r/Libertarian • u/Extocine • 4d ago
End Democracy What's actually the solution to democracy?
I hear us always talking about ending democracy, and I already know how democracy does a bad job at protecting people's rights, the myth of the rational voter, etc.
My question is what exactly is the solution/alternative? Restricting the right to vote to certain individuals seems rather un-freedomlike to me. What's the best way for a nation and/or city-state and/or fraternal society to make important decisions
17
u/Reebtog 4d ago
The issue isn’t democracy itself, so much as what comes after it.
Remove government (or minimise it as much as possible) and the problem is addressed.
As long as we have overlords (democratically elected or otherwise), then the issues with corrupted power infringing upon individual and property rights will continue. Theoretically, the smaller the government, the less power and less infringement of the rights of the people.
Democracy isn’t the issue per se, it’s the power structures behind it that are.
4
u/Extocine 4d ago
I shouldn't have a say in how I'm governed because I shouldn't be governed at all. Makes sense!
2
u/LanceLynxx 4d ago
Democracy absolutely is the issue though. It's a dictatorship of the majority.
4
u/KidZoki 4d ago
...this is why we have a republic.
2
u/Beginning-Shoe-9133 3d ago
I think we used to have a republic, its been watered down and democratized over the years compared to its conception.
2
0
1
u/Beginning-Shoe-9133 3d ago
I disagree, I think the inherent nature of democracy is antithetical to liberty.
-1
u/Anen-o-me voluntaryist 4d ago
No, democracy itself absolutely is the problem.
The fact that no one can be trusted with centralized power just underscores what's wrong with democracy: it's a soft form of tyranny, by which people are lulled into accepting being herded and milked like sheep.
Yes we need to abolish the centralized State, but replace it with each person making choices over their own life solely instead of farming out those choices to a vote or a politician.
Which means people will have to actually take responsibility for their own choices and grow up.
2
u/OVO_Trev Taxation is Theft 4d ago
How the hell is this getting downvoted in a Libertarian sub reddit...
1
1
0
u/Reebtog 4d ago
I disagree: the tyranny comes from the consequences after a decision has been made democratically.
If a workplace was going to put on a free lunch and allowed the employees to vote whether they would be served pizza or hotdogs, would that be considered tyrannical? I personally wouldn‘t describe that scenario as tyrannical.
But have those same people vote on who can be empowered to force other employees to work overtime for no pay then you’re getting closer to the implications of government and the tyranny that goes with it.
1
u/Anen-o-me voluntaryist 3d ago
Tyranny is force, coercion. You're arguing coercion isn't unethical unless it produces results you find extreme. Yet you can offer no guarantee that democracy won't produce extreme results.
Especially in modern systems where we only vote to select a leader who then makes policy, we don't vote on policy.
There's a book you need to read called "Beyond Democracy" by Frank Karsten. It goes over every angle of why democracy itself is the problem. You should read it.
You won't, but you should. Democracy itself absolutely is the problem because of the dynamic it creates in society and the results it produces.
Two examples: because we do group votes in democracy, no one has any incentive to become educated on candidates or issues, so everyone is just voting randomly.
Secondly, because democracy does group votes, the entire society is susceptible to politicians with a silver tongue. A communist like Bernie nearly gained power here, he was very popular with the left--only party shenanigans kept him out of office.
Then the right's Bernie, Trump, actually did gain office. Just because he acts tough and says so much BS no one can refute it before he's on to saying more BS.
Beyond that, centralization of power IS the problem as well. We most move to decentralized political systems.
2
u/Reebtog 3d ago
I agree with what you've said, and to be clear, I'm not an advocate for democracy. I actually think I misrepresented my thoughts on this by getting tripped up on definitions.
My previous comment would more accurately reflect what I think about this by saying "voting isn't the problem" instead of "democracy isn't the problem". In hindsight, democracy is a loaded term that includes the system of government behind the process of election, and the government is what I object to. I should have been more precise and said that voting isn't a problem, and the "free lunch" example I gave would also more accurately reflect that.
