A historical or current example where democracy successfully, by way of voting, shrunk the size of its government extensively to a more minarchist position.
Dondoolee: Any decolonization that may have occured due to democratic vote
Any decolonization that may have occured due to democratic vote
Plenty. Plus some secessions. But this is not a long term thing. It is over in a moment.
filc: A historical or current example where democracy successfully, by way of voting, shrunk the size of its government extensively to a more minarchist position.
One could say "Reagan revolution," but it didn't last long, nor did it go far enough.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
filc: This is awfully confusing. If they voted to decolonize. I'm assuming the vote held some power. What entity upheld the power of that vote? It sounds like a state replacing a state. Can you be more specific? It doesn't sound like a shrinking of the state.
This is awfully confusing. If they voted to decolonize. I'm assuming the vote held some power. What entity upheld the power of that vote? It sounds like a state replacing a state. Can you be more specific? It doesn't sound like a shrinking of the state.
Esuric: One could say "Reagan revolution," but it didn't last long, nor did it go far enough.
He cut taxes, but increased spending. He tripled the national debt.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
While on this topic, what do you guys postulate would occur say Dr Paul were elected president?
Le Master:While on this topic, what do you guys postulate would occur say Dr Paul were elected president?
filc: Dondoolee: Any decolonization that may have occured due to democratic vote This is awfully confusing. If they voted to decolonize. I'm assuming the vote held some power. What entity upheld the power of that vote? It sounds like a state replacing a state. Can you be more specific? It doesn't sound like a shrinking of the state.
It was actually more of a question than a statement.
But say the Brits allowed Singapore to leave the Empire due to a democratic vote, does that not at least mathmaticaly decrease the size of the UK govt? Also, in the end, where any of the decolonized state's govt powers smaller than the UK's (as Singapores may be)?
Dondoolee: It was actually more of a question than a statement. But say the Brits allowed Singapore to leave the Empire due to a democratic vote, does that not at least mathmaticaly decrease the size of the UK govt? Also, in the end, where any of the decolonized state's govt powers smaller than the UK's (as Singapores may be)?
Always thought of Monarchy governments as being much smaller in nature and democratic states being much larger. This is coming entirely out of my rear though. I have not done any research to come to this conclusion, just assumed. Thanks for the input, it may be worth looking into if what you say is true.
Snowflake: Le Master:While on this topic, what do you guys postulate would occur say Dr Paul were elected president? Assassination. The banks and medical industry are too big. I think a lot of cool things would happen if he were elected. He's said he supports secession, which opens up infinitely many doors.
Seems likely. JFK 2.0? Still though, it'd be refreshing to have someone of his background and ideologies in the White House. He may not be perfect, but he'd certainly be a substantial improvement over what we're currently used to, and definitely a step in the right direction. More importantly, I imagine having someone such as RP in the White House would be quite beneficial to libertarianism and free-market capitalism in terms of public opinion and knowledge, assuming he'd not drop the proverbial ball, that is.
Lets make a new assumption and scenarioize this. I want to see if it's theoretically possible for a government to democratically decrease in size.
The scenario assumes knowledge of public choice theories, rational ignorance, ect...
The scenario is as follows. Lets say you already have a very large government. Government spending is 60% of GDP and lets just assume that in general the government literally is 60% of the economy. In this scenario would it be theoretically possible for people to magically change their previous voting patterns and begin voting to decrease government size?
In such a scenario is it feasible for a government to decrease significantly in size and for an extensive period of time simply from the democratic input of the people?
I really had hoped to hear more feedback from minarchists on this topic.
Stephen Harper has a similar background to Ron Paul and he is Prime Minister. Hasn't gotten us anywhere except bigger government.
filc: Marko: Well the Polish noble assembly suceeded in completely stripping the king of his powers. But it did not exactly result in less government. The powers were just transfered onto the nobles, and the lot of the serfs was actually made worse than it had been. That is all I can think of. Is this a democratic example?
Marko: Well the Polish noble assembly suceeded in completely stripping the king of his powers. But it did not exactly result in less government. The powers were just transfered onto the nobles, and the lot of the serfs was actually made worse than it had been. That is all I can think of.
Well the Polish noble assembly suceeded in completely stripping the king of his powers. But it did not exactly result in less government. The powers were just transfered onto the nobles, and the lot of the serfs was actually made worse than it had been. That is all I can think of.
Is this a democratic example?
Well, it was democracy for the nobles, they had their own parliament, but they weren't vored into it.
And like Marko said, it's really not that good an example anyway, it's sort of like if Congress stripped the president of his powers, and transfered them onto itself.
By the way it's sort of funny how this whole episode is handled in the Polish texbooks. School children are hammered every day with how bad this aristocratic democarcy was, because all the nobled voted for all sorts of priviledges for themselves, yet no one EVER makes the connection to the current democracy, and how unions, corporations and other interest groups push for priviledges for themselves.
Dondoolee: But say the Brits allowed Singapore to leave the Empire due to a democratic vote, does that not at least mathmaticaly decrease the size of the UK govt?
But say the Brits allowed Singapore to leave the Empire due to a democratic vote, does that not at least mathmaticaly decrease the size of the UK govt?
Yes, but did the Brits allow Singapore to leave because of democratic input of the parties within the UK? Was there a party that people in England voted for, because its platform was to let Singapore go free?
filc: Always thought of Monarchy governments as being much smaller in nature and democratic states being much larger. This is coming entirely out of my rear though. I have not done any research to come to this conclusion, just assumed. Thanks for the input, it may be worth looking into if what you say is true.
What happened was monarchs built professional buerocracies to allow them to marginalise the aristocracy, the clergy and the towns. Up until the buerocracy grew so large that the monarch became its captive and was marginalised himself. Until he was in most places just knocked off or in others made into a powerless figurehead. So it is generally true, if only because a monarchy tends to be characteristic of places that have not jet developed a strong professional buerocracy.
Sweden and Iceland both successfully shrunk their government in the early 90s. Not all the way down to a minarchist position, but there's no doubt that at least here in Iceland there has been a lot more room for private enterprise in the last 15 years than at any time before that, going all the way back to the establishment of the republic in 1945. For most of that era we had strict price controls, import/export controls, government bureaus that allocated investment etc...we were probably the most centrally controlled of any of the NATO countries with the possible exception of Turkey.
Ironically, a lot of those government restrictions and bureaus had to be relaxed or abolished so we could comply with the requirements for entry into the Eurozone. The EU may be on the verge of going federal right now, with all the negative connotations that brings, but IMO the EU process has done more for economic freedom in Europe than any other entity.