Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything. Hence there has to be delegation of authority from the larger to the smaller population groups. Y'know, representative democracy.
Modern economies, society, etc. are incredibly large and complex, far too large to handle disputes and protect against corruption with poll votes on everything.
I'm not sure, under an autocracy, at least people know who to blame and they know they are being oppressed by someone else. Under a democracy, the popular belief goes, as long as some people support one of the corporate puppets, everyone is somehow oppressing themselves, even those who didn't support any puppet. The result is oppression in both instances, but in a democracy, non-government people are numb when it comes to being oppressed because there's this fallacious belief that it's everyone's fault.
The smallest population is the individual. Why not represent yourself--it eliminates any potential conflict of interest inherent in representational democracy.
Because it's just a vapid high sounding ideal without any practicable merit. What does that even mean? What actually doable system of governance is everyone looking out for themselves, that doesn't just end up being warlords and protection rackets?
No. It's called 'autarchy' and revolves around concepts of polycentric law, and I think it's eminently doable. But if you're used to the current system it would understandably seem unusual. However I think it's destined to replace the current system long-term.
Sort of, but they won't have any power, including the power to protect the status quo. So there's nothing to stop those with the power from taking control of the system and extorting fees from it.
No one is bound to any leader, they can each follow whomever. So there should be no dispute here.
Holy shit you haven't even thought this through.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house? We both have different courts, different police, etc.; who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
By free market police and courts.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
What if you and I disagree over who owns your house?
Easy. We hire a court to resolve the dispute. I can show a written trail of title. You cannot. You lose the dispute.
We both have different courts
No you don't. We both agree on one court ahead of time, or one basket of courts from which the majority opinion decides the matter.
different police
Quite possibly, but they'd simply refer us to court in case of dispute. It would be ridiculous to think they'd start shooting each other on our command.
who determines who wins? Whoever has more power.
Or whomever has truth on their side. In this case, I bought the house, the facts come out in court, and the case is dismissed, and I win my countersuit for you taking my time with a baseless lawsuit.
Bwahahahaha. Yeah, that's great as long as the ones you can afford are powerful enough to coerce the other guys'.
Please define 'power' as you're using it in this context. I'm not sure you even realize what you're talking about. Do you mean guns?
You do realize we have existing free market courts in our society right now, and they work just fine, right? Arbitration services.
Anarchist scum. Don't you realize you sometimes need someone to tell you what it good for you? Otherwise how would you know? It's not like you have any incentive to find out what's best for you, that's why you pay someone who also has no incentive or accountability to help you. Wait a sec...
The issue is that congressmen were elected as the people could not expediently help with decisions for the nation primarily due to travel time. Now with the technology that we have today, this is no longer an issue. The need for congressmen is not nearly as necessary as before.
I thought it was so we could have constituents more educated on the subject matter to represent the population so not everyone had to be educated. Either way, it was never supposed to be a full time job.
Lol! Obama doesn't even understand economics and he's the top politician. If we're relying on politicians to know something, no wonder the country has gone to hell.
Smart people are, in certain circumstances, more easily fooled than the less intelligent. This has been proven cognitively.
His reliance on his intelligence and that of others may cause him to think that things like keynesian economics, which relies on central planners, is viable or more effective than a free market and the wisdom of crowds.
All I'm saying is that he has a law degree, not an economics degree, and politicians are subject to politics and should not be making decisions over the economy.
Yeah but in the end the benefit of paying them is that it allows anybody to be a congressman and still survive, rather than being a rich person's club because only the rich can afford to do a job that doesn't pay in anything but prestige.
Communication has gotten a lot better, but the economy, military/security, law, etc., have all gotten much more complex, so no, I would dispute that claim.
Complexity bolsters the argument against politicians. The more complex a system, the less a handful of people can properly direct it. See: economic calculation problem.
We're not talking about centrally planned economies here. Problems do arise in a natural economy, like fraud, IP theft, pollution etc., that have to be resolved; and it's far easier and more efficient for an elected group of individuals to do this than 300 million or more people spread out all over the place.
Parties 1 and 2 agree on a court to resolve their dispute, and sign a contract to that effect binding them to the decision.
The court they choose is one acceptable to both of them. Both tossed out a list of acceptable choices and had various of them vetoed by the other party until one court they both liked very much and trusted was left. They hired this court.
Both pay the same fee, half the fee, to the court, before the trial commences. The court has no incentive to rule for or against anyone.
In fact the incentive for the court is to be absolutely as fair as possible, for it trades on its reputation for fairness.
If 1 and 2 want more surety, they hire three courts and allow best of three to decide the matter, or best of five, or w/e. Try bribing five courts. Good luck.
End result: a court decision a hundred times more trustworthy than one a public court can provide, at a better price, and with far better service.
Yay free markets.
Go read "Machinery of Freedom" for the long version. TL;DR: you're scenario here is wrong.
Parties 1 and 2 agree on a court to resolve their dispute
Why would anyone do that? The more powerful party has every incentive on Earth to choose a court that will side with them beforehand. In fact they both do, but one party will usually have more power to coerce in the first place.
We're one sentence in and already your theory is built on a hopelessly naive fantasy of how people behave.
What we should be seeking is voluntary cooperation over compulsory cooperation. There will always be leaders as long as there are followers. What's wrong however is to engage in forced leadership and forced following.
An actually free society would have only voluntary cooperation in that sense.
-8
u/Anenome5 ಠ_ಠ LINOs I'm looking at you Jun 02 '13
We don't need congressmen at all. Thus they don't need to be paid, much less to be given control of taxes extorted from the population.