I’m open to epistocracy as well, although there is a danger that an “enlightened electorate” would vote for even more governmental overreach than the current electorate does under democracy.
It would be morally wrong to murder Jeff for capricious reasons even if the highest IQ people in town wanted to do it. Also, high IQ people are as susceptible to anyone else to deranged ideologies. Just look at the Ivy League and the rest of the ruling class today.
Fair enough, but the trick is getting to there from here. There are plenty of non-democratic constitutionalist regimes: Cuba, North Korea, PRC, Vietnam, and Laos come to mind.
This seems like a false choice. The US federal gov, state govs, and even city govs, for example, are not “homogeneously” democratic. For most decisions the average citizen has no say.
The correct question to ask, imo, is:
“Which decisions should be decided by democratic vote?”
So your government will be a mix of different styles of governance. I don’t see anything wrong with having a local neighborhood vote on whether or not they want a basketball or tennis court built in the park nearby.
Even if you wanted a monarchy, how should you decide who becomes the first monarch? A popular vote of every citizen? Sure, maybe, why not? A popular vote of a select group of people? Sure, maybe, why not? A mandated popular vote of every citizen? Sure, maybe, why not?
The term “democracy” is mainly used as propaganda to legitimate rule by a relatively small number of politicians (i.e., a popularly elected oligarchy). When politicians like what the majority want, they praise it as desirable “democracy”. When they don’t like it, they condemn it as dangerous “populism”. But liberty is far better than oligarchy and democracy. Constitutionalism might appear to be a way to protect liberty, but having a libertarian culture is more fundamental.
It really isn't. While institutional drift away from the original intent would be a problem, there's no reason to think it would be more of a problem in a constitutional government than it presently is under our government.
I’m open to epistocracy as well, although there is a danger that an “enlightened electorate” would vote for even more governmental overreach than the current electorate does under democracy.
I'm not open to epistocracy. I'm open to strict constitutional government.
how is the constitution set up
The same way any constitution is set up. Maybe I don’t understand your question.
What disqualifies epistocracy for you?
It would be morally wrong to murder Jeff for capricious reasons even if the highest IQ people in town wanted to do it. Also, high IQ people are as susceptible to anyone else to deranged ideologies. Just look at the Ivy League and the rest of the ruling class today.
Fair enough, but the trick is getting to there from here. There are plenty of non-democratic constitutionalist regimes: Cuba, North Korea, PRC, Vietnam, and Laos come to mind.
I don’t think any of those regimes ever claimed to have a strictly constitutional form of government.
"government by prom queen" good one
This seems like a false choice. The US federal gov, state govs, and even city govs, for example, are not “homogeneously” democratic. For most decisions the average citizen has no say.
The correct question to ask, imo, is:
“Which decisions should be decided by democratic vote?”
So your government will be a mix of different styles of governance. I don’t see anything wrong with having a local neighborhood vote on whether or not they want a basketball or tennis court built in the park nearby.
Even if you wanted a monarchy, how should you decide who becomes the first monarch? A popular vote of every citizen? Sure, maybe, why not? A popular vote of a select group of people? Sure, maybe, why not? A mandated popular vote of every citizen? Sure, maybe, why not?
The system which determines who becomes the monarch is vastly less an important than the character of the person who becomes the monarch.
Yes, agreed.
(I am confused though if you were agreeing, disagreeing, or just making an orthogonal note to my original comment.)
The term “democracy” is mainly used as propaganda to legitimate rule by a relatively small number of politicians (i.e., a popularly elected oligarchy). When politicians like what the majority want, they praise it as desirable “democracy”. When they don’t like it, they condemn it as dangerous “populism”. But liberty is far better than oligarchy and democracy. Constitutionalism might appear to be a way to protect liberty, but having a libertarian culture is more fundamental.
https://jclester.substack.com/p/democracy-a-libertarian-viewpoint
https://jclester.substack.com/p/constitutions-and-constitionalism
How do you prevent the governmnet from overturning the constitution?
The same way you prevent a democratic government from overturning the Constitution.
There is no way to prevent a democratic government from overturning the Constitution. This seems like a big problem for Constitutionalism.
It's a problem for every form of government.
True, but a very big problem for government by constitution
It really isn't. While institutional drift away from the original intent would be a problem, there's no reason to think it would be more of a problem in a constitutional government than it presently is under our government.