Introduction

We have recently heard loud cries about “saving our Democracy.” When someone confronts the people making these statements with the fact that we are supposed to have a republic, they grunt and move on. Instead of making a big deal out of the “republic” argument, let’s just concede that we do have some sort of democracy—at the state level, at least. But what form of Democracy do we have?

It seems that we have a “representative Democracy. And that is where the problems begin.

Our Democracy

In a pure democracy, all citizens vote on every issue. With a population of 330+ million people, citizens would stand in line most of their waking hours. Poll work would be one of the highest-paid jobs in the country. It would not work.

As a solution to this knotty problem, some clever person thought of the idea of a representative Democracy.

In a representative Democracy you and your neighbors would choose some people who seemed to share your values and promised sincerely to vote in favor of laws you favored the most. You would send them off to a place we call Washington D. C. and even pay them a handsome stipend to represent you (and your neighbors) faithfully.

This sounds like a slick arrangement until you see how it really works.

Although your representatives do vote for issues important to you, they frequently “compromise” with representatives with whom you generally disagree and vote for laws you find repulsive. The electoral system, as designed, does have a solution to this problem.

Every two years, you get to vote against some of these representatives and throw them out of office. Two to six years seems like a long time to wait to attempt to correct the problem. Oh yes, the laws these representatives passed stay on the books, and the bureaucrats that administer them keep their jobs.

Not such a great system after all. And, if you look closely, it has an eery resemblance to socialism (which you have been told is really bad.)

So, what’s the alternative?

A Real Democracy

One form of Democracy does exist that does not require people to go to polling places every couple of years to choose someone to act on their behalf. It has a name that sends shivers up the spines of many people, particularly politicians: free markets.

That name scares the second group because they might have to get a real job. It scares the first group because they do not understand it. They do not understand how a system that relies on participants casting their “votes” daily and only on the issues that affect them directly. If they prefer a muffin to the money they might give up to buy it, they buy. If they don’t, they do not buy. It is that simple.

Consumers in the democratic system of the market do not have to have meetings, conduct hearings, or bargain with other buyers (politicians). They vote for (buy) or vote against (don’t buy) in an instant.

Through this democratic network, a cattle rancher in Wyoming sells a steak to a stock broker in New York City. The two will never meet, and the broker has never seen a steer, but each casts his vote, and that resolves to issue (the hunger of the broker).

Conclusion

If you really want to have democracy, send the politicians home. Reduce or eliminate government, and let people take responsibility for their own lives.

The entire universe operates on a small number of very simple principles and processes acting in concert. Why do people fear the simple idea of letting people cast their “votes” when and where they want without intervention?

I will continue to state and restate this simple (but complex) concept on this and other media.