Liberalism and democracy are obviously not good bedfellows. A liberal and democratic State is constantly threatened by the possibility that a demagogue will trick the ignorant masses into giving away their liberty (and the liberty of the minority). It seems evident to me that one strategy for minimizing this threat is to limit suffrage, in the hopes of decreasing the relative influence of the masses. Another strategy is to introduce into this liberal democratic State a non-democratic element, which might be anything from a requirement for more than a simple majority to take certain actions, to a constitutional monarchy.
Supposing there were such a minarchist State, what kind of measures would you advocate to minimize the risk that demagoguery would lead it toward increasing statism? I'm particularly interested in limiting suffrage, but feel free to discuss any measures at all.
Also, to speak about current events, you might have noticed that Ron Paul consistently wins 2x-3x the proportion of the vote in caucus states as he does in primary states: my hypothesis is that in caucus states the lazy and the lukewarm are weeded out to some extent by the more time-consuming caucus process, leaving the tireless, irate minority greater influence on the outcome.
If the state restricted who could vote even more, then it would become incredibly obvious who rules this country. But, seeing as the Powers That Be benefit from the current system, I don't see any way it will change to something else, epecially if that something else brought them out of the shadows.
I'm not sure if I follow. You're suggesting that if suffrage were restricted, it would become more obvious who rules the U.S, and that this would bring the PTB out of the shadows...the implication being that the PTB is some minority segment of the electorate? On the contrary, the PTB is the clique of elites that control the minds of the majority of the electorate, keeping the two party system alive, and keeping themselves in power.
Take the fact that a majority of American receive some kind of income from the federal government. If those folks were denied the vote, don't you think it would be easier to dismantle (or stop the expansion of) the welfare state? Suppose suffrage were limited only to those who pay taxes (net any benefits they receive)?
I'm not sure if I follow. You're suggesting that if suffrage were restricted, it would become more obvious who rules the U.S, and that this would bring the PTB out of the shadows...the implication being that the PTB is some minority segment of the electorate?
Are the PTB not part of the electorate? I suppose it's likely that voting is a waste of time to them. Anyway, that is not what I'm getting at. The PTB benefit from the current system. Why would they change it to a system that would help dismantle their main source of power?
On the contrary, the PTB is the clique of elites that control the minds of the majority of the electorate, keeping the two party system alive, and keeping themselves in power.
Yes, that is what I meant by saying the PTB benefit from the current system.
As I said, I think that the PTB would not let this happen. How would one go about restricting suffrage in this day and age? Not only does it hurt the PTB, but the people who leech off of the system aren't about to vote to restrict their suffrage.
Are the PTB not part of the electorate? I suppose it's likely that voting is a waste of time to them. Anyway, that is not what I'm getting at. The PTB benefit from the current system. Why would they change it to a system that would help dismantle their main source of power? As I said, I think that the PTB would not let this happen. How would one go about restricting suffrage in this day and age? Not only does it hurt the PTB, but the people who leech off of the system aren't about to vote to restrict their suffrage.
I agree with you that it's totally unrealistic to try to limit suffrage in the U.S. today; the PTB and the vast majority of Americans would oppose it violently. However, that wasn't my point. I'm talking about political theory - if we were designing a minarchist State from scratch, how might we use limited suffrage (or other non-democratic measures) to limit the risk of demagoguery?
For example, considering different ways of limiting suffrage, there could be property requirements, poll taxes, the process of voting could be made very complicated and time-consuming, paying taxes could be made a condition for voting, etc. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages.
And then there's the possibility of a King, or some other unelected and hereditary office(s), or even the possibility of electing officials by lot (the Athenians did this).
Basically my question is: if you were designing a constitution for a minarchist State, what kind of non-democratic elements would you include?
I am anarchist. I would not design a state. I favor customary and common law. It is my desire to see statutory law abolished.
That's fine, I'm asking anyone with an opinion to share it. If you don't have one, then obviously my request doesn't apply to you.
Probably the best form of Government there could be would be something like a Constitutional Monarch who's so restricted by a well, worded, unambiguous constitution as to make him little more than a figure head.
