Ok, trying again folks.
So I read this article which talks about a method of selecting representative that I had not encountered before.
What Pericles would say about Obamacare by Paul Woodruff
The author presents Pericles' method for selecting democratic representatives through a lottery process rather than an election. He argues that the process helps protect the deliberative nature of governance by reducing the distraction of electoral politics and the power of big money.
Aside from the obvious arguments against conscription, I am unsure of how the Austrian tradition would view this idea. Would you be willing to contribute some analysis?
Thanks, Max
What do you mean by 'ok trying again folks'?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Of course, I'm against conscripting people into legislatures or other public offices. However, I'm certainly no more opposed to this method than the current one in use. As long as anyone drawn by lottery has a right to refuse, I see no reason why I would oppose this at all. In fact, maybe if enough people reject, if would take longer to get a quorum to conduct business, and the legislatures would be able to do less while waiting to fill all the seats.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
I don't know why he chose Pericles, who might have preferred the current system since it's probably easier to centralize power through it! Not to mention that the system described existed long before Pericles' prominence.
Anyway, I wrote a post on Athenian vs. modern democracy here: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/30149/481153.aspx#481153
Max: Ok, trying again folks. So I read this article which talks about a method of selecting representative that I had not encountered before. What Pericles would say about Obamacare by Paul Woodruff The author presents Pericles' method for selecting democratic representatives through a lottery process rather than an election. He argues that the process helps protect the deliberative nature of governance by reducing the distraction of electoral politics and the power of big money. Aside from the obvious arguments against conscription, I am unsure of how the Austrian tradition would view this idea. Would you be willing to contribute some analysis? Thanks, Max
This would be similar to how a jury works in theory. You would necessarily avoid the demagogue bias present in normal electoral politics. You would also avoid the special interest function in filtering out those candidates who aren't amenable to corruption.
In addition, one could fix the voluntary/involuntary description, by allowing members of society to choose to be in the lottery or not. Combine such a system with some type of pay mechanism, and it's possible that one might be able to avoid or remove many of the current problems in government. Primarily increase the friction for coercion.
As an aside, instead of attacking the creation and execution of law, why not attack the interpretation of law function instead. I'd like to see that type of system offered in jury selection. One has to volunteer to be a jurist, and the court costs pay a stipend to jurors or their service. So many specific laws and precedents could be effectively nullified if jurors were not simply random, but in fact were informed jurors and there was a profit motive to the specific service.
I always love when one looks at the statistical analysis of the consequences of requiring 12 randomly selected members of a local community to all simultaneously agree that the crime occured and that the action itself constitutes a crime (not by statute, but by the ethical standards of the various members of the jury itself). Getting 51% of the population to vote for a proposition would still require getting some quantity more than 92% of the population to agree with the proposition in practice. Since if even half of the juries that resolve a case throw it out based on the law, the effect is that the law is unenforceable.
Think about the ramifications of jury nullification by jurors who choose to be part of the random selection process? I'd pay close attention also to jury selection from the pool, to ensure that a small minority of the populations wasn't systematically disenfranchised by this process.
So, from a political technology point of view, I think there are things we could do, to effectively limit and reduce the scope and power of government, even though I'm of the opinion that specific technologies implementing perfectly libertarian ideals are either far off in an unseen and unknowable future, or are actually impossible to create as currently designed.
Think of it as the design space problem from Daniel Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Just because we know of a solution, doesn't mean we know how to get to it. I think we'll most effectively move toward our imagined ideal future by continuing to think of and profer potential solutions.
The problem with either of the random selection ideas, is the fear the general public would have that some preferred policy or program might be effectively destroyed by either solution.
So, then the technical problem to solve, is how to get the population to embrace such a change, and to stand aside as it works it's magic on society?
Bridging these gaps with technical solutions is I believe the proper use of Praxeology. We have the best tool in existence for understanding and predicting the effects both individually and in the aggregate social setting, why not use it to analyze potential solutions?
I had originally attempted my post twice before realizing I had to press the save button before the post button...