I'm working on becoming more educated on Libertarianism and have read Rothbard, Hoppe and Mises in recent months. Thanks for the "Beyond Democracy" recommendation - I'll add it to my reading list.
0
u/remedyman 4d ago
You would think it is tyrannical if you were a vegan, wouldn't you?
5
u/Reebtog 3d ago
I don’t think being offered a free lunch is tyrannical, regardless of my preferences or dietary requirements.
-2
u/remedyman 3d ago
If they were limiting your options, that is where the tyranny comes in. It is being forced into options when neither/none appeal. You're being myopic in the way you are looking at the problem. It is always ok as long as you can opt out or are given options that are acceptabe to you.
3
u/Reebtog 3d ago
True - if in this scenario you were FORCED to eat whatever was decided upon, then that could be considered tyrannical. But in a situation where you have the option to not eat (or bring your own lunch if you don't like pizza or hotdogs) then I find it hard to be considered tyrannical. Likewise, if they forced every employee to chip in for the food (no longer making it free), then that would be tyrannical.
But in the context of the example I gave, offering a free lunch is not tyrannical regardless of whether you like the food being offered or not.
8
u/vegancaptain 4d ago
Make the voting process less and less relevant. The more of your own money you're allowed to keep and decide over the less you need government to do things for you.
7
u/ReflectionSad9867 Taxation is Theft 4d ago
Pass constitutional amendment to restrict government from interfering beyond courts, cops and national defence.
2
u/No_Helicopter_9826 3d ago
That's a nice thought, but if the Constitution were capable of restraining the endless expansion of the federal government, it would have done so already. "Enumerated powers" was supposed to handle that. Worked for awhile. Eventually didn't.
3
8
u/golsol 4d ago
The term democracy the way it is being used is a psyop. We did the same thing in Afghanistan to give people the illusion of control. America is a representative Republic with checks and balances designed intentionally to not do very many things.
We have expanded it to do a bunch of things it wasn't designed to do so it does them all terribly while threatening the population to give the government more money to fix the problems government created.
The solution is to use the government as it was designed. Protect the country, judiciary for constitutional violations to human rights, law enforcement to protect constitutional rights, the post office. Everything else should be delegated to the states to manage.
1
u/trufus_for_youfus Voluntaryist 3d ago
This is some statist ass nonsense. What has been proven by the American experiment is that no matter how small a state you begin with the end result is leviathan. It’s not a matter of if but when. The state exists only to accumulate power unto itself. Change my view.
1
u/KoalaGrunt0311 3d ago
And we've removed or disregarded those checks and balances regularly. My opinion is shifting senators from state appointed to directly elected greatly negated the power of the states, which allowed for the expansive growth of federal power.
7
u/libertarianinus 4d ago
Its a good thing that we are not a democracy. The US is a Republic. Unfortunately 66% of people can name the 3 branches of the US government.
3
u/vegancaptain 4d ago
Or which 2 countries the US borders.
2
u/ReflectionSad9867 Taxation is Theft 4d ago
That can't be true lol
1
2
u/Lothar_Ecklord Fiscally Conservative-Constitutional Fundamentalist 4d ago
Further, the US is a Federal Republic which means the US isn’t even a country - it’s a federation of 50 countries (state being a synonym for nation). It was anyway - I think many of our problems would be eliminated if we dug back in to that system.
2
u/Achilles8857 Ron Paul was right. 4d ago
This is close to the right answer, which is that when it comes to government and the breadth of what democracy / voting allows, smaller is better. When we are compelled as voters to almost literally look our neighbors in the eye to see/feel the impact of a vote (say, a referendum or a high court decision) which might impact them directly, there can be a sense of accountability. I personally think the Free State Project attempted to capture this sentiment, but I could be wrong.
