would you prefer a parliamentary democracy or a presidential democracy
Posted by Suspicious-Dark-3142@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 54 comments
at least, which one is the lesser evil. there is also hybrid systems so you could debate about that but idc
0_niner@reddit
What about a country in which a popular and electoral vote is done by the people for three leaders. One leader that handles economic policies. One leader that handles social policies. And one leader that handles laws. Those three leaders will share decision making with the approval of a congress. The members of the congress are elected by the people of each state as it is now. I think this allows for better distinctions between polices and laws being made, and allows for less black and white policies.
Every-Weekend7435@reddit
so an assembly independent republic, like switzerland
0_niner@reddit
After researching into their executive branch system it seems like my idea is similar. Maybe instead of 3 members 5 would be easier when it comes to separation of authority. Their Federal Assembly with two sections, one for the people and one for each region, or as they call cantons, seems to be better than a HoR and Senate for a libertarian nation. I didn't realize that something similar to what I envision already exists, thank you for mentioning Switzerland and I will definitely do more research on their government and other governments.
Suspicious-Dark-3142@reddit (OP)
wait im confused on two things: im confused on the leader that handles laws? And do all the leaders make laws or enforce them like the executive branch?
0_niner@reddit
I see it as the leader for laws will propose laws to the other two leaders and if agreed upon they will come to an agreement on how to go about the law. Then if/once an agreement is made then the plan will go to congress to be approved or denied. For example if the leader for laws wants to make a law that would make driving without a license illegal then the leader for social policies will need to see if it would be in the public's support for being made. Along with that the economic leader will need to see if it would be financially possible to enforce those laws (if more police will be needed to be hired and what not). Then if those three are able to come to an agreement congress would need to approve of the law. I would also imagine a judicial body will also be needed to make sure that law does not violate the constitution of the nation. The idea doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense now that I think of it more deeply.
Suspicious-Dark-3142@reddit (OP)
aight i see the potential now
mayone3@reddit
Presidential democracy. I prefer dictatorship anyway but parliamentary would be the rule of mobs.
Entropy_Pyre@reddit
You prefer dictatorship??
mayone3@reddit
At least I’m honest about it unlike all these guys suggesting democracy is somehow unconstitutional despite being the foundation of the constitution
CaptainOfMyself@reddit
Why do you prefer dictatorships? Doesn’t it select for certain undesirable qualities if someone is able to succeed in creating or taking control of a system like that?
Prestigious_Bite_314@reddit
There is an argument, I think made by Hoppe, that a monarch who rules and his heir inherits the throne has more incentive to take care of the long term economics and political problem that arise, which are handled in a very flashy and political way by democracy.
CaptainOfMyself@reddit
I see. So, remove the need to appeal to the crowd?
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." - C.S. Lewis
mayone3@reddit
That’s a huge paragraph for a nothing burger
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
Well I figured on the off chance that you weren't lamely attempting to make a joke here and you're actually dumb enough to prefer tyranny, then, by luck or by reason, you chose the best form of it.
PestyNomad@reddit
Parliamentary. The executive branch in the U.S. needs to be nerfed back to where it came from.
TheWest_Is_TheBest@reddit
Parliamentary republic
Kingkary@reddit
Presidential with the rank choice voting and bringing back the VP being the second most voted. Have the same set up for cabinet positions
RocksCanOnlyWait@reddit
Parliamentary systems without an independent executive are garbage. They are intended to let the majority wield unchecked power.
Suspicious-Dark-3142@reddit (OP)
yea i agree
Lokitusaborg@reddit
Democracy is how you end up with ships named “Boaty McBoatface.” While funny when talking about a ship, I’d rather not leave the ability to launch nukes to popular vote…let alone the economy.
CaptainOfMyself@reddit
But in a way, isn’t electing someone to have that decision the same as the popular vote doing that? Maybe I misunderstood what you meant
Lokitusaborg@reddit
That would be a Republic.
Stone_tigris@reddit
The terms most academics use are “representative democracy” and “direct democracy”.
Lokitusaborg@reddit
Or Constitutional Republic, which is what we are.
Stone_tigris@reddit
The US is a representative democracy and a republic.
Lokitusaborg@reddit
It’s more complex than that. If the people wanted it to be legal to push an interest contrary to the Constitution and they elected representatives to that interest to push legislation to make it legal, it still can and should be repealed because the law of the land is constitutional. It’s not true democracy, direct or representative. It’s a limited democracy, and it should be.
Stone_tigris@reddit
The Constitution can be amended by elected representatives (both state and federal)
Lokitusaborg@reddit
Sure it can be amended by elected representatives, and that’s to my point. That’s not my argument. My argument is that democracy is majority rules, whether representation exists or not. Majorities in this country can pass a law; but it can be challenged and rendered overturned if it doesn’t agree with the constitution. So for example: if the majority of the people out there and elected officials believe Roe v. Wade is correct, the constitution has to be revised; which is a whole other process.
mwseebeck@reddit
No to both.
Mikolf@reddit
ITT libertarians believe the majority of people are too stupid and can't be trusted but refuse to fund a public education system.
FreeCapitalist68@reddit
It depends. Are we including a republic in this definition of democracy?
thatrocketnerd@reddit
Aren’t both republics because they include elected represents who have power to govern?
VanRado@reddit
The presidential one is by some definition a republic. Parliamentary democracy does not have to be a republic.
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
Why the hell would anyone want any kind of democracy? Our republic is deeply flawed and has been corrupted, but it's still better than a democracy.
