This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Democracy And Its Contradictions
The next in a continuing series (most recently: Evil and the State).
Submitted by Free Radical
Democracy and Its Contradictions
Democracy, as Churchill said, “is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time,” the assumption being that because the state is the only conceivable form of government (and therefore necessary for civil society to exist), the democratic state is the best state, even if it is merely the best among bad ones. This flies in the face, of course, of the godlike esteem in which democracy is held around the world, both by those who are ruled by such states and by those who yearn to be. Democracy, after all, is based on “the proposition that the legitimacy of all political power arises from, and only from, the consent of the governed, the people”i – the assumption being that the democratic state embodies this noble proposition.
The problem, however, is that while the people’s consent in a democratic state is supposedly expressed through the right to vote – through the so-called “ballot” – consent has little if anything to do with the process:
Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.
What does it mean, in other words, to vote within the confines of that which one had no vote in creating and when those confines, therefore, cannot legitimately – i.e., in a morally justifiable manner – rule over one? Even assuming that those confines are minimal (though none are, of course, even if they were so conceivedii), what moral authority or obligation can such confines have? What authority or obligation, that is, can political constitutions have?
The answer, simply put, is none. The United States Constitution, for example,
… has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living [long] ago. … Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. … And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves.
Moreover:
As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all.
Just as representative democracy is a farce, then, so is the constitutionalism that attends it. For what constitutions are based on is not self-determination but pre-determination, which, under the best of circumstances, merely provides the means by which such consent as is presumed to have been given can accordingly be withdrawn.
Even so, the nation founded on this supposedly unalienable right no longer recognizes it. For notwithstanding the fact that there is no actual law prohibiting self-determination – up to and including secession – the United States Government has made it clear that it will pursue secessionists to the point of genocide on the presumption that preserving the Union is paramount to all other concerns. A “Civil War” was fought over this very point, after all,iii at a cost of over 600,000 lives and an untold destruction of property, at the conclusion of which the selfsame government was forced to abandon its prosecution of the secessionists’ leader, realizing that to do so would be to expose the fallacy of its argument: “The federal government knew that it could not try [Confederate President Jefferson] Davis for treason without raising the constitutional issue of secession.” iv
Nonetheless, a century and a half later, the U.S. Government staunchly maintains its position (without having to openly defend it) and does so with full knowledge that its erstwhile adversary, the former Soviet Union, and its present one, China, each cited the Civil War as their authority for using force to keep their own governments intact:
Perhaps the most dangerous legacy of the war was the Northern claim that it could use force and go to war to prevent any state from withdrawing from the Union. This has haunted us in the past decade and will continue to do so, as the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev claimed the right to use force to hold his union together and cited Abraham Lincoln as good authority for doing so. In 1999, the Chinese premier reminded President Clinton that he had the right to use force to hold China together, to go to war to reclaim Taiwan, and he too cited Abraham Lincoln as good authority. v
But such is the logic of the state that it seeks to perpetuate itself at any and all cost, and thus does the democratic state fall victim to its own hypocrisy. For any state that denies its people the right of self-determination is totalitarian, the more so in accordance with how far it will go to deny that right. And while 600,000 lives are but a small fraction of those lost in the lie that was the USSR, insofar as the USA fell victim to the lie of forced union, its atrocities differ only in degree, not in kind.
Moreover, insofar as forced union in America enabled the rampant statism that soon included the fraud of centralized, fractional-reserve banking, the death toll from decades of government-induced poverty might well be in the millions. After all, the Great Depression – which, contrary to the received truth, was both perpetrated and perpetuated by the U.S. Government’s own policies – caused the premature deaths of countless Americans, to say nothing of how many lives will be needlessly foreshortened and otherwise ruined by the time the present economic calamity – also a direct result of the U.S. Government’s own policies – finally exhausts itself.
