Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means.
– Lord Acton
You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.
– Buckminster Fuller
If you’ve read anything I’ve written over the past several years, you’ll be acutely aware of my belief that human civilization is currently in a major transition period between two great paradigms of world history. The old world we all grew up in no longer works for most people, yet is being relentlessly propped up by the powerful and their minions who benefit from its parasitic and destructive nature. Despite their best efforts, a system so poisonous, decrepit and corrupt cannot and will not last. At this stage, it’s little more than a Potemkin village fraud barely kept standing courtesy of increasingly intense deception, manipulation and the sheer will of those who profit handsomely from it.
By stating we’re in the transition period, I want to make it clear I believe things are very much already being disrupted and altered beneath the hood of a world which appears indistinguishable from what it was a decade ago on a superficial level. Specifically, I think there are two core aspects of human existence that will be completely transformed in the years to come. First, within the monetary and financial systems that define how commerce, savings and entrepreneurship function. The emergence and continued momentum of Bitcoin offers evidence that disruption in this realm is already very much underway, albeit still in its infancy. The second realm I expect will experience massive transformational change relates to forms of human governance. We’ve barely scratched the surface on this one, but nascent signs have started to appear, and I suspect a push towards political systems more defined by direct democracy will become increasingly common in the years ahead. I’ve spent many hours writing about the financial and monetary system, so today’s piece will focus on what appears to be coming with regard to human political evolution.
Direct democracy is something that’s been tried before, so there’s some history to it. Once you start exploring the concept you’ll be immediately confronted with a plethora of terms such as eDemocracy, liquid democracy, referendum, initiative, and recall to name just a few. The purpose of this post isn’t to dig into all of that, although it’s certainly a useful exercise and I’ll provide some helpful links at the end. The purpose of this post is to distinguish direct democracy from the most common form of democratic government functioning on earth today, representative democracy.
We exist in such a profoundly bizarre moment in time. We all know everything's broken, that the way the world works is archaic and terminal, but we have yet to cross into the next paradigm. Truly an incredible time to be alive.
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) May 21, 2019
I like to keep things simple, and simply put, the core purpose of direct democracy is to ensure that voters are more active and empowered in political life than in a representative democracy where you vote for people who you then entrust to vote in your interests. As we can all see by now, this isn’t working.
Even in a government construct such as the one outlined in the U.S. Constitution, with a separation of powers as well as the decentralization inherent in political entities known as states, representative democracy remains a centralizing and corruptible force. In such a system, voters relinquish their rights to have a direct say on the most significant issues of the day, which opens up tremendous opportunities for corruption. All special interests have to do is compromise a few hundred (or less) representatives, which we can all see is quite commonplace and trivial to do. I’ve long believed that the biggest threat to human liberty and progress is centralized concentrations of power, whether that power manifests in government or corporate form. Representative democracy is the most common form of democracy practiced in the world today, and it serves to concentrate power in professional politicians who are then compromised. Not a very good system.
Here are a few related quotes from a recent article I read which are worth thinking about.
In 1964, 76 percent of Americans had faith in the government to do what is right “always or most” of the time. In 2015, that figure fell to only 19 percent.
The world’s current democratic institutions came into being about the same time as the telegram. But while Information and Communications Technology (ICT) has evolved, our systems of governance have not.
The weakness of representative democracy lies in the disconnection between voter and representative, infrequent elections, high voter-to-representative ratios, and the limited choices of a two- or three-party system. Moreover, the concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch of government makes democracy vulnerable to the lobby industry. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that our electoral system supports a market trade of money for influence. Therefore, reducing our democratic system’s reliance on current models of representation may in fact be one of the great opportunities of eDemocracy.
I first recognized the power of direct democracy and change via referendum back in 2012 when the people of the state of Colorado (where I live), voted to legalize and regulate cannabis. To this day, it’s the only vote I’ve ever participated in that actually made a difference and empowered me as a voter and citizen. Had Colorado and Washington not put this decision to the people of their states back in 2012, it’s unlikely that any progress would have been made on this important issue anywhere in the U.S. There’s no way Congress would’ve done anything on the subject, yet many other states have since taken similar action following the success of legalization in the states willing to serve as guinea pigs. Direct democracy functions best from the bottom up, at a grass roots local level, which is something I’ll discuss more in Part 2. It should first and foremost empower people and communities, and if it doesn’t do that, then it’s not progress.
It’s important to note that direct democracy can take on virtually endless forms and structures. Different communities or regions should determine what works best for them. The key unifying principle is the public should have more direct input in what sort of legislation is passed, but there’s more to it than that. Recalls of politicians can be another element, as is the right to veto legislation passed by representative bodies, which are unlikely to disappear, but should be neutered and held far more accountable in realtime.
