Quote :

"^democracy sucks, there's just nothing else out there"

Not at all. There is always a constitutional republic. I have heard such governments can go a century or more before degrading into straight up democracy.

7/31/2010 7:25:49 PM

Constitutions just aren't flexible enough. The speed and flexibility of democracy will always take over something like that.

7/31/2010 8:03:41 PM

A US government report on latin america describes direct democracy as "dangerous".

7/31/2010 8:25:20 PM

That is why my constitutional republic will pit democracy against democracy! The various legislatures will be too busy nullifying each others laws to pass any lasting laws of their own!

7/31/2010 9:12:16 PM

And you would be left with an out of date and ineffective government.

7/31/2010 9:47:28 PM

I disagree. All the contentious laws will be new laws. After-all, no legislature is going to repeal a law everyone agrees with. But, laws we all disagree on, will all be brand new and therefore up to date. Not only up to date, but down right agreeable, since the legislature that passed it would have designed the bill to pass muster with all the other legislatures which have veto power over it.

That said, what novel modern practice has Congress brought us lately? It seems to me that the whole concept of Congress is out of date by design. You don't want a legislature that is too eager to experiment with the lives of the citizenry.

8/1/2010 12:17:06 AM

Quote :

"Not only up to date, but down right agreeable, since the legislature that passed it would have designed the bill to pass muster with all the other legislatures which have veto power over it."

In addition to being ineffective and slow, wouldn't this invite corruption.

Quote :

"You don't want a legislature that is too eager to experiment with the lives of the citizenry."

Then how will we grow?

8/1/2010 2:08:29 AM

I don't see how it would engender any more corruption than the current system. Only difference is that, now, instead of bribing one legislature, you also need a way in to bribe the other legislatures. which, of course, they would be appointed through radically different mechanisms, as the founders intended for the Senate and House.

Grow? in what sense? People grow through their free interactions with each other. We don't need a Congressional commission to progress as a species. Many would argue the opposite, that congressional commissions tend to retard progress.

8/1/2010 2:34:03 AM

Quote :

"I don't see how it would engender any more corruption than the current system. Only difference is that, now, instead of bribing one legislature, you also need a way in to bribe the other legislatures."

That's the exact mechanism I was trying to point out. You're just going to create even more lobbyists.

Quote :

"Grow? in what sense? People grow through their free interactions with each other. We don't need a Congressional commission to progress as a species. Many would argue the opposite, that congressional commissions tend to retard progress."

You seem to view the government as something that impede progress, when in fact, throughout history the countries that have made the most scientific, technological, and social progress are those with the most stable governments. Your model is ineffective in that it cannot adapt to new things. For example, let's say a new investment vehicle is invented, or a new form of intellectual property, your government would not be able to quickly define rules to manage these.

8/1/2010 11:33:56 AM

I'd go the complete opposite direction. Divide the country into very small nation-states, smaller than current states. Each person goes to the computerized polls(or votes from home) on a biweekly basis. A team of elected bureaucrats prepares the legislation, but voters submit the basic ideas of new laws which are bumped to the top of the list by polling during the voting process. Yup, it would lead to populist measures and mob rule, but if you don't like it, you can move to a different county with a different ruling mob.

8/1/2010 12:43:24 PM

Quote :

"your government would not be able to quickly define rules to manage these."

And so the people will quickly define rules to manage them. Contracts exist for a reason. They allow the long arm of the government to define and enforce rules without any legislature anywhere taking any action. Those involved figure out what rules operate best, agree to contractually abide by them, and if anyone breaks the rules the government will wallop them for damages.

As most legislatures spend much of their time retarding the right to contract, they are interfering with the people's ability to quickly define rules to manage new situations.

8/2/2010 3:20:48 AM