A new form of government
1/7/2006

Democracy is being promoted as the best and most advanced form of government, as demonstrated by its success in the west. Democracy in the West has produced economic and political freedoms far beyond those in other countries, mostly in the East.

However, it has become evident to me that democracy in its current form and practice is a very repressive system. Democracy is far more advanced that the systems it replaced of the past, but it is very flawed as well.

Democracy, a system of government said to have a very recent development in the last 200 years, with rare forms of it at sporadic periods in history, is still a very recent form of government in the world.

Democracy is based on the idea of simple majority rule. It is presumed and taken for granted that the "simple majority" rules that prevail the decision-making-process of democracies is a very good idea. I will argue that this idea is at the heart of a very oppressive form of government. This form of government is inherently oppressive in that a group of individuals can have legal rights to inflict harm on others, even if these other citizens pose no harm to them.

If you, as a person, don't like to eat broccoli, and 51% of the population decides that you should, there is currently no protection for you against such laws. No politician would want to pass such a law, but legally, they have the power to do so, if they choose to exercise it. And this is the heart of the problem: The politicians, or the public, have the power to enact such a law. No one, should have such a right. And there is no protection to this most fundamental of rights: the right to be left alone if your actions do not infringe on someone else's rights.

There are no laws prohibiting the eating of broccoli, but there is enormous amount of laws that have the same effect.

To say that the United States Of America is one of the most advanced, if not the most advanced democracy and place where there is the most liberty, is a fair assumption to make. However, in the USA, there are multitude of states that have car seat-belt laws, that require car drivers and passengers to wear a seat belt. How does me not wear a seat belt infringe on your rights as a citizen? If I, by not wearing a seat belt can in no way infringe on your rights and in no way cause you harm, then what gives you the right to be able to create such a law to force me to wear or not wear a seat belt? This is the clue that gives us a hint at the presence of a problem. Tyranny is when you force someone to do things he may not want to do, and when he cause you no harm by his choice -- to wear or not wear a seat belt.

When we look at the multitude of laws in the USA and other so-called advanced democracies, we find volumes and volumes of rules and regulations about what an individuals cannot do, or what he must do. Many of these laws and regulations strike at the very heart of the liberty of the individual to make his own decision. Eating broccoli may be good for you, and may be good for me to eat, but if I don't want to eat it, then having 51% of the population have the power to vote this into law and decide that the other 49% of the population must eat it too, indicates that a 51% of the public have the power of tyranny.

There are many laws that violate human liberty under the assumption: society can benefit at large from the best available knowledge, and thus, by passing a law, the society can derive benefits from imposing this knowledge. From this point of view, if a scientific study shows that having a car seat belt on while driving a car can save lives or money or both, then, by having such a law, society at large will benefit. This argument may seem sound, only if you make the assumption, that society can consider economic benefits as grounds to take away someone's fundamental liberties. This, in essence, places economic benefit, no matter how small or large they are, over the value of liberty. You may conclude that this is a compromise that society can choose to make. I argue this power should not exist. I base this on the premise, that I, as an individual in a society, have rights that are greater than society's. This right is that: I have the right to do whatever I choose to, as an adult, as long as my action does not infringe on your rights.

If you believe in liberty, you would look for solutions to problems in the economic and political system that produce the same results you seek, or even better results, without infringement and coercion on this natural right of man.

A simple majority of Congressmen can pass a law. If in the United States, 51% of Congress decide it is good to have a specific law, then the other 49% who disagree represent about 150 million people who are having their liberty infringed upon. Now, you may say: but citizens are not taking to the streets with guns, and they are not yelling out loud complaining about this law, because the citizens know the law is good for them. But that is what I will try to show you; that this is tyranny.

For thousands of years, people lived under primitive forms of governments, never complaining, or aware of how primitive, oppressive, and unproductive their systems of governments were. They lived under it, unquestioning, and accepting, until thousands of years later, they decided, that these are bad systems, and there was the French revolution, the American revolution, the Russian revolution, and multitude of others. What is remarkable, is for how many thousands of years people simply just accepted these primitive and oppressive systems. Then came democracy, and this idea became the new ideal and new norm to seek. But now, I find this form of government to be very primitive and very oppressive. It is oppressive because I have no absolute rights, when I don't infringe on another person, yet this person has legal power to infringe on my rights.

I am giving a simple example to keep you focused on the main idea. The seat belt example is an extreme example to illustrate the point. If I were to talk about a tax law, then I am likely to garner much more attention for this argument, because the dislike for such laws and regulations is much more evident. But in the seat belt example, almost everyone agrees that it is a very good thing to do. And, I too think it is a very good idea to have a seat belt on. And I am guessing, that 99 percent of the society does as well. Still, that does not give me the right to impose my will on someone who does not want to wear a seat belt. In a society that respects liberty, if you would like someone to do something that is good for them, and them by not doing it cause you no harm, then all you should be able to do is to speak and educate about the benefits of such action. That is how a civil society that loves and nurtures liberty, for the deep fruits it brings to society, will encourage to act.

