money out of politics. No more PACs or lobbying. * Extremely strict word count & page limits on bills, and of course no more omnibus bills stuffed full to burst with pork intended to steal even more money from the people. * Get rid of fiat currency.
That’s not true though. The use of the term “direct democracy” is an admission that direct democracy is a form of democracy and not the full definition. Democratic republic is another form of democracy. Democracy just means that power is derived from the vote. In a similar vein, republic does not necessarily need to be a democracy. It just means representatives of a population make decisions. Similarly, these representatives could be selected by an autocratic board and chosen to represent a population similar to how China operates. I bring this up because I know of no country on earth that is a direct democracy. So saying you’re against direct democracy feels like saying you’re against Hitler running the United States. It may be true but it’s hardly a meaningful point or a bold stance to take
You are correct. People trying to deny the democracy label are in full cope mode.
I understand that, however when I say "Democracy" (in quotations) = direct Democracy, I'm trying to account for the fact that many people, not even just libertarians, think "direct Democracy" when they hear the word "Democracy". Yes it's ambiguous and it sucks but it's a very important distinction to be aware of when conversing about the topic. If there's anyone responsible for conflating Democracy to be as broad as it is, you can thank leftists.
One more: end the Fed.
True
People are evil, direct democracy will immediately involve the majority oppressing the other.
The very idea that a majority should get to tell the majority what to do is an expression of *might makes right* and inherently unethical already. At the very least the majority should choose what it wants and then allow the minority to choose what it wants as well and create parallel systems.
Sure but that's kind of missing the point. Libertarians are against both democracy and representative democracy i.e. a republic, so what's the point of bringing that up?
So true. It's cope.
Constitution with a voting system more similar to what we had. Send the senator choice back to state representatives and open local politics voting to all residents. I've been working on a system that is closer to a bicameral shareholder system where those that own hold longer, more solid representation in exchange for exclusion from the representation that actually exacts/proposes law.
I propose we look at what policies are put in place and how are they being prevented from being undermined by corruption, and just not even care about what system we’re using. If everyone can afford rent and groceries, and people aren’t being killed in their homes by secret police, and it’s not going to fall apart in a few decades, then it could be a dictatorship for all I care.
> different from the current system 17th amendment
Use a lottery to pick representatives. For example anyone who lives in a district can put their name in them every two years a name is drawn and that person goes to Congress for 2 years. The Senate could be done the same way. This eliminates many of the problems inherent to the current system in the US
You're still being RULED. You can't fix democracy by just changing the system of how your RULER gets selected.
What do you replace a tumor with?
That’s not an answer or a proposal
I think what they are saying is you replace the bloated and parasitic government with nothing. Can’t be sure though
What would you replace cancer with?
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others. Democracy doesn't need to be replaced. We have an amazing constitution and it should be followed and changed when needed. Changing the constitution to restore fiscal sanity seems like a #1 priority in this environment.
The constitution creates an all powerful centralized government. What's 'amazing' about that for libertarians?
a republic
How is your republic different than a democratic republic?
Decentraloze government. No need to elect federal or even regional establishment, people can control their local governments and there will be no rule of 51% over 49%, because all decisions will affect much smaller part of the society .
https://preview.redd.it/k6xh62chm11d1.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=ed3310697777b6eac2770c51127a49df0665ddfa
Nothing
I don't propose we replace it. We have to reverse the attack on our liberty culture by fascists and big tech. As long as you have a liberty culture - and believe in the bill of rights and promote restraint, then democracy overlays well.
Communism. They want communism.
I’m in favor of granting certain individuals the privilege of voting, but only the few who I deem to be sensible individuals. And before anyone comments, yes this is by far my most narcissistic political opinion. Just a short list of who I think shouldn’t have the privilege of voting: - Those who voted for either Biden or Trump in the primaries. Both these candidates suck and proof that democracy is a flawed system. - Those who use science as proof that human caused climate change from carbon emissions is real, while simultaneously denying that a fetus is biologically a human being at the moment of conception. OR Vice versa. Both of these statements have 95% consensus among the scientific community, so I find those who support one but deny the other are often ideologues who lack reason or logic. Should not have the right to vote. (Note: agreeing or disagreeing with both statements doesn’t indicate a policy stance, one can believe in climate change but be against government intervention, just as one can believe life begins at conception while still being pro-choice) 3. People over the age of 85. 4. People younger than 25. 5. People who receive government contracts, direct assistance or who have government debt.
I would personally be in favor of people getting votes proprotionally to taxes paid. No taxation without representation. This would solve many problems, one of which is people voting themselves money.
So then poorer citizens would have less voting power? People who aren't able to work have zero voting power?
So a more oligarchical democracy would be your proposal?
More like merit based democracy. Tbh I do find it pretty bad that everyone has equal voting power. Politicians just go influence the most gullible people and in most cases win elections only based off of that.
Would this not create a perpetually widening wealth gap? The rich vote for policies that make them richer and the poor poorer, and win because their votes are worth more. This makes them richer, making their votes worth more, meaning they win more elections, etc.
Do you not see rich people today constantly lamenting the plight of the poor, donating millions of dollars, setting up their wealth not to be inherited by offspring but donated to charities? No, I do not believe it would lead to this outcome you think it would lead to.
There would be provisions stopping people from funneling the money back to themselves, if that's what you are asking.