After all, representative democracy is basically useless, anyone who looks at our political system objectively will certainly realise that it is almost completely broken. Politicians are pretty much unaccountable, especially in safe seats, only the most egregious and blatant criminal activity cause loss of privilege, and there is practically no comeback on any politician for fucking up in his job, no matter how disastrous a fuckup he or she makes. At best we can hope for "lessons to be learned".
Ha bloody ha.
But the reason we have representative democracy is because there are too many things to be debated and be agreed for something like a referendum to be applied to every decision that needs to be taken.
And so it seems that there is no way to square this circle. Representative democracy is a sham and a tribal game; and direct democracy is impractical.
So, what do we do?
Well, how about this: instead of us paying taxes to a central government pot, why don't we keep all our money and let government put forward its program of activities that require funding along with suggested contributions? We can then throw our money into specific activities that we think are important.
Pensions for the elderly? Yeah, I'll give some money to that. Disability care? Sure. Iraq war? No thanks. Foreign aid? Nah. Social services? Don't think so. Care for the homeless? Sure. Roads? I might overpay. Etc, etc, etc.
Effectively, we could all vote for our preferred government activities and policies by chucking money at it - whatever you think is important, you can vote for by the Pound. This way, every person can feel that the government genuinely is representing their beliefs and priorities.
8 comments:
"But the reason we have representative democracy is because there are too many things to be debated and be agreed for something like a referendum to be applied to every decision that needs to be taken."
I'm no longer sure of that. Sure, it's what people tell us about why we can't have some other kind, but actually it has more to do with inherent distrust of the masses. In a liberal democracy, the liberal notion that the individual comes before "society" and therefore political society, means that you actually cannot have the lumpenproletariat deciding things because they might not be liberal.
One could, for example, envisage a system of delegated democracy rather than representative or direct in which MPs are real delegates and take soundings from their constituents which then binds them in the parliamentary vote. Still very difficult to see how it might work (though it's probably getting easier all the time with ICT).
But I'll go for your solution, so long as you are going to allow competitors to put in better prices and/or quality in open competition with the hapless government run ones :)
I can see the objection coming - "But... what if people didn't fund the projects that they should be funding" from someone who doesn't realise that that's the whole point...
allow competitors to put in better prices and/or quality in open competition with the hapless government run ones
They can... just set up a business or a charity to provide the service.
Fails at the first hurdle Obo due to being a far too sensible idea.
Patently: They can... just set up a business or a charity to provide the service
Problem there is that they wouldn't receive government funding to compete with the aforementioned hapless government.
Obo - the chief problem is the freeloader problem.
The decent would end up funding those who couldn't give a shit, and then they'd stop and there'd be nothing left.
Over time it would resolve itself but getting from here to there is simply not going to happen.
much better to fantasise about what could be achieved starting from where we are, such as hospitals and schools run as mutually owned operations, and an annual referendum on whether to accept the budget, and in fact any government decision increasing taxes having to be voted on in a binding referendum.
Ahh, I sense Utopia!
Daedalus
The worst possible system of Government except for all the others - to paraphrase Mr. Churchill.
The Swiss do it right.
I wonder why the various Scandinavian country's always seem to be top of the 'Happy' surveys.. is it because every fucker is taxed so heavily, they all end up been 'fairly' equal ? of course the tax has to be spent wisely... mmmm
If the Scandinavians are so "happy", why do they drink so much?
Post a Comment