To its credit, the government of Canada did not prevent one of its constituent provinces from holding a referendum on secession. And no matter that the referendum failed (except, that is, to the 49.42% who voted in favor of it), the fact that it was allowed at all is commendable. Ask any official of the United States Government whether its citizens have this right, however, and they will be at a loss for words,vi knowing that to deny the right is to deny the nation’s founding principle, while to affirm it is to open the floodgates of the Government’s demise and thereby jeopardize the official’s sustenance through “the political means.”
Many will argue, of course, that the contradictions of any particular democratic state are insufficient to deny the validity of the democratic ideal. And while the cynic might reply that just because the democratic state doesn’t work in practice doesn’t prove that it can’t work in theory, let us eschew cynicism and simply ask the question that Thoreau asked: “Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last possible improvement in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?”
Of course it is, and it begins with the recognition that the right of self-determination is just that – a right of the self and thus of the individual, the real, present, and perpetual acknowledgement of which is the only constitution that has any moral authority or obligation. For only then does “the consent of the governed” have any genuine meaning; only then can “the action of the organs of the state” be held in check; and only then can the stage be set for what would otherwise be impossible – “The Transition to a Free Society” – which we will address in my next submission.
i Robert Nisbet, The Quest for Community: A Study in the Ethics of Order & Freedom, ICS Press, 1990 (Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 220.
ii “It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. ... Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go. ... In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
iii There is no denying that slavery was an important issue, nor is there any defending the institution itself. Neither is there any denying, however, that the nation’s new president held slavery inviolate in the states where it was still practiced or that he was as racist as any other American of his time, Northern or Southern.
iv Charles Adams, When In the Course of Human Events, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000, Chapter 12, “The Trial of the Century that Never Was,” p. 178.
v Ibid., pp. 228 and 229.
vi With one notable exception, of course.
»
- 8912 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I agree and would add that one principle of a democratic republic is that it's formed to serve the people, not the other way around. Statism not.
So...Can we safely assume that Sodom did not have a principled democracy?
What sort of government did Sodom have? :)
Perhaps we should find out before salt goes into backwardation...
???: you got $$$ to withdraw from???:
ok, give rocKy a kiss from us all!
hey, toy boy, ya know what SONY stands for? after the nuke, rocky went into japan and set his crystal meth radio set!
S:standard
O:oil
N:nouveax
Y:yorkish, dorkisss:
YouTube - James Brown- blues brothers
got CASH???
peace.
Cranky
It wasn't "principles" that made America work. It was freedom and our own natural (animal) social rules. Doesn't matter if it's a constitution, republic or democracy they are ALL the same monopoly power structure and open to corruption by parasites (where we're at both in US and Europe).
Criminals will tear up any rule book, as Washington has done with international law regards war and as Wall Street are now doing regards fraud.
Nothing you can write in a rule book saves anybody.
Society works with freedom, no State or monopoly power structure required. We are naturally social 99.9999% of the time, no State, law, judiciary or police required. We have come through 2 million years of development 98% of it without this false contruct of the State and democratic Govt. We don't need it now and never needed it for the past 5 centuries. Man is self sufficient and self progressing, Govt has fuk all to do with it
"Nothing you can write in a rule book saves anybody."
Agree.
5,000,000 laws on the books don't help when people abandon a handful of core principles.
That is because you read the comments before I wrote mine.
A republic is a form of government. Democracy is a political ideology.
On your supposedly working US, that fabled past, those famous principles, you will bet a better luck when accepting factual observations.
You will have a hard time finding times when the US respected its principles.
Easy time finding occurrences when the US selectively respected its principles.
There is indeed a cause behind the success of the US and that is expansion.
As the world is finite, well...
I think your Braveheart is in the right place Free Radical, but a little anarchist sounding, and lacks some underpinnings..... can't dance to it. Nisbet was an interesting anti-statist though.
The US Constitution derives it's sole authority from each individual sovereign, whose individual rights and authority come from an eternal deity (your choice) and, therefore, cannot be taken away. Our Constitution is essentially a contract by said sovereigns with our self-formed government: 1) to define the government as the public servant, 2) whose purpose is to protect said rights, 3) and to limit the power of the government from transgressing those rights itself. In a Utopian world that is the plan, but we wisely get to keep our guns just in case the government fucks up and can't follow instructions.
