- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Doug1943, think about tug-of-war. Democracy simply counts how many people are on both sides of the rope. Whichever side has the most people wins. But can this even be considered a contest? The people are just standing there holding the rope. It's a completely different story with markets. Markets solely measure how hard each side pulls. Whichever side pulls the hardest wins. It's definitely a contest.
Democracy is always tyranny of the majority. It's logically impossible for the minority to ever win. This isn't the case with markets. The minority can win, if it pulls harder than the majority. If the minority does pull harder... then it should win.
Every decision made by democracy should instead be made by markets. Let's take slavery for example.
When America was founded… both sides of the slavery debate would have pulled on the rope. How? By giving as much money as they wanted to the government. The government would have let the general public know how much money each side of the debate had spent/donated. Maybe we can reasonably guess that the proponents of slavery would have outspent the opponents. But everybody would have clearly seen and known the true and actual balance of power between both sides.
It’s hard to convey the benefit of seeing the actual balance of power. It really shouldn’t be that difficult though. It’s like the benefit of not having your head buried in the sand. Or the benefit of not seeing a distorted reflection of reality.
When the US was founded the opponents of slavery were few in number but perhaps they were extremely passionate about their cause. They would have been willing to donate a lot of money to the government. But the amount of money that the opponents were willing to donate probably wouldn’t have been more money than the proponents were willing to donate. Still though, nobody would have been able to overlook the fact that the opponents were willing to make such a big sacrifice for their cause. All the people on the sidelines would have thought, “Why do the opponents of slavery feel so strongly about it? What do they know that we do not?”
The neutral people would have decided that it was worth it to learn about the arguments against slavery. As a result, each year there would have been a lot less people on the sidelines. Each year the balance of power would have shifted more in favor of the opponents of slavery.
Way before the Civil War was fought, more money would have been spent by the opponents of slavery. Would there have been any point to fighting a civil war? Nope. All wars are a contest of strength. The entire point of war is to reveal which side is the strongest. This means that there’s absolutely no point in fighting a war when everyone knows exactly how strong each side truly is. How people had divided their money between both sides of the slavery debate would have accurately revealed how power was divided between the two sides. So it would have been entirely pointless to fight a civil war.
Democracy is always tyranny of the majority. It's logically impossible for the minority to ever win. This isn't the case with markets. The minority can win, if it pulls harder than the majority. If the minority does pull harder... then it should win.
Every decision made by democracy should instead be made by markets. Let's take slavery for example.
When America was founded… both sides of the slavery debate would have pulled on the rope. How? By giving as much money as they wanted to the government. The government would have let the general public know how much money each side of the debate had spent/donated. Maybe we can reasonably guess that the proponents of slavery would have outspent the opponents. But everybody would have clearly seen and known the true and actual balance of power between both sides.
It’s hard to convey the benefit of seeing the actual balance of power. It really shouldn’t be that difficult though. It’s like the benefit of not having your head buried in the sand. Or the benefit of not seeing a distorted reflection of reality.
When the US was founded the opponents of slavery were few in number but perhaps they were extremely passionate about their cause. They would have been willing to donate a lot of money to the government. But the amount of money that the opponents were willing to donate probably wouldn’t have been more money than the proponents were willing to donate. Still though, nobody would have been able to overlook the fact that the opponents were willing to make such a big sacrifice for their cause. All the people on the sidelines would have thought, “Why do the opponents of slavery feel so strongly about it? What do they know that we do not?”
The neutral people would have decided that it was worth it to learn about the arguments against slavery. As a result, each year there would have been a lot less people on the sidelines. Each year the balance of power would have shifted more in favor of the opponents of slavery.
Way before the Civil War was fought, more money would have been spent by the opponents of slavery. Would there have been any point to fighting a civil war? Nope. All wars are a contest of strength. The entire point of war is to reveal which side is the strongest. This means that there’s absolutely no point in fighting a war when everyone knows exactly how strong each side truly is. How people had divided their money between both sides of the slavery debate would have accurately revealed how power was divided between the two sides. So it would have been entirely pointless to fight a civil war.
