8. Have the public directly vote on issues, once a month, on line.. bang, you have your answer (non compulsory)
Fundamentally I believe in the principle of liberty over democracy, not the other way round.
You believe in the principle of Liberty over democracy? But wish to impose a Pure Democracy?
The joke goes:
"What are the two most historically important people to Western Civilization? Arguably, but agreeably - Socrates and Jesus Christ.
Who killed Socrates and Jesus Christ?
Democracy did."
In other words you do believe societies need to be RUN and MANAGED by certain people.
In otherwords, no. You can't RUN or MANAGE an economy. To understand that, you need to question your premises. What is an economy? It's essentially the market. And the market is made up from individual, human action.
That is the fundamental premise of the Austrian School / free market supporters. Human action which is axiomatic
(self evident). Humans exist. They act. Using a priori reasoning
(deductive), other axioms can be discovered. (And have been).
Human Action: A Treatise on Economics is the magnum opus of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. It presents a case for laissez-faire capitalism based on Mises' praxeology, or rational investigation of human decision-making. It rejects positivism within economics. It defends an a priori epistemology and underpins praxeology with a foundation of methodological individualism and laws of apodictic certainty. Mises argues that the free-market economy not only outdistances any government-planned system, but ultimately serves as the foundation of civilization itself.
Mises Media Section,
Mises Literature section - free Audiobooks, lectures, full books in PDF form, amazingly wealth of knowledge.
But to get back on track:
Those who abide by the non aggression axiom and private property rights don't impose themselves on others.
The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism by Walter Block
The non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin of the philosophy of libertarianism. It states, simply, that it shall be legal for anyone to do anything he wants, provided only that he not initiate (or threaten) violence against the person or legitimately owned property of another. That is, in the free society, one has the right to manufacture, buy or sell any good or service at any mutually agreeable terms. Thus, there would be no victimless crime prohibitions, price controls, government regulation of the economy, etc.
If the non-aggression axiom is the basic building block of libertarianism, private property rights based on (Lockean and Rothbardian) homesteading principles are the foundation. For if A reaches into B’s pocket, pulls out his wallet and runs away with it, we cannot know that A is the aggressor and B the victim. It may be that A is merely repossessing his own wallet, the one B stole from him yesterday. But given a correct grounding in property rights, the non-aggression axiom is a very powerful tool in the war of ideas. For most individuals believe, and fervently so, that it is wrong to invade other people or their property. Who, after all, favors theft, murder or rape? With this as an entering wedge, libertarians are free to apply this axiom to all of human action, including, radically, to unions, taxes, and even government itself.
A quote from the von Mises site a few week ago: "The majority of the voters are just dull and mentally inert people who dislike thinking and are easily deceived by the enticing promises of irresponsible pied pipers."
Von Mises views are totally at odds with modern day politics.
At last week's State elections the Electoral Commission booth chief (where I attended) estimated that about half the voters entered without a wad of polling propaganda from the Party's manning the gates: The first time he had seen such a large number who knew exactly how they would vote.
Haha, so your contention is: they have
not been influenced by the mainstream media at all, and that they have all critically analysed the politicians policies and promises, in relation to their previous actions?
You also contend that, because someone hasn't taken those pamphlets - that means something? It means they've made their mind up? You can't seriously believe, whether someone takes a pamphlett or not - that it means they THINK.
The propaganda didn't start at the gate of the school, it'd been going for the last month.
And furthermore: I TOOK those pamphlets, and I didn't vote for anyone. Essentially they were all shoved into my hand, but that doesn't change the fact - you're thesis is wrong.