You need more rest i think…

No. Your argument was in response to me and it was that “majority rule can end up going for a ride down shit street” and you claimed that the two major parties had saved us (#63). After I prodded you several times it turns out you can offer no support for this claim.

As for “strong constitutional safeguards,” this libertarian mantra would, presumably, be engraved in stone by God? I mean: if a majority (I’m not sure what the adjective “simple” contributes) decides on safeguards, great. If they don’t, they don’t. That is all. If you are genuine about everyone being free YOU don’t get to dictate any alleged safeguards.

This thread began with Ken Parish asking about optimal forms of social organisation. I said everyone should have an equal say in deciding that. KP suggested that expertise counted but I disagreed. Expertise is valuable and counts for nearly everything if you want to know, say, the effect of a wage rise on inflation. You build a model, you see how it compares with reality, you refine it, and then you apply it to reality in a predictive way. Expertise counts for a lot if you want to know, say, the effect of student-teacher ratio. But it is not everything because values enter and you need to say whether the effect is on grades, or career success, or divorce rate, or life expectancy… all of which are matters of expertise but might give grounds for divergent policy recommendations.

When you want to know the sort of policy settings which would simultaneously maximise wealth-producing innovation and the public welfare, expertise counts for even less. This was the topic, was it not? I asserted there is no “sort”. I pointed out that there are two logically coherent ways of thinking (eg laissez faire v socialism) but here we seek the middle road and this is no general coherent way this can be logically worked out (#22, #40). The middle road is a political decision made on a case by case basis. It will consist of rules enforced by the coercive state.

Since the answer CANNOT be worked out expertly, I suggested that there is one proper way to make those rules: democratically. Ideally, every citizen should have a precisely equal say in making the rules. I pointed out that this is not only proper but is the most effective in terms of prosperity and offered history as evidence. Overwhelming evidence.

Terje #88 “I don’t agree with using CIRs to initiate legislation. Instead I prefer to see the people hold a power of veto over legislation via a repeal process driven by CIRs.”

I tend to this opinion, too, however it should be something for the majority to decide. About 10 years ago, the Swiss knocked back a proposal to initiate legislation nationally. However they do it in all the cantons and in many US states. It could be better set up, but it has not caused catastrophe.

JC #89 asks whether I “think the rights of minorities should be safeguarded or should the majority opinion always prevail even when those rights look like they’re going to be trampled.”

If the majority establish safeguards, they establish them. If they don’t, they don’t. The alternative is to have some minority dream them up. For ten thousand years the MINORITY has oppressed minorities, not safeguarded them. When the (simple!) majority get to actually decide, has it ever oppressed any minority? JC, who wants to believe in this “tyranny of the majority,” cannot come up with a single instance. I note the contradiction of the doctrinaire individualist expressing concern for a minority which is, by definition, a group. I suspect that what really worries the libertarian about the majority deciding is that the majority would not endorse the libertarian program. Now that is a justified worry.

The alternative to a “simple” majority is actually a super-majority. For example a majority of states as with our referendums and as with Swiss national referendums. It seems not a bad idea but is it important? It has saved the minority from oppression on five occasions out of 44 in Australia. When I checked Switzerland a few years ago it had rescued the minority on eleven occasions out of over 500. You would have to look at the instances to know what frightful fate would have befallen them but it doesn’t look like a simple majority would be a “ride down shit street.”

The evidence is all one way: a (simple) majority control would improve the quality of laws and maximise prosperity.

Please furnish evidence rather than slogans and propaganda.”

Steve is conflating again, while I linked to Mises, I used other evidence - namely official evidence most of the time, all publicly available produced by national or international agencies. He can look it up if he is so inclined.

Steve is also an ignorant commentator, Mises’ student Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics whereas Marx’s student Lenin advocated murdering the landholders. His equation is an attempt to spawn more ignorance. Only a fringe dwelling lunatic would make such a comparison.

But why the straw man about referendums anyway? It’s not what i was discussing.

My argument is that simple majority rule with strong constitutional safeguards offers a better deal in terms of protecting individual rights than simple majority rule. Is it fool proof? Of course it isn’t but it’s certainly better than not having these safeguards.