Correction: The Civil War was fought to end the abomination of slavery and restore the rights of individual sovereigns that never should have been taken away. The "state" is the public servant --- it doesn't have the authority to secede and kidnap a mass poplulation of sovereigns to avoid recognizing their rights and keep them as slaves. (Canada had slaves too)
When our Democrat Party of slaveowners declared expansion of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854, people spontaneously rose up and formed the anti-slavery party within 6 months. In six years the newly formed Republican party controlled congress, and the White House, and in 90 days of Lincoln's inauguration Dems started the shooting war. The American Civil War was the only time in the history of the world one race/class fought it's own over another race/class.
Yes, hundreds of thousands of white religious Republicans fought and died in a war against the democrat slave owners, so that black men and women could be free (somebody tell Al Sharpton). Some things are worth fighting for and that one confirmed that individual sovereignty is for everybody -- especially over the state, which is the servant.
Take a look at history and pick which Superpower you would rather today: Egypt, Greece, Rome, Persia, China, Monguls, Zulus, Vikings, Mayans, Maoris, Spain, Britain, France, Germany, Japan, or Soviet-Russia?
Greeks trained for war from birth and the Maoris were warrior cannibals. Eating your heart out over that?
shit or go blind, friend. (your choice, 0' course):
YouTube - James Brown- blues brothers
got CASH???
peace.
>Nisbet was an interesting anti-statist though.
You should try reading Rothbard.
>individual rights and authority come from an eternal deity
Um, yeah, some of us don't believe in an invisible sky daddy.
>Our Constitution is essentially a contract by said [individual] sovereigns with our self-formed government
Really? I never signed it. In fact, it's a piece of paper signed by a bunch of dead people:
"No private person has a right to complain by suit in court on the ground of a breach of the United States constitution; for, though the constitution is a compact, he is not a party to it"
(Padelford Fay & Co. v. The mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)
>2) [government] whose purpose is to protect said rights
Alas, it's logically impossible to protect someone's rights while simultaneously committing robberies against them.
>The Civil War was fought to end the abomination of slavery.
That's a statist canard. Look at Tyrant Lincoln's first inaugural address:
"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Lincoln the Murderer slaughtered his countrymen simply because he valued having power more than he valued other people's lives.
"Um, yeah, some of us don't believe in an invisible sky daddy."
Strawman. As an Atheist myself, I despise "Atheists" with no imagination.
"Really? I never signed it. In fact, it's a piece of paper signed by a bunch of dead people:"
You never asked to be alive either. Both of those problems are well within your control.
Absolutely not. Slavery was an issue for US citizens in the way it was used to favour disproportionally the interests of Southerners against the interests of Northeners through the 3/5 vote rule. This gave Southerners much more weight they actually had. That was the main cause of dissent from the Northerners.
You probably know better. Blacks in the north constituted one pc of the northern population and came to represent 10 pc of the Union Army.
The abolition of slavery in the US was an incident of history, an unintended consequence.
You are correct that the war was not fought over slavery. All one has to do is read the words, speeches & the Emancipation Proclamation itself to see this.
The 3/5 compromise was about representation in the House & taxation. It should be noted here, the North did not want slaves to be counted at all, while the South wanted all inhabitants counted for purposes of representation.
So in the end, the 3/5 compromise is the result of the northern position of not wanting everyone counted...whether they could vote to send a representative or not. They considered them property as did the slaveholder.
And by the way, the North had no problem spinning southern cotton into products. But did have a problem with foreign shipping entering southern ports. Slavery would have died through natural causes with the advent of mechanization. And there were black plantation owners.
A blot on our history to be sure...but the war was not fought over slavery.
It was fought over the principle of states to voluntarily leave just as they had voluntarily joined. That principle died in 1865 just like many principles at our founding.
Slavery did end through natural causes with mechanization. Sharecropping took it's place but there was little more freedom for the slaves.
While I am on this topic, the public education system that you fools hate, taught the poor to read and write and do math. Prior to that there was no way for most people to get an education.