It’s most likely that future forms of government will consist of a hybrid structure, in which elements of representative democracy remain, but with a strong driving force and the check of direct democratic tools. For example, under liquid democracy voters can delegate their votes to trusted representatives on an issue-by-issue basis, while preserving their ability to participate directly on other issues. Direct democracy is definitely not a one-size fits all concept, and vast experimentation is key to figuring out what works best.
In next week’s post I’ll discuss why direct democracy is best rooted in local action and decision making. I’m a firm believer that most governance decisions should be made at a local level by the people living in particular area. Local regions can then decide to create larger alliances or loose political unions to face certain challenges that require such structures, but there should always be very simple ways to dissolve such arrangements when they no longer work for the communities that entered into them. The fact Catalonia has no simple legal manner to remove itself from Spain highlights the problem of creating rigid political structures.
Finally, here are a few resources on the topic of direct democracy you may find interesting.
Direct Democracy (Wikipedia)
eDemocracy: An Emerging Force for Change
The Tools We Need to Implement Liquid Democracy
How does DIRECT DEMOCRACY work in LIECHTENSTEIN?
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there’s no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options.
You can become a Patron.
You can visit the Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin or send cash/check in the mail.
Thank you,
Michael Krieger
Donate bitcoins: 35DBUbbAQHTqbDaAc5mAaN6BqwA2AxuE7G
Follow me on Twitter.
The biggest change yet to occur is a shift of the work place from hierarchy to democracy. The employer/employee relationship, decision maker/decision follower and owner/worker are the seeds that give economic power in the hands of the few, over the many. The economic power is then used to gain political power thru bribery (lobby).
Without this, I dont see progress in made in monetary/financial and human governess changing in meaningful ways.
without china and subsidies, a pair of shoes might look a little rough at first, would be costlier, but more durable
without corporate control, family gardens would feed us better
I have to wholeheartedly agree that decentralizing the power structure is much needed today. The financial structure, as a big part of the power structure, needs an over haul also. More than anything in the longer run the education system and the curriculum needs to meet new standards that have likely never be set before. This would be an education based in the trivium and quadrivium, with additional emphasis on what it means to be a human being with regards to our relationship to natural law and its primary non aggression principle, and the rigorous defense of this principle. Civics should be turned into a philosophical discussion of what it means to be a member of society and an inhabitant of a planet.
Get this right and the rest falls into place. Fail here and nothing will ever get sorted out imho.
The dangers and pitfalls that the controllers will use to their advantage during any period of time when modalities are in flux needs to be expressly studied for manipulation. Today ‘Free Cities’ are being promoted by the controllers as their work around to the nation state.
https://www.technocracy.news/free-cities-the-rise-of-city-states/
perhaps so. but would the conclusion be teaching little boys that they can become little girls ? and vis versa ?
direct democracy, hmmm ….
a toxic masculine white guy had an observation on the subject awhile back. a guy named Madison.
“ Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths – “
be careful what you wish for, you might get it
First of all we have strong elements of democracy in the U.S. within a Constitutional framework. We have representative democracy, which is quite idiotic and extremely vulnerable to corruption. I agree with the Constitutional aspect of the U.S. and would want to maintain it, in other words you can’t vote away the Bill of Rights. So one option would just be to reform the democracy aspects we already have into direct democracy where the representatives are less powerful and the people more powerful. I would also recommend far more decision making at a local level, with very little determined in D.C.
I will write more about this in Part 2.
Go to Medium.com and search for CMW, (fifth one down member since Jan 18) Then come back and re-read. I was going to post more but got blocked.
That worked let me try again. Perhaps copy and pasting is not allowed? Short synopsis of what I wanted to say; These are all still just patches for the way things are, The real issue is that human logic and rational thought are abused, misused and butchered, direct democracy, liquid democracy or whatever. Thanks to Michael for attempting to get people to get involved and our of denial. What I believe we really need is to make the culprit, and our best friend since time began; “individual intelligence” a second tier. The first tier should be a “collective intelligence” with human logic as the moderator and no power structure for individuals to climb up.
The old system will fall, but unfortunately in recent years it has trained people to despise each other in a cynical attempt to deflect blame a bit longer. That plan worked to a large extent and fixing our mutual animosity will be a tall order.
In order for us to trust each other again we have to derive an economic benefit from working together, and that will be impossible until the current financial system collapses, which will cause great pain. We have to survive that depression first, then slowly rebuild and regain trust.