And why are you asserting I have a problem with referendums anyway? I don’t and never suggested otherwise.

If we had constitutional safeguards we most likely wouldn’t have issues with free speech such as the Victorian attempt a few years ago as a legislature wouldn’t dare attempt infringement so readily.

As a so-called libertarian you want only some people to be free.

You channeling my dead grandmas too, mike? You think that’s what I was saying? How extraordinary.

You want a minority to rule but instead of offering some reasoned, PRINCIPLED justification of this twist on liberty, you want to say that the reason liberty should be limited is that beyond a certain point it doesn’t work - and then you can’t produce any evidence of its alleged failure to work.

Great lateral thinking here.

Let me ask you, you think the rights of minorities should be safeguarded or should the majority opinion always prevail even when those rights look like they’re going to be trampled

I would agree that there is too much pessimism about democracy. My personal view is that the failings of democracy that we do observe generally have more to do with the poor menu that the voters can choose from, and in some instance the poor system of voting, than a reflexing inclination on the part of voters towards choosing bad policy and/or bad laws.

Having said that I don’t agree with using CIRs to initiate legislation. Instead I prefer to see the people hold a power of veto over legislation via a repeal process driven by CIRs.

Switzerland is a pretty terrific example of democracy working well. It also seems to have retained the best aspects of federalism.

You mean the amendment to the US constitution prohibiting alcohol. Yes, it was a bad result. But there was no referendum. The legislatures did that. You know? That minority you trust to do the right thing? (There has never been a national referendum in the US.)

There have been thousands of referendums though. You say it leads up shit street. You don’t have a single supporting case do you? The US states have a couple of dozen referendums every election. Switzerland has had over 500 national ones in the last 160 years along with heaven knows how many thousands in its 26 Cantons. You’d think that somewhere there must be a bad result.

But this is all ratty. As a so-called libertarian you want only some people to be free. You want a minority to rule but instead of offering some reasoned, PRINCIPLED justification of this twist on liberty, you want to say that the reason liberty should be limited is that beyond a certain point it doesn’t work - and then you can’t produce any evidence of its alleged failure to work.

Ratty.

“Now take it back, because what you said is fallacious smearing.”

Sorry Hillbilly but the only links you provide above are to marxist.org, oops I mean’t mises.org.

Please furnish evidence rather than slogans and propaganda.

There have been thousands of referendums. Thousands. Can you show me some which led up “shit street”? Can you even produce any that were bad in some way?

Yea. Prohibition would be one that comes to mind.

I don’t actually know what you are talking about but anything that depends on examples in South America it is a desperate argument.

Well it’s usually the first port of call when i want an example of what’s bad with statism and crony economics. I was hihlighing what’s bad with majoritarian rule and why a constitutional republic with effective safeguards against kneejerkism is far better.

There isn’t a respectable democracy among the lot of them. It is certainly not what I am talking about.

i wouldn’t say that. Chile isn’t that bad. Mexico has been okish for the past 10 years or so. Columbia is doing ok under the circumstances. Even Brazil under Lulu is improving.

I agree 2% is a little high. If it is too high it tends to restrict signature gathering to highly organised groups. The Dems had it as policy but the parliamentarians never really pushed it did they? They never do. Have you read the Williams and Chin article on CIR in Australia? It’s depressing. From it I count about 35 times that a CIR bill has been introduced into an Australian parliament - by both the major parties - but there is always some double shuffle and it gets shelved.

George Williams and Geraldine Chin, 2000, “Failure of CIR in…” Australian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 27–48. I can email it if you wish.

http://ldp.org.au/federal/policies/Democracy.html

Citizen Initiated Referenda (CIR) allow for laws to be struck down in a two part process. First, a petition requiring the signatures of 2% of the eligible electors would be submitted to the Australian Electoral Commission. Second, following a period long enough for people to think the issue over, the electorate has the chance to vote Yes or No to abolish the law in question. The decision would be made on a simple majority basis.