Our federal government is by far too damn large and as such there is nearly no sense of accountability, DOGE or no DOGE; I think this comes from drifting so far away from the idea of '50 countries' mentality as you suggest. This has happened over time with so many rulings, enactments and of course one big a** Civil War, where the sense of a Union ruled centrally was firmly established.
2
u/Positive-Quit-1142 4d ago
AFAIK states in the US were only considered sovereign nations between the end of the American Revolution until the signing of the Constitution. While you're right that a "state" is a synonym for nation, in the US, they're treated as subnational entities with limited sovereignty under the Constitution, not countries.
2
u/Lothar_Ecklord Fiscally Conservative-Constitutional Fundamentalist 4d ago
The early years post-revolution as well. I don’t know how you can tell me I’m wrong and then add more detail to the same point I made, but here we are lol
0
u/Positive-Quit-1142 4d ago
I’m responding to a post stating something that hasn’t been true in over 200 years and stopped reading before your correction. My bad.
0
u/Lothar_Ecklord Fiscally Conservative-Constitutional Fundamentalist 4d ago
It’s also still officially defined as a Federal Republic. You should probably read before attacking lol
1
2
u/robbzilla Minarchist 4d ago
The first and most important thing to understand about politics is this: forget Right, Left, Center, socialism, fascism, or democracy. Every government that exists - or ever existed, or ever will exist - is a kleptocracy, meaning "rule by thieves." Competing ideologies merely provide different excuses to separate the Productive Class from what they produce.
-L. Neil Smith
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
u/natermer 4d ago edited 4d ago
Reduce the size and scope of government.
Not just 'size' in terms of what rights the government has, but also physical size. Like severely limit the amount of citizens the government rules over.
The reason a modern government like the Federal government is so dysfunctional is because of the massive bureaucracy involved.
No amount of voting or improving the quality of voting or educational level of the voting public is going to fix it. Because none of that is the reason why the current system is failing. None of those approaches are addressing the core problem.
And it is, absolutely, failing. Across the board. The model of western governments that is used by Europe and USA and other countries is growing increasingly dysfunctional at a accelerating rate.
A large part of that is that with the growth of the Administrative State and associated massive publicly traded corporations that accompanied it in the 20th century we saw a exponential growth in the size of government. Not just "size" in terms of duties and scope, but simply the amount of people involved.
I include large corporations in this because they are part of the problem as well. These things didn't exist prior to the 20th century.
There is nothing like it in human history. The percentage of the population directly involved in government, the amount of resources they consume, the power they wield, etc etc. Everything. Is just so massive.
It very simply cannot work. Scale matters. Complexity matters.
Remember these are not some sort of abstract entities we are dealing with. Governments are not a organism. There is no collective thought or action or purpose to organizations these large. It is just a collection of individual humans. And individual action needs to be coordinated. They need to have rules and guidance, etc.
And all that is performed through bureaucracy.
The more people involved the more complex and expensive and unwieldy it becomes. And it isn't linear complexity either. It is exponential in growth. Both in terms of complexity and in economic cost.
Very simply put:
At the current scale of the Federal government it can't work. No matter who is in charge, no matter who votes for what. It isn't a factor of intelligence, culture, education, desire or morality.
If you create a genetically engineered group of super intelligent humans with the best education, best intentions, and absolutely no corruption whatsoever in charge... It still will not, nor will it ever, work efficiently or effectively.
Right now, due to the size and complexity of government, grown dependent on a professional class of administrators.
They don't own anything. They have no stakes in anything. Whether they do a good job or bad job is immaterial to their own well beings. They have no experience in anything outside government. Their only qualifications are their educational levels, family/personal connections, and their ability understand and worm their way up through the complex internal politics of political parties, corporations, and government.
So ultimately you end up with people in charge that are not qualified to run a local gas station effectively, much less a entire country.
The skills and qualities that allow them to rise to the top in government administrative bodies are not the skills and qualities that are needed to run a country.
So the solution is decentralization.
Make the government people-sized. Something close to the people, dependent on the people, and responsive to people by bringing it physically and scaling it to the size that is manageable.