I’m not much of a TV watcher but I remember a Star Trek fan arguing the show was great because it represented the best of humanity, a grand future where current problems have been solved and humans are free to explore the galaxies. It speaks volumes that we’re probably further away from that utopia today than we were in the 1960s when the show began, at least psychologically. We’d rather view each other with suspicion than work together, and that has to change before real progress is made. It’s not just nations and people groups fighting, there is omnipresent infighting within these nations and groups. We’re all the way down to individual survival, which makes us practically ungovernable. Until we see other people as potential friends and allies rather than enemies, we’re stuck in an era where no form of governance will work.
A great summary! Kudos
i agree, in my neighborhood we are afraid of each other but polite, with a few exceptions. i think economic structure is devoted to income disparity, and i hoard soap and non-perishables, created food forest garden and off grid home, but depend on city water which is pumped electronically. “cheek-by-jowl” is a term echoing in my head as how to rebuild after any of several impending catastrophies, if some survive. common need: water and food
Re: learning to trust each other… again (in the aftermath of the current ‘divide and conquer’ manipulation), see ‘A Paradise Built in Hell’ by Solnit, for real world historical inspiration.
Finally someone who gets it and ackowledges the elephant of the room responsible for all the corruption, abuse, thievery of government. It isn’t right or left party, it is indirect or representative democracy, the republic every western country is using. As your intro quote aptly says: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Switzerland fares pretty well for the only direct democracy country in the world.
Democracy does not protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Ever.
Agree, which is why we have a Bill of Rights that you cannot vote away, something I think should also be a core aspect of any system utilizing direct democratic tools. Also, focusing governance on localism reduces the concern you have.
This article falls short as it suggests the answer is a different system of governance when the problem we face is with how power tends to be applied within whatever system we devise. The key cause of this problem is that the elites keep the entire subject of how to apply power a no go area, as a power holding strategy. The resultant abuse of power that occurs is entirely forseeable.
A good analogy here is a land where everyone has a car yet there are no driving lessons or licenses, no road signs, no traffic lights and no rules and the death toll is huge. What Michael Krieger is suggesting is solving this problem with a safer type of car rather than focusing on the real issue. For more on this google “The application of power in organisations” as it explains what needs to happen. Direct democracy is a good idea but by itself it will not solve the problem
I agree it won’t solve the problem. I don’t believe in utopia when inherently flawed humans are involved. I actually think the biggest positive that can happen to really make the world a better place is a widespread evolution in human consciousness. However, I do think local self-government using a more direct democratic process can help things along quite a bit. No it won’t solve the problem, but I think it is coming and it’d be wise to think about how best to implement.
Excellent article Michael, thank you, very much prescient today and something I am dedicated to moving in UK. We have a small group active in promoting our 6 Demands that will move UK towards the direct democracy that you describe: http://harrogateagenda.org.uk/ A 15 min video is worth watching explaining simply what we propose: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvJAmkSOuck&feature=youtu.be
I have been developing an economic model to supplement the political one at THA but face the problem that so long as we have a fiat currency debt-based system the people have little control over the government’s budgets as they can continue to print at will.
Thus a completely new economic model will be required in order to enforce a direct democracy system based on sound money, free markets and localised economies. My book covers all this and a free pdf is available on request to: [email protected]
How would allowing more stupid people to directly make decisions improve our situation???
Thanks for putting that out there Realist. I know it sounds cynical, but that exact thought haunted me during the entire read, along with the awareness of how the human herd is so easily manipulated by the powerful today. How will direct democracy change this fundamental human weakness that is all too common?
Manipulation is a huge issue, there’s no question about that. This is why I think governance must be local, utilizing tools of direct democracy. I will go into this in more detail in Part 2, but when you have countless municipalities potentially making most of the decisions of governance for themselves, it becomes much more difficult and costly to manipulate everyone. I completely agree that direct democracy at a nation-state level, trying to decide things for a mass of hundreds of millions of people would end up a disaster and trivial to manipulate. Such an implementation would not be an improvement and could even be worse.
I agree also, Please see my blog on Medium.com User CMW ( fifth on on search, member since jan18) If you want or have time. Again I agree. For me it is all about the conclusions humans come to and how they arrived there. Our greatest asset as I see it is human logic, This is often not the priority though, It is just human nature. The quote at the beginning of the article was great. I just don’t see as you do how allowing more people with the same human faults to participate will accomplish this.