"Sharecropping took it's place but there was little more freedom for the slaves."
No one took me up on the verbage of the Emancipation Proclamation? We will discuss the Black Codes of the North sometime pan...I'll give you time to bone up on it ;-)
"While I am on this topic, the public education system that you fools hate, taught the poor to read and write and do math. Prior to that there was no way for most people to get an education."
Glad you brought that up.
The public education system was brought about not to create men of letters, but to create good workers.
So the North wanted that people, who had no actual representation, not to be counted while the South wanted that people, who they refused actual representation, to be counted. For their personal benefit.
Indeed, this was the crux of the issue in terms of Union vs Confederation as the Shoutherners wanted to maintain a slavery system that gave them political advantages on insane grounds.
The rest is apologism. Northerners, probably British by the way, spinned cotton. Awesome.
Slavery would have died its natural death. Like maybe all the criminals who have walked the Earth so far... Sounds as a good reason to end all types of prosecution if the possibility that all criminals would have died their natural death is ever proven as true.
Who wants to disprove that people suspected of engaging in criminal activities are all mortal and will die their natural death? It will decrease taxations as it will eradicate the judicial system.
Plenty of US funding. Kind of studies the US relish on.
"So the North wanted that people, who had no actual representation, not to be counted while the South wanted that people, who they refused actual representation, to be counted."
The slaves had names did they not? Why did the government count them in the census of 1860? You, being a "ferner"...LOL...may not be aware of this but less than 5% of whites even owned slaves.The rest is apologism.
"The rest is apologism. Northerners, probably British by the way, spinned cotton."
You won't find me apologizing for something I had no hand in...least of all to a cowardwho will not identify himself as to his nationality while railing against America and now even a particular region of it...and after reading enough your tripe I've come to the conclusion you are not British afterall...as English is a second language to you obviously.
You do know the Arabs were quite adept slaver's don't you? ;-)
"A blot on our history to be sure...but the war was not fought over slavery.
It was fought over the principle of states to voluntarily leave just as they had voluntarily joined. That principle died in 1865 just like many principles at our founding."
Agree.
Congress had no constitutional authority to intrude into a state's practice of slavery. The 3/5 compromise proves it. Congress had authority over congressional representation, but didn't have authority to prohibit slavery in a state.
So how did congress gain that authority? Simple. By invading and conquering that state, eliminating that state's sovereignty, making that state a territory of the federal government where the constitution doesn't apply and congress has complete authority (as in D. C.).
Now you know why the civil war was fought.
Today there are no sovereign states left. All 50 are now federal territories, like D. C., where the constitution (and bill of rights) doesn't apply.
Slavery induced quite a number of compromizes by the US.
The indirect election of the president for example.
From the beginning, it was well perceived that a country proclaiming self evident unalienable rights, including freedom, while states kept practising slavery, had consistency issues.
Sometimes, doing what you say you would do helps or even is required.
Slavery was indeed a cause of the Civil War, through the undue priviledges it bestowed on Southerners when it came to federal representation.
When the Northerners acknowledged the fact that Southerners treated their slaves as furnitures and kept rejecting the normal consequence of such a treatment, that is, the slaves should have accounted for nothing, the issue kept growing into a civil war.
If the Southerners had given in on their slavery elective priviledges, well, it could have been another story. But as Southerners kept encroaching on Northerners' rights...
"The indirect election of the president for example."
Popular election of the president is a result of all 50 states being turned into federal territories.
While they were sovereign states their citizens had no legal right to vote in the election of the president since their state was not part of the federal government.
The remainder of your comment is bullshit from a legal viewpoint.
Every post he makes is bullshit...legal or otherwise...LOL.
"... whose individual rights and authority come from an eternal deity ..."
Oh really?
Then why isn't said ( all-powerful?) "eternal deity" preventing government from walking all over those rights, violating them, ignoring them, as though they didn't exist?
Sorta makes one lose respect for said "eternal deity".
