Just a few thoughts on this topic, sparked by a comment on Twitter today…
Why parliamentary democracy? Why not participative democracy? Why not have electorate vote on every decision now we have technology to help?
Well how do you balance competing views? How do you stop everyone just instantly voting for more money for all and bankrupting the country?
How do you stop all in class A from getting their self-interest schemes funded by all in class B, as happens now?
Maybe only people paying tax can vote? Maybe they could have votes proportional to the amount they’re willing to pay in tax – one tax pound = one vote? A voluntary subscription? And it becomes truly participative. Then no vested interest group can tax another group, people only spend on schemes that they want and are prepared to contribute towards, in the proportion they want: they have to prioritise. And if they want to raise money now to spend against their future tax deposits, then why not? But it would have to be guaranteed with a mortgage against their assets to ensure they pay back the borrowed monies in the future. No one could borrow more than the assets they have (or the lender is willing to risk against those mortgageable assets).
Hang on, if we’re going to let our citizens spend their taxes on the projects they want to contribute towards then why bother having the intermediary of government? Why not let the people choose these services without tax, but directly? What a great idea? Let’s call it the market?
The New Liberty 