Proper democracy

David Davis

I refer you all to this idea. The proposal will cut out the fake Nazi lobbyist middleman, including fake State-Nazi charities, among most other distractions.

It seems that someone is blocking the http://fakecharities.org website. I can’t guess who it would be.


  1. Obliged for the link. I believe that the problem at fakecharities.org is a technical one to do with the server and that its resolution is somehow in hand.

  2. The Devil’s Kitchen says it is still under construction, and needs debugging for IE. Patience is a virtue.

  3. A MUCH better way…


    Rather than having periodic general elections, with very limited
    choice as to candidates, each elector is at any time free to choose any
    person of his or her preference (who must of course be willing so to act),
    to be his or her elected representative, always on a revokeable basis.
    Each day is a possible ‘Election Day’ for each elector and each

    Representatives can then delegate their work-load as they see fit, to
    those they have confidence in. In this age of easy communications, there
    need be no restriction on the total number of elected representatives
    meeting in Assembly by means of electronic and tele- conferencing. The
    emphasis shifts from ‘winners and losers’ to ‘market shares.’

    The relationship between elector and representative is a standard
    civil-law contractual one (offer -> acceptance -> performance (->
    payment)). Representatives may form mutual-interest groups, which might
    in some respects approximate the present political coalitions. New
    patterns of support will emerge. They will not be beholden to political
    parties. Elections will cease to be periodic all-or-nothing affairs, and
    will reflect and accommodate gradual shifts in opinion and support, as
    electors change and develop their preferences between representatives –
    and their policies – over time.

    (A variant of modern public-key/private-key security cryptosystems
    can easily be arranged, to ensure a secret ballot for those preferring
    such an arrangement. It should be pointed out that most of the present
    ‘secret-ballot’ electoral systems are only as ‘secret’ as the authorities
    running them want them to be).

    The legislative functions of the elected assembly will be carried out
    by means of the representatives voting on measures, each casting that
    number of votes corresponding to the sum of contracting electors they
    represent at the time of the vote. Public laws would require the assent
    of a real majority — preferably at least 50% of the electorate’s votes
    (after subtracting ‘votes-against’ from ‘votes-for’). I expect this to
    result in many fewer — and clearer — statute laws.

    It should be worthwhile to introduce ‘sunset’ review provisions for
    existing legislation, (as distinct from the body of civil law), so that
    pre-existing legislation (much of which is dated, inappropriate, corrupt
    in origin, harmful or poorly-thought-out) will be subject to review and
    re-enactment or repeal.

    A Written Constitution, setting out the basic principles of universal
    human rights — to facilitate formal and legal enforceability of those
    rights by means of accessible _trial by jury_ — is both educational and
    advantageous for liberty, with entrenching clauses barring attacks on key
    individual rights and liberties, and forbidding cruel or unusual
    punishments, and so on. Every country in the world _nominally_
    subscribes to these principles already, in the 1947 Universal Declaration
    of Human Rights:

    http://www.hri.org/docs/UDHR48.html (UDHR Attached)

    (The drafting of this document _preceded_ its adoption by the UN,
    and acceptance of the UDHR does not imply endorsement of the UN variant).

    It is usually easier to convince people (and governments) that they
    should _respect_ what they’ve already _actually assented to_.

    Representatives may go on to appoint an Executive to deal with
    defence matters, external affairs and so on. There may also be a second
    (non-spending) oversight and revision chamber, or Senate, with
    representatives especially chosen for their wisdom, knowledge, character,
    standing and so on – as electors and their representatives may wish.

    For the honest and ethical political representatives, there are many
    advantages to be had from Democratic Agorism, and few disadvantages. Each
    can work to build up their electoral constituency (‘market share’), and to
    offer the most attractive and worthwhile programmes, to ensure ongoing
    support and revenue. Each can look forward to promoting their preferred
    objectives. Each can have some security from the domination of party,
    leader or faction. Every shade of opinion can be proportionally

    For the elector, the available opportunities will be very considerably
    improved over the present unresponsive legislatures and government
    monopolies. There will be a whole new series of market-places, offering
    packaged choices of services with strong incentives to be efficient and
    attractive. Programmes compete for electoral support on a basis which
    facilitated comparison for quality and value over time. The existence of
    a variety of simultaneously available alternatives will considerably
    enhance individual freedoms and reduce social conflicts arising from
    monopoly provision.



  4. errm, All very intresting stuff in that comment, Tony, though its long enough to pass for an English essay.

Leave a Reply