For any who haven’t read some of my earlier posts, a Demarchy is a political system where representatives are selected from among eligible citizens by means of a lottery instead of being voted into office. A full Demarchy would probably operate under parliamentary rules, whereas a partial Demarchy, say that of the House of Representatives, would allow both elective Democracy and selective Demarchy to operate at the same time. Or we could have Congress as the Demarchy and retain the position of President as an elected position.
There are three immediate advantages to the Demarchic style of government. The first is that it offers a true “cross section” of the citizens. The second is that it eliminates political parties. The third is that it is more immune to corruption because those selected didn’t “owe” anything to those who financed their campaign for office as is the case presently. This hopefully would result in more honest representation than what we have currently.
Where the difference will come into play is that unlike our present system, a Demarchy represents a much wider cross section of Americans than does our present political system. The reason for this is that our representatives tend to be more representative of the better off classes instead of all classes of Americans as would be the case with a Demarchic style of government. The average net worth of a member of Congress today is one million dollars. So we can expect that the viewpoint of our elected representatives will be that of their own economic class. The professional classes are over represented, with the legal profession the background of many. Whatever you may think of lawyers, we now do have a lot of them in Congress! Which may be one good solid reason that our laws are the way that they are… We’d be much better off under a Demarchy because representation would be upon a true cross section basis, with most of our representatives coming from the majority of people who today have little actual representation in Congress. Because of this, the opinions of the majority of Americans would much more closely represent the sort of legislation that would be passed. This would probably upset those Americans whose own opinions are not those shared by most Americans. So there are both positive and negative aspects to Demarchy.
If we take public opinion polls as representative of the viewpoints of the majority of Americans, most likely Obamacare would be replaced some version of “single payer”. A good example of this is HR 676, which would expand Medicare to cover everyone, not just those over the age of 65. This likely would receive majority support and despite the efforts of those in opposition, would likely become law. Unfortunately HR 676 as it stands today would not give us the sort of cost controls that are possible with deregulation of American health care. Doctors would still retain their monopoly control over access to medical drugs. There would not be cost effective tiers of hospitals, but the economically wasteful practices we see today where overqualified staff are doing tasks that could be more economically performed by individuals with less formal education. Nor does it appear that the drug companies would be prohibited from selling prescription drugs with misleading TV ads.
The task of libertarians here has to be one of “education” if we want a libertarian society. Unfortunately at the present time far too much of doctrinaire libertarian thinking tends to be of a sort that most Americans outside of our own group would likely reject or at least be hesitant to follow. As I’ve point out, if we want a libertarian America, we have to be able to “sell” the idea of libertarianism to sufficient numbers of people to obtain something closer to majority support. For example, the idea of a society without taxes is likely to be just an impossible fantasy. There is no evidence in history of such a society ever existing. Even hunter-gatherer societies required “sharing”. The reason for this being that survival of the group required it. Sometimes the hunting was poor, sometimes due to the change of the seasons the gathering of fruits, nuts, and edible plants was insufficient. Early farming groups had to operate much the same way. The concept of rugged individualism just doesn’t work in pre-technological societies. Early civilizations also used labor conscription. The pyramids of Egypt may have been to a certain degree constructed with conscript labor. It is hard to say, but there are drawings and references that seem to hint at it.
Where libertarianism makes sense is in fields where government regulation benefits a minority at the expense of the majority. The licensed professions and occupations are a good example of this. There are also a number of situations where regulation of one kind or another tends to increase costs without any corresponding benefit. At times this results in a situation where people are effectively priced out of being able to do something because the government has passed regulations that raise the cost of living. Making it more difficult to start businesses, or to be self supporting using the talents and skills that you already have. Building codes and zoning that increase the cost of housing. Often these sort of laws and regulations are passed with the deliberate intention of keeping low income people from being able to live in a certain area. Or to make it so that you have to travel a distance to buy things instead of being within walking distance of small stores adequate to most needs.
These are all issues that need to be brought to the attention of those who have the power to do something about the problem. With a Demarchy we are much more likely to have the sort of representation that does not favor the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. Or allowing the sort of activities that the Wall Street bankers created with sub prime mortgages, which were then packaged and sold with the idea of deceiving the purchaser as to the value of what they were purchasing. This of course is “fraud”, even if due to the political and economic power of those responsible, there was no way to prosecute them for their crimes. It wasn’t “too big to fail”, but more a matter of too “connected” to prosecute!
Hopefully the establishment of a Demarchy will put an end to such activities…