All Societies grow, prosper and collapse. Better societies last longer. Joseph Tainter (The Collapse of Complex Societies (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) argues that sustainability or collapse of societies follow from the success or failure of problem-solving institutions and that societies collapse when their investments in social complexity and their "energy subsidies" reach a point of diminishing marginal returns. He recognizes collapse when a society rapidly sheds a significant portion of its complexity.
There is a more basic explanation, as given by Scientist Thomas Ray. He once proposed the following as a universal law of nature: "Every successful system accumulates parasites."
It's not hard to find the parasites in the United States.
botherz and sisternz, boyz & ghoulz:
SADDLE UP THE DON-KEYS, WE'RE RIDIN INTO TOWN!!!
We should be riding out of town... leave Washington to stew in its own stink.
Govt has NEVER added anything to our daily lives. It robs us of 30-60% of our earnings and we trade that theft for total bluff about what Govt does for us. It does nothing for us but rob us, hassle us, intrude on us, fine us, drown us in lies and BS and wages murderous false wars. Govt is the dustbin of humanity, the rectum of its existence.
Every promise ever made you by Govt and politicians for centuries has been a bloody lie. You will see every promise about peace, protection, law and order, justice, progress, your health and wealth and your pensions has been a total lie. All of it. For that bluff you have been ROBBED
Stop trading your income for BS... wise up and face reality, you're being hed-fuked and totally fuked over by parasites
Debate : Jungle or civilization. No state laws, binding to all, enforceable, we all end up like the Cheyennes : disposable, like the negroes : in slavery. It takes state to set the picture right. In a jungle the tough guy wins every time. That 'socialist' Abe Lincoln...So, are people equal in society in their inalienable, minimal rights? Read T. Jefferson.
You guys all want to be individual John Wayne's, always winning every battle, singing might is right and its moral as well. Just look at my face, it's the legend of USA, USA! Who cares about the truth! Wrong, behind the tinsel legend, was Marion Morrison, who Hollywood helped draft dodge during second world war; while he played 'Sands of Iwo Jima' on the screen. That's the USA mystique...its not what the founding fathers wrote about...So now as the noose of the financial capitalistic myth practiced since thirty years makes a mockery of past prudential history...Which way do the people of USA choose to move...? Big questionmark!
Bullshit.... we are herding/pack animals and have been for millions of years. We are entirely self-sufficient but 'pack' or 'herd' for mutual benefit at certain times and behave like any other animal (flock of birds, herd of buffalo). Go to a shopping mall, open market or watch society interact perfectly naturally when you drive around town. That is all natural animal behaviour.
We have NEVER needed another authority to tell us how to get along, how to behave. We are ingrained with natural animal civility.
When the State buts in it creates chaos or bullies the herd. The States Police is not their for our protection, it is there to fine us petty fines. The Judiciary are not there for our protection, it is a self-feeding machine dishing out petty fines.
And nowhere in history has humanity progressed by State or authority structures. It has been 100% an individual progression, from agriculture to industry to mechantalism they have all been progress (risk taking or new knowledge) by the individual.
The State is dumber than mud, the ultimate follow along copy-cat. The State is a parasite in word and deed and action.
Free men deliver all wealth creation and progress and a free society is self-regulating (no police or law required)
There is ALWAYS an Alpha in a pack that keeps the Betas in line. In human packs they are called monarchs. Time to grow up Peter Pan.
@zero govt : who builds the roads, who ensures the city planning is no jungle? The head ape man in the jungle? Wake up! Or go back to being lord of the apes...in the Congo.
who builds the roads.. private contractors, but they're running to rack and ruin under the mis-management of Govt. Everything Govt touches turns to crap, everything
who ensures the city planning is no jungle?... the Marxist control over our private property is beyond a joke, the State should fuk off, haven't they made a big enough disaster of the US property market for you pinhead???