As for the economic benefits to society from having a seat belt law, and saving lives, let the free market of ideas and a free economy deal with it. For example, the problem can naturally be dealt with by the insurance industry charging you car insurance rates based on whether you wear a seat belt or not when you drive, like they consider all the additional other risks when they determine your insurance rates. The free market can price risk, and determine what the individual is willing to pay for the freedom to have the ability to choose: to choose to wear a seat belt or not.

A car can come with a system where the car would not start up if you don't have the seat belt on. This could be an option that you can select when buying a car, because you think that wearing a seat belt is absolutely good, and should be worn all the time, and, you want to derive the economic benefit from such a smart decision, by having a lower car insurance rates. This way, each individual can choose for themselves whether or not not wear a seat belt. This incentive system encourages people to wear a seat belt, and provides the economy the true costs and benefits of wearing or not wearing a seat belt. By so doing, we have given the society the optimum benefits that it seeks on this subject.

Again, to avoid distraction from the main subject and to keep you focused, if you are thinking "but we save lives by forcing people to wear seat belts." You have to ask yourself at what cost? And is there a mechanism compatible with liberty that solves the same problem, and perhaps solves the problem in a much better way. For example, every year in the US about 50,000 die from car accidents. Let us say the speed limit is 55 miles an hour. Would you be in favor of making the speed limit 30 miles an hour if it cuts car accident fatalities by half? How about making the speed limit 10 miles an hour? You will be saving many more lives doing this. So why not do it? (this example is not good because speed limit effect other drivers, but I use to illustrate the absurdity of emotions that can color our judgments, and sugar coat the imposition of laws in the name of supposed benefits they bring to us: "We save live;" "it is good for you." The questions should always be: At what cost? What are you taking away from me, when you, supposedly are "giving me" these laws that I have to live under.

What business of yours is it how much risk I want to take with my life, whether to wear a seat belt, sky jump, ski, fly an airplane, and rock climb, or be shot out of a cannon? Who gives you the right to take away my choice about how much risk or choices I want to have in my life if my choices do not take away from your rights?

These kinds of decisions get much more severe when we talk about issues that are more controversial.

We can see the consequences of the flawed simple majority rule in the United States in the polarization of the public on issues of abortion, death penalty, taxation, war, etc. Many get angry, and fight for having just that one extra vote in Congress to tip the balance on these important issues.

One group gets in power, and we get more laws favoring their agenda. The other group gets in power, and they add more new laws to support their agenda, and back and forth, all the while, an accumulation in the infringement on liberty and chipping away at freedoms goes on at an outstanding rate. And, hardly anyone seems to notice. The way you kill a frog without it noticing, they say, is to put the frog alive in an open pan of cold water, and very gradually raise the temperature of the water. As the temperature goes up very gradually, the frog never notices the change, and the frog never jumps out of the water to save its life. The water boils, and the frog dies not having noticed what was happening.

I see the same phenomena happening thru out the world, and at the supposed citadel of freedom.

In the Eastern countries as well, and in Iraq for example now, we see that as soon as 51 percent of the population gains power, that this majority feels, that their time has come, and they get ready to pass the laws that will oppress the other 49%. Most everyone it seems, throughout the world, is waiting, for just that one extra person, that one extra vote, to impose their ideas and values on the other 49% of the population. For any one law, throughout the world, there is potentially 49% of the earth's population opposed to it. This is almost unimaginable. People throughout the world have chosen a system of government in which they freely grant others the right to oppress them, as long as they have an equal opportunity to oppress the others. Upon reflection, this is almost hard to believe. This is the standard of equality, justice, and fairness that truly underlies the current forms of democracy: the equal opportunity, and power to oppress the other person.

