Democracy is only a good idea if everyone participating in said democracy is educated, moral, and rational.
We don't live in such a world.
Thread
Login to reply
Replies ()
Yes, and in addition:
1. Introducing central banks and moneyprinting will corrupt any system of governance, and democracy in particular.
Politicians buying votes with promises of expensive benefits, aid or relief, paid for with printed money, is a race to the bottom toward totalitarianism, with ever rising cost of living and centralization of power.
Every regulation comes with downstream calls for increased surveillance in order to enforce the regulation. The regulatory state is the surveillance state.
2. Democracy requires a jurisdiction small enough that the voters know the representatives they are voting for and that the distance is sufficently small that there is accountability; harmful decisions must have severe consequences.
3. In a small enough jurisdiction, who wins an election is not the end of the world when you can just vote with your feet and travel a few hours to a nearby jurisdiction where your work and your savings are better appreciated.
I think the last point here is crucial. If jurisdictions are small enough, it doesn't matter that much what type of governance it has, as long as people can vote with their feet with a plethora of options.
Small competing jurisdictions under a Bitcoin (free market) economy will lead to lower taxes, greater individual rights and freedoms, regardless of its ruling system, since any government will need to consider the cause and effect of any particular policy.
- Will a policy cause productive people and valuable skills and resources to move in or out of the jurisdiction?
That's the ultimate evaluation of how deeply a policy is anchored in voluntary consent.
Over time, I believe that long-lasting governments that implement neutral, fair, free market policies with strong property rights protections will have an edge over governments that change every 4 years, since uncertainty is a gamble for entrepreneurs while a positive certainty is a magnet for entrepreneurs.
Imagine a solid government with sound policies that will not change for 20 years, versus a solid government with sound policies that may change in the next 4 years. Which is more attractive?
Yes most everything should be administered at the county level. That's where most taxes should go and where most decisions should be made.
By the way if you hold this belief it classifies you as a radical extremist by the FBI.
If they see you expressing such views it will get you added to certain lists.
Heh. While I am not American, I'd say that 100% of decisions and sovereignty should be at the county or municipality level, with some room for variance here for practical purposes.
With the Dunbar number at 150, adding too many orders of magnitude to that number in population size for a jurisdiction will naturally have negative consequences. We may not know the exact cutoff point where a sound population size turns into a negative in regards to jurisdiction size, but that lack of precise knowledge doesn't change the inherent problems involved.
Quality of discussions on Nostr is 1000x better than traditional social media.
View quoted note →
Fascism is the most demonized form of governance, primarily because it's the sole system that doesn't decay with time.
It's up to the leader fo maintain, and strengthen, the government by ensuring they don't install incompetent or maliciously duplicitous people to powerful positions. Otherwise, every action they take is guaranteed to be undermined.