Ludwig, I was interested in your comment "For example, if we were all taxed more, the provision of public services could be greatly improved. But how would a referendum for higher taxes get up?"

I agree that governments will have to make tough and unpopular decisions at times, thats one of the bits I like about the current system. Political parties are judged more on overall performance than on specific decisions (hopefully).

Your comment though suggests to me that you don't think we should have a choice between the provision of public services and taxation.

I would like to have a choice between the two, I think I can use my income more effectively than the government to provide a lot of those services.

At the moment neither of the major parties seem to offer that choice in a real form but it is a choice I would like to be able to vote on.

R0bert

Will people ever vote for higher taxes? Possibly not. The Washington Watch site has polling for each bill it lists, and generally (but not always) people are opposing bills that cost money. Of course this is not a real vote, and it’s not clear how much the site prevents people from voting twice, so the results aren’t reliable.

On the other hand, Beedham’s second article looks at this problem, http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/econom-3.htm#unselfishly and argues that a better-informed voter will be more likely to vote unselfishly. Certainly there are Swiss examples of referenda which have been determined contrary to the voters’ apparent short-term interests, so maybe self-interest would be just part of the mix of factors deciding an issue.

In our private lives, we are capable of weighing up the pros and cons of say, spending money to get the roof fixed. Surely we are also capable of deciding to pay higher taxes to improve hospitals. Maybe it’s naïve, but I suspect the informed voter will eventually prevail over the self-interested one.

Of course, there will be limits, but these apply equally to elected governments. For example, what about where a difficult decision will threaten the livelihoods of many? Are we any less capable than our elected representatives of voting to say, triple the price of fossil fuels, or make farmers pay the real cost of the water they use? I don’t think so.

Which brings me to shorbe's tyranny-of-the-majority problem. This is likely to be an intractable one, and will as a minimum require solid protections for minorities. Otherwise how can we be sure that in a moment of grief, passion or elation we won’t vote to disenfranchise muslims, to make cricket compulsory or to excise Tasmania?

I suspect that shorbe’s notion that no-one is capable of making an informed political decision is really a search for someone who can make a perfect decision, and this, by nature, is impossible. I passionately disagree with the view that we’re not capable of governing ourselves – since we all share the consequences of political decisions, we must also shoulder the responsibility for them.

Sylvia: It's not an attempt at a strawman. It's a very important philsophical problem.

If people can't make rational decisions about political issues, then how can they evaluate the performances (or lack thereof) of politicians, since to do so would require people to be able to make rational decisions about the performances of politicians, which would require people to be able to understand the (ir)rationality of the decisions being made? All you're doing is pushing the problem back one step because at some point someone you claim to be unable to make these rational decisions has to make a decision. It doesn't matter where that step is or how many times it's made (eg. We could establish an independent body to evaluate the politicians, yet who evaluates the independent body?), the problem remains.

By the way, I'm not arguing for direct democracy (or democracy in general).

R0bert: I also agree with your questioning of Ludwig's point and think that people would often be able to make better decisions for themselves. I don't think that more taxes equal better service. They might mean more government largesse and a bigger gravy train, but they don't necessarily mean the money will be more effectively spent for the people who pay the taxes.

w: Sorry if I've misinterpreted you, but I just want to clear up that I agree with you in thinking that people can (and should) make their own decisions. I don't think that just because people can't make perfect decisions that they shouldn't. I think people should have the opportunity to make their own decisions, even if they're not very good at making them. I'm interested to know whether you agree with democracy in principle (regardless of whether it is or isn't the best practical system). Isn't democracy just a way of people claiming that simply because of numbers they know better about making decisions for other people? Two morons can out vote a genius, or two wolves can out vote a sheep about what's for dinner.

R0bert

“Your comment though suggests to me that you don't think we should have a choice between the provision of public services and taxation.”

I assumed that there would always be taxes, and services provided by a centralised government. It was just the level of taxation that was open to debate.

But yes, some service-provision directly from private enterprise could increase if taxes were to fall and the ability of government to provide those services was to fall accordingly. And that sort of thing might be appealing to voters.

But if a bill was put forward under a direct democracy regime in which the constituency was given the chance to vote on having no taxes at all, or very low taxes, it might just prove to be too tempting to many people, perhaps the majority, to vote for no or nominal taxes, especially as it would mean a very large increase in their take-home income. While private enterprise would take over some services, that would be disastrous to governments and service provision overall, including policing, education, and many other things.

So if we had unfettered direct democracy, we might just see some very radical changes that could turn us into a very different sort of society or be our undoing. If we were to increase the participatory aspect, we would have to be careful about the connotations. Some things just could never be open to direct voting.

And that leads to the question of what things would be ineligible. With all the ineligible stuff worked out, would a move towards direct democracy be a real expansion of our ability to have a meaningful say in policy, or would it be basically a feel-good exercise, or would it be no different to the current system, with just the occasional referendum?

Shorbe, it's a strawman.

You sought to characterise my post as being an "argument for fascism". Your comment served no valid purpose in the debate, but was included in an attempt to taint my position by associating it with a discredited model of government.

You do yourself a disservice, because I'm sure many people are like me, and just ignore the rest of your post when you try to use such tactics. After all, if you have so little confidence in your ability to argue a point on its merits, why should anyone else?

Sylvia.

Sylvia: Your argument was invalid as a defence for any form of democracy for the reasons I outlined in my last post, namely that there's a contradiction in it (look up "exclusive disjunction" in logic for a start on what's wrong with your argument). You can't argue against something and then try to argue for something else that also requires the same thing. Explain how people cannot be responsible enough to vote directly on an issue, yet can be responsible enough to assess a representative's stance or performance who will vote on the issue. Whether you intended it or not, it was an argument for fascism (or at least for an enlightened despot or group thereof).

I actually don't care one way or the other in a sense about whether fascism or (any) form of democracy is liked or disliked as I don't believe in either democracy or fascism. I think they both have their practical applications, I just don't agree with either from an ideological perspective. I actually think that historically, democracy will be seen as an anomaly (and will be "discredited" in time), and that within this century, we'll see a move away from it again, but that's beside the point.

If you're so hell bent on pushing an argument that has a contradiction at its centre, then it really doesn't bother me one way or the other what you think of what I write, or whether you think I try to argue my point on its merits. Also, who knows what other people will think about what I write? Maybe they come from a completely different angle to both of us and might find it interesting.