Kalmar_Union@reddit
Smartest libertarian
The US is a republic due to not being a monarchy and having a president. It’s a democracy because people vote for that president. It’s simple. You’re a democracy and a republic. They’re not antonyms, simplehead
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
No, stupid. A democracy means that the majority opinion becomes law, and there are no safeguards for the citizens. If 51% of the people are convinced that free speech is undesirable because it might make someone feel bad, then free speech goes. Under a constitutional republic things like free speech are protected as natural law rights and cannot simply be voted away. There are democratic elements, but those do not make the form of governance a democracy simply by existing. Democracy is for fools.
MemeticParadigm@reddit
If instead of just saying, "The US is a democracy," we were saying, "The US is a representative democracy," how much of your semantic disagreement is satisfied? Because, given that representative democracy is far and away more common than direct democracy, people generally mean the former, when they just say "democracy" - maybe you're unaware of that?
Because, honestly, saying that there are democratic elements is the same level of understatement as saying that a cake has flour elements. We do call it a "cake" to denote the way the flour is structured by the other elements, rather than just calling it a "flour," but the flour is, like, the main thing in the cake.
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
You used the wrong analogy against the wrong person, son; I'm a former pastry chef. A cake, a muffin, a loaf of bread, a doughnut, and a biscuit are all made from similar ingredients used in different proportions and brought together in different ways, and the end results are so far removed from each other that they hardly seem similar. As I said before the entirety of the US population onlyp votes on one issue, and one issue alone, and that's the election of the US President. In that case, the Electoral College is implemented to keep the choice from being a simply democratic one to one that better represents the wills of the people of each individual state. The reader do things this way is because democracypis not encompassing of the will of the people nationwide.
Why should someone in Chicago decide whether or not a farmer in Iowa should have a gun? Under our constitutional republic they cannot, but under a democracy Chicago, NYC, LA, San Diego, San Francisco, and a few other cities could essentially dictate policy for the entire nation. I'll say it again: our nation has democratic elements, but that does not make the nation a democracy.
Going back to your analogy, a cake and a loaf of brioche both have flour, eggs, sugar, butter, and a water-type liquid, but the proportions, the way those elements are combined, and the presence or absence of other ingredients used in relatively tiny amounts makes a huge difference in the final product, and people would call you a fool for interchangeably using the term cake for both, a label you would deserve for such a blunder. In a like manner, the presence of a few democratic elements in the US government do not make it a democracy, and using the label for the US government is similarly foolish.
MemeticParadigm@reddit
Your demonstration of very basic baking knowledge really isn't helping you understand the analogy at all, apparently.
A "cake" is a specific type of government (e.g. constitutional Republic) that uses "flour"(i.e. representative democratic processes) as its main "ingredient". There are a number of different "baked goods" (i.e. democratic forms of government) which are different, but all use "flour" as the main ingredient. You are insisting that "unleavened flatbread" (direct democracy) is the only "baked good" (democratic form of government).
A "cake" (constitutional republic) which revolves around "flour" (democratic processes) is as much a "baked good" (democratic form of government) as an "unleavened flatbread" (direct democracy) even though the structure that the flour takes on in the flatbread is arguably less complex.
EarlBeforeSwine@reddit
Using your analogy, if the “cake” is “constitutional republic,” and “flour” is “representative democratic processes,” then calling a constitutional republic, “democracy,” is akin to calling a cake, “wheat.”
Kalmar_Union@reddit
The US is both a democracy and a republic
Democracy or republic?
more
even more
Literally just google “is a republic a democracy”
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
The entire us population only ever votes on one thing, and that is for the US President, and even then an electoral college is used to prevent the tyrrany of democracy. Try reasoning your answer instead of relying on others to do all your thinking for you. Your response is lazy.
Kalmar_Union@reddit
Bro really just said “try being an expert at things better than experts”
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
If you can't put it in your own words, you don't understand the arguments, kiddo. Plus, you cited four articles, maximum of one expert. To your credit, that one was actually from a publication most of us generally agree with, but he's still wrong. The US is not automatically a democracy simply because it utilizes some limited democratic elements. What part of that is too hard for you?
Kalmar_Union@reddit
And you’re smarter than all of them, why? Why are you correct, some random redditor?
WindBehindTheStars@reddit
When did I claim that I was smarter than them? I simply claimed that they're wrong on this particular issue.
Wise_Ad_1026@reddit
More branches of government fighting each other the better.
EarlBeforeSwine@reddit
Then, let every single person be sovereign. Then you have as many branches of government as you have people in the population.
Entropy_Pyre@reddit
Probably a parliamentary democracy. I feel like a presidential one still concentrates too much power on the hands of one person, and allows people to rely on the authority of that one person rather than carry any weight of responsibility themselves. At least in a parliamentary one there’s still a bit of diffusion of power.
JonnyDoeDoe@reddit
No democracy...
And while we're at it, we need to repeal the 17th amendment...
NichS144@reddit
What's the difference, there really isn't one unless your comparing representative government to an elected dictatorship.
AutoModerator@reddit
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Read Hoppes Democracy: The God That Failed, or other works by libertarians such as Rothbard, Spooner, or Hoppe to learn about why so many libertarians oppose democracy. Also check out r/EndDemocracy
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
AutoModerator@reddit
New to libertarianism or have questions and want to learn more? Be sure to check out the sub Frequently Asked Questions and the massive /r/libertarian information WIKI from the sidebar, for lots of info and free resources, links, books, videos, and answers to common questions and topics. Want to know if you are a Libertarian? Take the worlds shortest political quiz and find out!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.