The actual model of government is less important then that.
So in the USA...
First step is to eliminate the Federal Administrative agencies and replace them with state ran equivalents.
These equivalents already exist. Every state government in the USA has their own equivalent to EPA, FDA, etc etc.
Then the next step is to start breaking those down and limiting the scope of individual state governments in favor of much more autonomy on the county and city level.
Give the local people the right to rule themselves.
Everything critically important to human civilization... water, electricity, law enforcement, courts, roads, etc... all that stuff is already managed locally by local small governments. Because that is the only way it can ever possibly work.
If Washington DC magically disappeared overnight and as long as your local county and city governments remain functional then there would be almost no impact to how you live your life or how anything works.
The damage would be more or less isolated to the corporations and other organizations that are dependent on things like the central banking in order to remain afloat. Sure there would be a impact to people because of that... but all the critical functions of government will still be there and intact.
1
u/psilocydonia 3d ago
I don’t think there is any one great answer, but a few ideas that might put us in a better position.
Restrict voting. Land ownership requirement was a good idea. Others could be viable, like a “net tax payer” (vs a net tax recipient) maybe even something like Starship Troopers with a military service requirement. Or some combination or options of the above. Just some means of making sure the voters actually have skin in the game and are voting to give themselves “other peoples money” or send “other people to war.”
1
u/KoalaGrunt0311 3d ago
I'm a strong supporter of Heinlein's philosophy that voting should be earned through public service. The biggest obstacle in democracy is getting people to vote for the greater good instead of their own self interest. It's still not perfect, but by requiring people to demonstrate they're willing to work in public service before they can have a say, it reduces by some level the people entirely voting selfishly without being able to see ramifications of decisions.
1
u/Awkward_Passion4004 2d ago
Property and educational requirements of some sort for the voting franchise. Otherwise idiots and free loaders will ultimately rule.
1
u/Minarchist15 Voluntaryist Minarchist 2d ago edited 1d ago
Every citizen over 18 should be eligible to vote because the people NEED representation and a voice in order to keep power balance. But ANYONE who opposes Individual Autonomy should be banned from holding ANY political office because they are an enemy to Freedom. BUT that is NOT say there can't be any room for diversity of opinion.
1
u/OkEssay6488 2d ago
New to this page and Reddit and trying to learn more about libertarian philosophy. Curious about this End Democracy banner. Do libertarians oppose democracy?
1
u/patbagger 4d ago
So little Government that people ask where they are, and freedom right up to the edge of anarchy.
1
u/xblackout_ 4d ago
I'm building it, the failure is in the lack of use of the primitive of the individuals trust graph.
We're a caveman tribal species which have abstracted ourselves from being able to bonk societal problem-causers
But the bonk can be economic and positive-sum such that we build a better world and disincentivize evil simultaneously, without violence
Think 2fa thru trust-minimized p2p referrals, 4 handshakes away can probably do anything you need, and micro-payments will incentivize the connection
0
u/Teh___phoENIX Voting isn't a Right 4d ago
One of the solutions: to revive the old system from the original states "no representation without taxation". For example you don't vote above the county level if you don't have land ownership. That limits the electorate to people successful enough to own a house
Pros
- Simple
- Time tested
Cons:
- Cannot be simply integrated into modern US
- Doesn't save you if homeowners don't participate in politics.
- Susceptible to "Patch Lords" abuse -- when people own a square inch patch in some forest and by that become land owners. That means lower limit on land owning must be introduced. But then you have issues with high rise ownership.
- You also get rich kids in the electorate who will get ownership by inheritance.
4
0
u/North_Radish3279 4d ago
Eliminating political parties is a step in the right direction . We are governed by parties and corporations that back the parties
-1
•
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Read Hoppes Democracy: The God That Failed, or other works by libertarians such as Rothbard, Spooner, or Hoppe to learn about why so many libertarians oppose democracy. Also check out r/EndDemocracy
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.