But are they more efficient in all cases? This is the question that Plato should have made clear. Plato stated that individuals make efficient decisions based on self interest on issues that they are directly experienced with. This introduced a logical contradiction when he expects the guardians to make efficient decisions in areas which they do not have direct experience.

So how do you determine who has the requisite experience to make a particular decision?

Is it possible that on the whole, individuals may self select if given the option of voluntary voting on particular policy issues which are posed rationally (eg the downsides are fully explained)?
Is it possible that people may be able to vote more efficiently by choosing their base values, rather than choosing representatives that might only share a majority (but not all) of their values?
(and how does this relate to the issue I posed in my first paragraph?)
If you make too many restrictions on policical freedom, you get the same problems, since you’ll have too much centralized planning.

However, while it may be tempting, it’s rather anti-democratic, and not a very libertarian idea to ban stupid or ignorant people from voting. It has shades of socialist “we know what’s best for the masses” arrogance, and would be open to incredible abuse and manipulation – who determines the criteria for being smart enough to vote?

Somewhere in that really long post Plato is mentioned – wasn’t one of his things to have a ruling elite of philosophers running the place? That would have worked wonders – imagine how long it would have taken to get a practical decision made…

p.s. – David – I agree about marketing, libertarians need to get with the program. Your average person on the street doesn’t know what a libertarian is.

Here the socialists have it over us in spades. Ironic, as marketing is generally regarded as a tool of capitalism, it’s rather hypocritical of them to use it so well. Just look at their strong branding (Greens logo, Che, red flags, GetUp ads etc) They really know how to play to people’s ignorance about free markets, and fear of market competition.

Probably their best marketing coup is removing the word ‘socialism’ from their lexicon, and renaming it to more palatable terms – ‘social justice’, ‘equality’ ‘compassion’, ‘sustainable future’ etc

This idea, while not new, holds the key to the solution. I’m not an economist but I am an experienced marketer. In many respects marketing is the art of showing people they need something when they didn’t realise it.

It happens all the time in goods and services, but it’s also applicable to political and economic ideas. Indeed, it’s the reason the government employs so many press secretaries as spin-doctors. Their task is to make political ideas and decisions appear palatable (and of course make the opposition’s ideas sound unpalatable).

There are examples that illustrate the point: the National Farmers Federation and its member bodies were persuaded to embrace free trade on the grounds that they were internationally competitive and didn’t need protection. The only condition was that the government pursue free trade internationally.

New Zealand farmers embraced the removal of subsidies on lamb on the same basis.

Not many people see these things in abstract economic terms though. Most look at them through the prism of self-interest. That’s exactly how marketing operates.

I have been present in meetings with farmers where the entire mood changed when it was pointed out that we couldn’t expect foreigners to buy our goods if we refused to buy theirs.

I am seeing opposition to foreign guest workers disappear in the face of stories about unharvested fruit and vegetable crops. Those stories have not appeared by accident.

I know people who have dropped their opposition to electricity privatisation when it is pointed out that government ownership of businesses is socialism, and that’s the last thing they want to associate with.

There is no magic bullet or one size fits all solution. A lot of marketing fails because it does not use the right language or focus on the right need. But the principles are just as applicable to economic and political ideas as they are to anything else.

It might be difficult to accept, but libertarians are just slow learners. The socialists have known all this for a long time.