No longer should it be the case that a simple majority can impose any law on the others. I believe that 2/3 majority would be a significant start to address this problem. If you cannot convince two third of the public to do something that is important enough to be a law, then the law should not be adopted. If with all the advanced communication skills and capabilities available today you cannot convince the public of the soundness of your argument, then it should not be done. Simple majority is extremely injurious to liberty, and as I am showing, it is a form of tyranny. We can greatly minimize the damage it causes, and greatly increase benefits, by having laws only pass by a 2/3 majority. A 2/3 majority immediately indicates that the decision is much more likely to be a correct decision, then a law adopted by a 1/2 majority. Therefore, we have improved the accuracy of our decisions. The other side of this decision means, that instead of a maximum of 49 % of the people being made unhappy or harmed by the law, only a maximum of 1/3 will be disgruntled or harmed. (This assumes that each one percent of the congress, represents the true will of 1 percent of the population). The flip side of this should be, is that it should take only 1/3 majority to oppose or deactivate a law. These two components should go together, with the second component as the critical part of this rule. It is more important to know how many people oppose a law, than how many favor it, since this is the number of people we are going to possibly harm, and this is the number of people in the system who are indicating that the decision is erroneous. When you want to pass a law that forces someone to do something, or restrict their ability from doing something, you better have a high confidence level, or a comfortable margin, that indicates that your decision is much more likely to be correct than to be incorrect. You can know this by looking at the difference between those who favor the law and those who oppose it. If 51% of the people make a decision opposed by 49% of the people, there is almost zero confidence that the decision being made is correct! (51%-49%=2%!) This is another reality that underlies current simple majority rule. This illustrate the degree of how severely flawed the system is. You might as well flip a coin to decide whether a law should pass or not. It is plain absurd. How can a society agree to live by a system for the creation of rules, that does not ensure a minimum level of confidence in the decision making process. How can people agree to a system, where a flip of a coin, can serve equally well to determine the rules and the laws that they will have to live by?

Even 33 % percent of people is a lot of people to impose your will on if you happen to be making the wrong decision and the wrong law. And when millions of people are telling you are wrong, it is very possible, that this can be the case.

The test of how good a law is should be mainly two factors taken together: how many support it, and how many oppose it. If 33 % oppose a law, then that should be enough to block a law. 33% of society is still a lot people to oppress and restrict, and in the United States alone, this amounts to about 100 million people telling you that your decision is wrong. Now, you can assume that the United States has 100 million idiots among its population, or you can assume, that when that many people are telling you something, even if they are not correct, there is a good possibility that they can be. Therefore, while 33% of people opposing a law, seems undemocratic to prevent a law from passing, because of the habituation and education we have been taught all our lives. I hope that this clearly demonstrates otherwise. It is a counter intuitive notion. But you don't build airplane, computers, advanced machines, cars, and medicine based on your intuition. You build them based on logic.

The underlying emotional assumptions that give the simple majority rule its sense of fairness are flawed. Their consequences are poor decisions and laws. And poor decisions and laws can mean one of two things: either oppression, or that you are not getting out of the system the maximum performance that is possible. Either way, it is a poor situation.

Adopting this form of decision making removes much stress from society to bring it into greater productive harmony with itself, since fewer people will feel that the will of others, or others' values, are being imposed on them. Be you liberal or conservative, religious or not, or what ever your colors are.

It is OK not to have a law on something, if there is not enough consensus to indicate that the law will be a correct law. This will be a transformational phenomena in society, when a society can accept this logic.

The time has come to completely abandon the simple majority rule decision making processes throughout governments. It is a flawed decision making process, that we have imposed upon ourselves because of its attractive simplicity, and very deceptive apparent fairness, and in the absence of other solutions.

A draft that embodies these principals and dynamics can be something like this:
1. No law can be passed that infringes on the right of the individual to act if his action does not infringe on the right of another.
2. No law can be passed and or can stay active if it is opposed by 1/3 of the public or 1/3 of their representatives.
3. No law can be adopted without 2/3 majority.
4. Every law, when voted on, must be very narrowly defined in scope and subject to a single issue, and must be voted on in a publicly recorded vote. The letter and spirit of this rule should be observed. (I elaborate in my book on this and other issues).

Liberty is precious to some. This liberty must be safeguarded with strong principals, that are based on logic, a love for freedom that respects experimentation to discover a better path, and by having a system that ensures the best decision making process. But none of this can come true, without education and awareness.

If you believe in the soundness of these words, honor them with action.

By,
Jamil Talaat Kazoun


Note: This is from a book by this author. The author needs a publisher. If you can help, please contact the author using this contact form to let him know of your interest: Contact Form . Bellow is a selection of his writings on government, and development.

Previous Stories:
  Comments on a constitution for Iraq, part 2   (8/27/2005)
  A constitution for Iraq   (7/2/2005)
  The rationalization of governments: concrete measures of every law, program and department   (6/7/2003)
  Transparency: foundation for proper government   (5/17/2003)
  Transparency: foundation for proper economy   (5/17/2003)
  Transparency: a most powerful instrument for development   (5/17/2003)
  The practice of lending to developing and underdeveloped governments should end   (5/25/2002)
  The foundation of good development: rule of law and transparancy   (9/16/1999)

Please add a link on your webiste pointing to ArabicNews.com and bookmark ArabicNews.com & subscribe to our daily email news bulletin.

Search