You're still missing the point. Unpopular people would be made subject to laws meant to get them. This already happens in representative democracies, it would get much worse.
Socrates might not be executed (depending on the constitution in question), but he might still find himself prisoner for life because the law had mandatory sentencing provisions.
And I think you're missing the point: representational government has been gamed. It's not about them being smarter and understanding the laws better (they often don't even read them, but use assistants for that); it's a bottleneck, ripe for corruption. Billions are at stake and only 535 people stand in the way; with lobbying(bribing) being perfectly legal. It's broken.
You may not like it, but it's not really up to you (or me) to decide. The people can choose to eliminate that ineffective, rotten layer.
> And I think you're missing the point: representational government has been gamed. It's not about them being smarter and understanding the laws better (they often don't even read them, but use assistants for that); it's a bottleneck, ripe for corruption.
Right.
If you look elsewhere, you'll see my notes on the particulars of the US system. We have rent-seeking here in Australia, but nothing like the scale of the US.
The difference is that US Members of Congress are basically independent agents. No party discipline, and no executive constraints, prevent them from that kind of deal-making. It's down to the peculiarities of the US system, not representative democracy in general.
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
(Plus there's the standard libertarian argument that reducing the power of Congress reduces incentives to fiddle; but that doesn't do away with merely petty corruption).
You're a bit of a techno-utopian. In small groups with homogenous polities and aligned interests, this might work. In an opensource project, for instance.
But even those fall into strife. Politics is part of human nature; the encrustations of western civilisation and elsewhere are not arbitrary.
Maybe. But I think if you look at history, distributing power has always been the most successful strategies. Unfortunately, it's also the least popular with those who currently hold power, so it's often a knife fight.
I'm not quite sure it's as radical as you seem to think it is. Is voting for a Michelle Bachmann to vote on laws, or just voting directly on those laws, so different? Really? I'm not so sure. The internet has transformed every other industry. Can we not apply it to politics and leverage its power there?
homogenous politics
I've been arguing the U.S. perspective, and it is so divisive there that I don't think it could be worse.
Jacques, this will be my last post so: thanks for the great dialog. All the best.
sigh OK then, so who is going to pass the laws that the judicial branch will uphold, and/or who is going to appoint the people in the judicial branch? Are they going to be elected by the same people who elect the officials?
In other words, only some cantons in Switzerland use direct democracy. I've lived for many years in Switzerland and everyone I talked to was pretty proud to call it that; but if you want, I'll correct it: many parts of of one of the richest, best run countries in the world works as a direct democracy.
Of course it's well-studied area, but you make it seem as if that means that there's a 'solution' or even consensus on its effects, which is a position so ludicrous it doesn't even warrant refuting. For the rest, your 'argument' about Switzerland shows that it is you who has no idea what you're talking about.