I’ll go into this more in Part 2, but I think you need to ensure most decisions are made locally. I do not think direct democracy if we are just voting on stuff to apply to 325 million people will make anything better. I think direct democracy centered in localism, local decision making would be a vast improvement. Nobody can be aware or informed on everything at a giant nation-state or imperial level, but you can be pretty informed at the city level. So it’s a multi-faceted thing.
thank you for the realism. everyone is looking for a way out, practically no one is accepting how tiny the window is for too many people
Still at the end of the day Michael in reference to your reply. It is the “giant nation-state” and “imperial” issues that will greatly effectt you at the local level. Here is where I believe a “Collective Intelligence” will bring the power of logic an reasoning back to “the people”. We the people will then make the “decision -makinjg” of the elites, even at the highest level, “obsolete”. This is the evolutionary catalyst we need as humans to carry us forward. We cannot continues to rely on society, emotions, feelings, faulty logic, irrational ideas or concepts, religion, lies or just outright power to dominate the landscape we live in. Each conclusion we reach, we must reach together and it must be vetted through the collective efforts and logic of us, humanity. Democracy in any form is still a relic of our current world landscape and functional existence.
DEMOCRACY is no problem for birds; as soon as a majority gesture in a direction, the flock turns. however, i am most concerned about access to the tools of governance – for refugees, for example. and if everyone had access to opinionate on an issue, it would take massive AI to decipher it, sort it out, and delilver the results. and who would control all that? not to mention the huge energy grid it requires
i am sadly in favor of any kind of shock that would shatter the system, knowing that almost everyone is sleep walking in step. i have a lot of beans, and a food forest, to share, but no captive animals
meanwhile, every awakening consciousness inspires another
Tremendous treatise Michael. I have written myself about the resemblance of “True” or “Real” democracy providing the same participation and possible outcomes as EVOLUTION.
The other “shift” we are observing throughout the West is Social Nationalism or National Socialism, where the seemingly opposed natural instincts of herrings (social) and lobsters (territorial) are given common purpose, thereby achieving far greater potential than either could independently. – The same thing applies in my view with the feminine and masculine perspectives – with a common purpose they achieve far more than either can independently.
In regard to the American constitution or “bill of rights”, we have touched on this American exceptionalism perspective before, but I cannot accept that a true democracy could not question it ? I actually believe that this one, as well as the new and old testaments MUST be able to be questioned.
I developed a Direct E-Democracy System a number of years back (just a glorified database with a web front end) that I felt was self sustaining in that you could propose upcoming issues for vote and those with the most votes made it into next month/years voting block. Issues were based around the usual government departments (defence, education etc) which would turn the heads of those departments into managers, with their mandates from the public vote, rather than politicians for sale to the highest bidder. Votes would close at a given time, so you could change your vote until the last second. If you chose not to vote, it was given to the leading option.
2 Problems
1. The current system isn’t going anywhere, you would need to set up a voting system and run an election campaign based on a government which would institute the system nationally (Huge costs of risk, time and money). You then need to win a majority (no coalitions) the seats in Government so you can unilaterally institute the system in your nation, supplanting the current political parties and political process.
2. You need to re-educate everyone so they don’t believe everything the bought and sold media pumps them full of. Humans need to learn critical thinking and how to look after themselves and refuse to be dependant on the state for everything (like education). Humans are lazy and we’ve become programmed away from self-sufficiency. Right now if you instituted Direct Democracy, people would still keep voting for the same BS the media TELLS them are the main talking points, and not the real issues of the day.
I had a couple of political scientists find my site and get interested, but the problem is unseating the current political status quo, which has ingratiated itself in our consciousness to the point most people can’t conceive of self-government, which is really sad.
We date, bank, work and everything else at lightening speed on the internet, but we still vote using 17th century technology. This part is NOT allowed to advance, until the powers that should be have worked out how to implement a system they can hack, or have hacked us enough to make us think they way they want us too. They’re working on both because it’s only a matter of time until there’s a critical mass around this idea.
It’s funny that I used the same Bucky quote as my tag line, it really is the only way, except that you have to beat the current system to supplant it, this democracy we have is an infinite loop, based on our collective intelligence, and we keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; crazy some people would say!
In my opinion, I don’t think the problem is with the system we currently have, in as much it is with the Electorate,,,[We The People]
50% of the people don’t vote..[ Including me for the last 48 yrs]
As I found out early enough, that every Politician I voted for, did exactly the opposite of what they said they were going to do…
Latest polling shows that more than 95% of all Politicians running for re-election win hands down…
Simply looking at their monetary coffers pretty much explains the why & where the money is going, as big money has corrupted our political system…
I guess, what I’m saying is that if the Electorate is so myopic that they can’t decipher what or who their voting for, why should it be any better with a Democracy…in deference to a Republic????
My grievance is that there is no retribution for the injustices these Politicians have commited while in office….
