Why would Jack be starving in the first place? If property rights had been improving and the size of government had been reducing for the prior 50 years the idea that Jack wuld be starving is pretty implausible.

Franklin had it right and there was no crudeness about it. The implication being that the main problem we have if we want a democracy, is finding how we go about bringing the level of stealing down.

For fucksakes Shem. Why are you still lying about this?

Does this mean you’ve finally tracked down the evidence. You jerk!!!

Lets see that evidence then.

I like elections:

1. US States directly elect Governors and other cabinet officials.

2. We could have CIR for worthy constituional referenda – making Govenrment more checked.

3. We have a strong, democratic republican referenda (even though effectively only the PM can nominate the issue).

4. We could elect judges (I recommend approval voting for a panel of judges).

5. CIR could be used to strike down bad laws amde by Parliament.

6. Libertarianism isn’t well known and sortition would consolidate the status quo.

Why not a president whose principle role is to assign government decision to making to various commercial consultancy networks. Good for the dictator, if the decision is a bad one the relevant organisations cop the rap, if a good one he\she gets the cookies.

At present we have a situation where govts rely on advisers who often lack experience in the commercial world and are captive to political interests. By outsourcing the making of major decisions such captivity is lessened and we get the advice of the best and brightest in the general community.

I think the US system is better. The President governs and can get money and the legislation necessary for programmes though Congress. He/she /it can also check their stupidity.

I approve of the concept of constitutional democracy. I do not accept however that it is moral, although I accept that it is (within the constraints of our culture) probably the most acceptable of the available alternatives as they exist at the moment.

Accept it Shem, there is no strictly moral form of government. As we tend to be utilitarian we generally accept the state but only from a utilitarian perspective, or through never questioning the concept. Sorry mate but if you want a moral basis you will have to be an anarchist. (I am not one)

The only argument for government is collective protection of rights, however as soon as it assumes the role as the sole protector it loses that morality. The institution of government does not for example accept the idea of competition from a rival government and is therefore inherently monopolistic.

I note your example if the government takes some of Jill’s money (say 1%) to feed Jack it will upset her a little, but the positive it will bring to Jack’s life by allowing him to live offsets that. does not allow for the possibility that Jill might voluntarily donate to charities that might feed Jack, or that Little Boy Blue fresh from releasing his no. 1 horn album might give Jack a job as a personal assistant which will feed, clothe, and put a roof over his head. Are you sure that you are not a closet statist.

Does the fact that Jill and Boy Blue have invested in a tuffet factory that provides a living for 500 people count for nothing.

OK monarchs and dictators tend to get a bad rep from the liberal press, but this is not an indictment of the institution of dictatorial power. Previous examples have not been good however this can change, the emergence of such people has in the past been based on the nature of tribal culture as seen in Africa and Europe. We are emerging from this.

As a matter of interest I did not say that 300 politicians ruling over 20 million people is illegitimate but If the power is centered in the hands of one person then there are likely to be fewer silly ideas enacted, than in a parliament run by the majority of 300 people.