In reality that would be incredibly hard to achieve, though easier in the long run than a Minarchist Democracy.
It also has the added benefit of making sure nobody ever buys the "We are the Government" crap. If the Government starts pressing against the ceiling, the people will put it in its place much more readily than in a Democracy.
I'm somewhat partial to the idea of an hereditary official who has no power at all other than the power of the veto: over anything and everything that the government does. He would have to live from the proceeds of an hereditary and inalienable estate, rather than an income from the government, if he were to be actually independent.
The chief reform that I’d insist upon would be the devolution of formal sovereignty to each village and city. Whether they’d choose to (initially) still manage their affairs in common through a private firm whence there once was a government, that is for them to decide.
Once each village/city is free to leave, I’d try out the following system:
I could go on and discuss why I think each of these point would improve the dynamics of state but I’ll briefly focus only on the first one. Limiting suffrage will make for an armed revolution sooner or later, and that would cripple an economy. The trump card of mass democracy is that it prevents such violent revolutions.
Making the vote transferable achieves the same goal (and even much more reliably) while in practice limiting the electorate to the richest fellows or those who feel strongly about some point. Once votes are transferable, the intensity of one’s opinion is factored in. Nowadays both I who feel very strongly against some law and some other bloke who is only mildly for it are given the same power in deciding the outcome. If I can buy his vote, I’d get the chance to express my strong belief. The changes that would ensue in lobbying and bribes would also be massive (no time to discuss those).
In practice, I feel this system would make for a Venetian style of government: a powerful head of State who is free to act but must be accountable to the top percentile of the population. Venice did rather well for itself, if you ask me.
Thanks for your thoughtful response Merlin,
Interesting concept. However, won't this lead to outright plutocracy (not so different in effect from what we have now)? This was essentially the situation in the Late Roman Republic, and it led to civil war and a popular dictatorship. It seems to me that the real problem with democracy is not majoritarianism. "The people" never truly rule. The problem is the elite manipulating the people into supporting laws that benefit the elite. Making votes alienable seems like it plays into the hands of such elites.
I'd prefer some limitations on suffrage designed to weed out those members of the public most likely to be manipulated by the elite, and from watching some American elections very carefully, it seems to me that the greatest threat is what I call 'casual voting,' where Joe Schmoe barely knows or cares about politics and ends up voting for whichever candidate he sees last on TV. The cure for this IMO is to make the voting process more expensive for the voter: not necessarily a poll tax, but to make it more time-consuming and difficult. That would mean that most people going to the polls are genuinely passionate, and not voting 'in a fit of absentmindedness.' I think you'd be surprised at how many of those voters who would scream about the prospect of actually being denied suffrage will choose not to vote if it costs them more than five minutes of their time. I do like the idea of making votes alienable, but I think it would have to be limited somehow to prevent a handful of oligarchs from dominating: perhaps limits to how many votes any one person could buy?
If our yardstick is liberty, then Venice did quite well for a long time, but toward the end it became extremely authoritarian. That said, there's a lot to be learned from Venice, a lot to be admired, not least of which are their wonderfully and absurdly complicated electoral procedures.
Staggered elections. I think it is stupid to elect all seats at the same time. I’d rather elect a seat each week until the full assembly has been reshuffled.
Could you elaborate on your reasoning here? In line with what I was saying above about discouraging (rather than actually barring) the masses from voting, I think the more frequently votes are held, the less interest there will be in voting. For that reason, I might go along with staggered elections. Likewise, the more referenda are required for government to function, the better, for the same reason: only the really passionate will bother to vote.
A final point. Rather than allowing for the sale of votes, perhaps the government could simply pay people not to vote? That is, offer to 'buy back' anyone's vote for a fixed price, which would again discourage the indifferent from voting, without raising the spectre of plutocracy. I suppose the problem here is that this would need funding, and it seems like somewhat of an absurd expenditure.
The collectivists aren't going to let any restriction of suffrage happen. To them voting is not an expedient mechanism for electing representatives, it's an expression of the collective will. The "wish of society", so to speak. The one-adult-one-vote thing is necessary to turn "society" into a purposeful being that wants whatever the vote came up with. And who are we to disagree with society, right? What you wish to achieve with "democracy" (figuring out the best mechanism for electing representatives) is not the same thing the collectivists wish to achieve (turning society into a purposeful actor), therefore you're just talking past each other.