We’re ruled by a 2 Party system that is controlled by the money powered interest groups….
The only hope I see, for saving our current system, would be to open it up to a 3rd, or 4th party for the Electorate to choose from, which is never going to happen……Other than that, I don’t see this country making it for another 5-10 years at the most..
And I do concur with AustrianPeter, the biggest evil we have to counter is the Federal Reserve and the Bank of International Settlements [BIS]…Until they are dismantled, there is no hope of any change for the world…
World fiat debt currency will implode in the not to distant future…
Nothing of this magnitude has ever happened before, so it’s near impossible to make any predictions as the the ramifications of a happening like that or the residual aftermath
True (direct) democracy
https://au.figu.org/true_democracy.html
Democracy requires that from all sides, so therefore from those governing, the parties and the people, everything is handled, transformed and carried out equally and in peacefulness and therefore no Gewalt, coercion or repressive measures appear from any side. A true democracy must therefore be built up without Gewalt and coercion, etc., already from the ground, consequently no acts of Gewalt and coercion or retaliatory measures in any form by any side must appear.
The peoples themselves namely want peace and freedom, however no war, no despotism and no dictatorship. Wars, despotism, dictatorship and tyranny of any kind in each case always come from rulers, parties, parliaments, military and from secret services, etc., as well as from governing ones and their proponents and followers, never however from the peoples themselves, because they are fundamentally against war, unpeace and unfreedom, etc. The whole thing is founded in the cognition that forms of government, which are based on parliaments and parties or on despotism, dictatorship or republics, etc., are contrary to any true democracy and are a deception against the peoples, because they are being deceived through untenable promises, propaganda and lies, etc.
the people, if they themselves must decide in their own responsibility, bring to bear their true and uninfluenced opinion. In contrast to this, it is the case that, if the people-leaderships are not elected by the people, but rather there exist any forms of government and parties – which under some circumstances influence the elections through propaganda, etc., as well as by vote-buying and vote-falsifications or through Gewalt and coercion – one’s own personal and free decision is not brought about. If some things are thus put to the vote and to that a yes or no is brought in by the voters, then this in general does not correspond to their own opinion and vote, but rather to one influenced and imposed upon them by means of propaganda, Gewalt or through being bought. This means, however, that with that, the true democracy and the understanding for it are already nipped in the bud, namely because one is only allowed to vote and to be for or against something, without one being able to responsibly express one’s own opinion, openly bring it up and for it to be taken into consideration. Consequently all other voters are not able to personally study the opinions of the individual citizens carefully, which, however, on the contrary must publicly be the case in a true democracy. If, however, only propaganda is made and an open discussion of the issue is not carried out, consequently all citizens who have something to say to the issue are not listened to, then one way or the other, this is dictatorial – determined by those governing, the parliaments and parties. So in this wise, the people are only allowed to take part with a yes or no in an election, without the possibility of a personal and direct expression of opinion, hence the voting cannot be explained. In a true democracy, however, each person called to an election must be able to express his/her free opinion with regard to a for or against and to make clear what is his/her view and opinion as well as his/her wish and also the reasons for the approval or rejection of that which is up for election.
Bitcoin is not something that will challenge the elites. If it was they would crush it just like they crushed coin forgers and nation states who challenged their financial hegemony.
A digital currency is very much in their plans though – centralised, not decentralised.
I wish the author would wake up and realise this. Perhaps his Bitcoin profits are clouding his judgement.
Isn’t it obvious ?
what I find interesting is the governing bodies that are associated with the cryptos. Perhaps this is where our salvation lies and not in the crypto itself. See my blog on Medium under user CMW(fifth one down on search,member since jan 18) If these governing bodies were to become “decentralized”, anonymous and moderated by human logic rather than human “wants” then we might be getting somewhere..
Unfortunately, those who can only see bitCOIN as just another currency, have missed the bus, the point, and the significance. – It is that very “speculation” and “get rich without effort” mentality that bitcoin’s blockchain can hopefully disspell.
so you know how much energy bitcoin consumes? and isn’t every innovation, like hydroponics, for example, soon taken over by speculators?
Anarcho-capitalism is the only answer LONG-TERM. No state monopoly on force is needed. There are many decentralized ways for “privatizing security and defense” that could be tried.
There are also many decentralized ways to not privatize those things. The point is to allow communities to handle these issues as they see fit. I for one do not think many things should be privatized, police and prisons would be two of them.
“Privatized security and defense” is called a mercenary army. Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
People are discounting the natural intelligence of the people. They showed it in electing Sanders though he bowed down when the established order took it away from him.
How do you deal with the Great Disparity in wealth and power? You can’t vote that away.