Personally I think the 2% threshold is a little two high. And I think voting on the initatives should be held over until the next general election. However I’m personally a big fan of the idea. I also have a cause on facebook that interested individuals can join:-

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/43536?m=6f503&recruiter_id=6758475

For example, I raised earlier the suggestion that unlawful termination laws should be wound back and replaced by stronger social welfare/retraining safety nets for displaced workers. However I don’t think we could just make it completely open slather on dismissal, because I also strongly believe that freedom of association (trade union membership) is an important right. The LDP also believes that (or says it does). However, if all employers could dismiss employees for any reason at any time without restriction and for any reason whatever, then it would be all too easy for employers who wanted to exclude unionism to sack any worker who joined/was a member of a union.

Surely this is just a transition problem. Once you liberate the labour markets you get closer to full employment and the ability of employers to be selective in terms of third party associations becomes severely reduced. In fact you tend to see reductions in social exclusion when minimum wages and the like are removed. In the USA the employment rate amoungst young black males was near equal to that of young white males (all be it on a different average wage) in the era before minimum wages. Much the same was true of Australian aboriginies prior to the equal wage rulings. Disliking somebody because of their race is different to disliking somebody because of their involvement with a trade union but the principle remains that a strong labour market reduces the actualisation of prejudice and mitigates the form of the prejudice (ie lower wages for social outcasts instead of isolation for social outcasts).

In a truely liberal labour market I think there might be an interesting academic question about how much more employers would be willing and/or capable of paying non-union employees versus unionised employees. However the idea that your pay might be based on something other than pure merit should not shock anybody. People are paid differently because of lots of things such as their capacity to fit in with a corporate culture, their ability to work late when needed, their loyalty to the organisation and lots of other extraneous factors. Union membership is hardly likely to be the most significant factor except perhaps in industries where unions have proven to be a major obstacle to productivity.

I think I understand your concern about discrimination against unionists in a free labour market however I think it is an over rated concern and a misplaced one.

I don’t actually know what you are talking about but anything that depends on examples in South America it is a desperate argument. There isn’t a respectable democracy among the lot of them. It is certainly not what I am talking about.

There have been thousands of referendums. Thousands. Can you show me some which led up “shit street”? Can you even produce any that were bad in some way?

You are a libertarian yet you think only some people should make the rules. How do you square that?

There is no evidence majority rule makes bad decisions. Quite the contrary.

I think the winner take all approach in some nations in South American puts paid to that thesis.

I’ve quoted several other sources for reference, some off memory, none of these other sources being Mises.org - except for asserting a lower living standard, which is obvious if you look at electricity consumption or real disposable incomes and backed up by other sources.

Now take it back, because what you said is fallacious smearing.

The source of your “facts” is Mises.org which is the libertarian equivalent of CPA.org. Please provide reliable information rather than propaganda.

Yes Norway and Denmark have very low unemployment - but they also have freer labour markets than we do. But they also have equal or higher hidden unemployment. You then go onto praise Sweden, which their peak union offical bemaoned for having 25% real unemployment.

“I agree with Ken about not taking the social democratic model as far as the Nordic countries, but nonetheless the success of these economies is extremely important because it shatters the myths put out by the small government/ free market crowd.”

No it doesn’t. The Nordic success (low official unemployment rates, high levels of technology transfer) have been attributed to predictable factors, like high levels of openness and some free labour markets. The failures of high taxes and subsidising uneconomic work (sluggish growth, high hidden unemployment and pitiful real incomes) have been predicted and observed as well.

So much for your “myth busting”.

“Mark, ok fine - but how many things do Norwegians not have to pay for because they are provided (or heavily subsidised by) the State?”

Their real disposable income is 3rd lowest in Western Europe. This refers to purchasing power. This means it includes a measure of what the State “pays” for. This is because the disposable figure implictly includes a measure of how much they have paid for cradle to grave services.

“You claim this is evidenced by “capital flight”, but the various commentators have consistently rated such countries as good places to invest.”

Maybe they have. Capital flight is real so you can remove the scare quotes. People from offshore don’t stop investing - JC notes the silent practice of corporatism. The natives have left and moved headquarters or entire firms offshore. This is not the same as opening up a new subsidiary overseas. The taxes are sending their own firms overseas, never to come back.