Minarchist:Thanks for your thoughtful response Merlin,
I certainly hope this isn't an implicit slight against Gotlucky. I, for one, think his responses to you have also been thoughtful.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Minarchist:Liberalism and democracy are obviously not good bedfellows. A liberal and democratic State is constantly threatened by the possibility that a demagogue will trick the ignorant masses into giving away their liberty (and the liberty of the minority).
The point of rule of law (as opposed to rule of men) is to deny this possibility. Ironically, monopolizing law makes it easier for men to rule instead of law. Adhering to the concept of legal positivism makes it even easier.
What, because all historical examples of undemocratic states have shown us that they are the best way to promote freedom?
Are you replying to the OP or to me?
The OP
I used to think that limiting suffrage would reduce the power of a democratic state, but then I came to realize otherwise.
The biggest problem is really that the democracy has been established leaving too many people too ambivalent to vote.
I don't like the idea of a monarchy. It's too centralized, so it sucks.
Minarchist:Liberalism and democracy are obviously not good bedfellows. A liberal and democratic State is constantly threatened by the possibility that a demagogue will trick the ignorant masses into giving away their liberty (and the liberty of the minority). It seems evident to me that one strategy for minimizing this threat is to limit suffrage, in the hopes of decreasing the relative influence of the masses. Another strategy is to introduce into this liberal democratic State a non-democratic element, which might be anything from a requirement for more than a simple majority to take certain actions, to a constitutional monarchy.
The breakdown in our system of government, what's been failing us, is the concept of majority vote with minority protections. The minority protections are static while the majority vote is dynamic. The majority have been chipping away at minority protections via capture of the courts. I'm afraid from the original mountain of minority rights we're now left with little more than pebbles and gravel, which is slowly being pulverized to water, unstable and will no longer serve as the foundation of a free society. More on my solution later.
I like the idea of increased requirements for more than a simple majority, but ultimately that's not secure either. Look at how the Senate has decided that a 2/3 vote actually means 60% instead of 66%. Without that choice, health care wouldn't have passed. That's just one small example. And constitution that can be changed can be abused. And a constitution that cannot be changed, or only with great difficulty, in un-dynamic as well, and will age poorly.
Minarchist:Supposing there were such a minarchist State, what kind of measures would you advocate to minimize the risk that demagoguery would lead it toward increasing statism? I'm particularly interested in limiting suffrage, but feel free to discuss any measures at all.
I think I have the solution. It is not limiting suffrage, though I've long played with such schemes and rejected all of them. If you were to limit suffrage, it would have to be done on an absolutely objective basis. And the only rational basis is that suffrage would be limited to those whom are self-sufficient. This idea could be adopted in the US, but would be denounced by the left as disenfranchisement, despite the clear quid pro quo of voting blocs that survive on government largesse as primary income, which are then used to vote more wealth to themselves. It's exactly what DeToqueville said would ruin the US, and we're seeing the fruits of it now.
No, I have a more elegant solution. I've created a new political right, a corollary to the right of freedom of association. I call it the right of separation. This allows you to choose to exit a jurisdiction at any time and form one of your own. Suppose we had a city or state facing a divisive proposed law. If half wanted it and the other half didn't, fine, have them exercise the right to separate. Those for the law can live under it, those against the law can clone the existing law structure, except for the law they object against, and form a new jurisdiction alongside the previous and in proportion to those against the law.
The ultimate consequence is that you'd be able to escape abusive jurisdictions in a way not currently possible. And redistributionist schemes would not work, because they rely on citizen-capture, rely on moving being more expensive and annoying than the laws they pass. And really, the US gets away with a lot of laws simply because there's no better place in the world for freedom-loving peoples to move to, generally.
So we create one.
Now I haven't mentioned one important thing--that this system requires a federal government that does almost nothing legislatively. Nothing except enforce indvidual rights. I think it would be very difficult for a fed to become abusive if their only role, literally, were to enforce basic individual rights.