Murray Rothbard on direct democracy: Ross Perots proposal for direct democracy through electronic town meetings is the most fascinating and innovative proposal for fundamental political change in many decades. It has been greeted with shock and horror by the entire intellectual-technocratic-media establishment. Arrogant pollsters, who have made a handsome living via scientific sampling, faulty probability theory, and often loaded questions, bluster that direct mass voting by telephone or television would not really be as representative as their own little samples. Of course they would say that; theirs is the first profession to be rendered as obsolete in the Perotvian world of the future as the horse and buggy today. When we cut through the all-too-predictable shrieks of demagogy and fascism, it would be nice if the opponents would favor us with some arguments against the proposal. What exactly is the argument against electronic direct democracy? Could it be that--for all their prattle about democracy, for all their ritualistic denunciation of voter apathy and call for voter participation--that more participation is precisely what the elites dont want? Could it be that what the political class: politicians, bureaucrats, and intellectual and media apologists for the system, really want is more sheep voting merely to ratify the continuance and expansion of the current system, of the Demopublican and Republicrat parties, of phony choices between Tweedledum and Tweedledumber ? The only possible argument against direct democracy, now that the technological argument is obsolete, is that the publics choices would be wrong. But in that case: it would follow directly that the public shouldnt vote at all, since if the public is not to be allowed to vote on issues that affect their lives, why should they be allowed to vote for the people who will make those very decisions: for the beloved President, the Congress, etc.? Perhaps this logic is the reason that the hysterical opponents of the electronic town hall confine themselves to smear terms; since to make this argument at all would condemn them to scorn and irrelevance. In other words: if the logic be unwrapped, it is the opponents of the Perot plan who are much more liable to the charge of fascism than are the Perot supporters. Furthermore, the “modern democrat” who scoffs at direct democracy on the ground that the people are not intelligent or informed enough to decide the complex issues of government, is caught in another fatal contradiction: he assumes that the people are sufficiently intelligent and informed to vote on the people who will make these decisions. But if a voter is not competent to decide issues A, B, C, etc., how in the world could he possibly be qualified to decide whether Mr. X or Mr. Y is better able to handle A, B, or C? In order to make this decision, the voter would have to know a great deal about the issues and know enough about the persons whom he is selecting. In short, he would probably have to know more in a representative than in a direct democracy. Furthermore, making such an argument ignores the vital point: that the decisions of the parasitic bipartisan political class that has run this country for decades have been so abysmal, and recognized to be so abysmal by the public, that almost any change from this miasma and gridlock would be an improvement. Hence--to cite a poll myself--the recent sentiment of 80% of the American public that radical change in the system is necessary, and hence the willingness to embrace Ross Perot as agent of such a change. Even proportional representation would not be as good—according to the classical view of democracy—as direct democracy, and here we come to another important and neglected consideration: modern technology does make it possible to have direct democracy. Certainly, each man could easily vote on issues several times per week by recording his choice on a device attached to his television set. This would not be difficult to achieve. And yet, why has no one seriously suggested a return to direct democracy, now that it may be feasible? The final vote would be that of the people themselves, all voting directly. In a sense, the entire voting public would be the legislature, and the representatives could act as committees to bring bills before this vast legislature. The person who favors the classical view of democracy must, therefore, either favor virtual eradication of the legislature (and, of course, of executive veto power) or abandon his theory. The objection to direct democracy will undoubtedly be that the people are uninformed and therefore not capable of deciding on the complex issues that face the legislature. But, in that case, the democrat must completely abandon the classical theory that the majority should decide on issues, and adopt the modern doctrine that the function of democracy is majority choice of rulers, who, in turn, will decide the policies. mises.org/econsense/ch30.asp mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap17b.asp
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 04:06:55 +0000