The head ape man in the jungle? Wake up! ... no you wake up zombie. We behave like all animals in packs, flocks or herds, we behave socially and get along naturally. Where the State interjects it bullies, abuses or worse robs society. The State is a parasite and is anarchy. It has 40,000 laws yet applies none to itself or Wall Street. The biggest rule makers (the State) are the biggest rule breakers. The State is not applying any of its laws on fraud to its buddies on Wall Street, it has driven a horse and coaches through international law on war only having the right to defend oneself (Afghan and Iraq neither threatened the US).
Wake up and smell reality. Say 'Hello' to your buddy the State, the biggest thief, fraud, bully, murderer and biggest cunt you'll ever meet in your zombie life (wait til they rob your pension if robbing your wages wasn't enough!)
Let me summarize for you:
"Because dis gubba mint is bad, all dem gubba mints are bad."
pan-the-ist
Yes that's right, you've spotted all Govts, East or West, are exactly the same monpoly power structure and because of, all deliver the same results: crap.
But of course you can reel off a list of good Govts (many to choose from) or the many good Depts of Govt (zillions to choose from). So here's your starter, name one????
your beyond recycling and recovery even in the Congo...
don't generalize recent/current US government trends on world society. US is gone berserk like an imperial society out of gear...Maybe, maybe Rome A.D. 375...
Democracies have always failed, this is why the founders created a Republic for America. In a Republic individual freedoms are above all else. The right to own and protect property are among those basic indivual freedoms. Article 4 Section 4 of the constutitution plainly states that we a a Republic. Today our politicians lie and tell us that we are a Democracy. They even send our troops around the world to protect and expand upon it. It is a HUGE lie. They do this so they can tax our income and give vaule to an unlawful currency (12usc411), becuase in a true Republic direct income taxes are repugnant to the constitution. The supreme court has even said so.
I laugh on all the confused folks who thinks that taxation is "avoidable". No, taxation is not avoidable. Taxation is unavoidable, in any kind of civilized society, because any kind of civilized society needs a least a small structure of government, and this structure needs money to work.
Well... In fact, there is an alternative to taxation... See some arab countries like Bahrain and Qatar. The governments of those countries earn so much money through the oil exports, that they don't need to tax the population.
So, if you invent a new way for the government to earn money, then, theoretically, the government wouldn't need taxes to survive.
Maybe one option is choose one specific sector of the economy, and "give" that sector to the government, so a government-owned company could have the monopoly over that sector, and with the profits of the company, the government could have the money to survive and provide the much needed public services (like the construction and maintenance of streets and roads).
For example: in the US, the fast food market could be a government monopoly. McDonalds and KFC could be "nationalized", and become a giant government-owned fast-food company. All other private companies should be forbidden of selling hamburgers, fries and other crap food. Only "McGovernment" could do that kind of business, in a monopolistic way. I'm sure the government would make huge profits from this company, and would never ever need to impose taxes on the population again...
It sounds like you failed Capitalist Romanticism 101!
That's okay, here's the Cliff's Note (I aced the final on this):
Taxation Is Evil.
We must dissolve the artificial bonds of government to allow natural law to prevail.
Then, Almighty God, heaven will be upon us! The world will become a moral meritocracy where winners will rule by example, not by force. The rest of us will be blinded by the light. They are all Galt--aching producers yearning for their innate nobility to be set free!
They'll always do the right thing. Ya just gotta believe.
Zina
Listen carefully and think long and hard about this pearl of wisdom: everything Govt touches turns to crap.
You write, "one option is choose one specific sector of the economy, and "give" that sector to the government, so.. could they could have the monopoly over that sector, and with the profits of the company..."
Ok but the Govt has large sections of the economy, how profitably is it running them, here; healthcare (bankrupt); transport (bankrupt); education (bankrupt); mortgages (bankrupt).
No Govt enterprise in HISTORY has ever made a profit. Everything Govt runs is incompetent, 3rd rate, mis-directed, unproductive, inefficient and falls behind a free competitive market. Why would you EVER let such a systematically incompetent organisation run anything???
It can't help that one person one vote is an awful voting system when there are more than 2 candidates. Range Voting FTW.
Voting for a Dem or a Repub is no longer an option for me.
Good article.
I am Chumbawamba.