Unanimocracy: Unanimity, Anonymity & the Free Rider argument

You always have the case of the lone Republican living in a small town filled with Democrats who doesn't want people to know he votes Republican.

In certain conditions, I'm sure that some official somewhere can see who voted for who, like if an election is contested.

I think the current system is fine. What good will it do you if you can see who I voted for?

There are a bunch of problems with the current system, though. The biggest problem with democracy is that there are no restraints on it any more. The Bill of Rights was supposed to be a list of rights that every person in the world is born with (not just American citizens). This list was supposed to be a list of rights that the American government at any level is not allowed to abridge -- against citizens, against residents, against illegal aliens and against foreigners here and abroad. We know for a fact that each and every right on that list is junk now.

The case of the lone Republican living in a small town filled with Democrats is NOT a problem. If you have ONE free rider, who cares? You know who he is, and if he is abusing what you're providing, then ban him from the provision. If there are 9,999 Democrats who voted to steal from one another to build the streets, who cares if one person is using the streets? You'll have outsiders driving through your roads (to get to your businesses), why is it a problem? If 49% of the people don't want to pay for the roads, again who cares? As J. David Blackstone says, "Secession is the right of all sentient beings." If I want to secede from a city, county, state or nation, I should be allowed to (and I should be freed from both the responsibilities and provisions that the particular government gives to its citizens).

Unanimity: this should not be a criteria for the vast majority of decisions. The all-or-nothing approach to governance will fail to bring an progress. It is impossible to satisfy everyone. The point, in a democracy, is that a majority of people will reach a compromise they can live with. There will be a minority of people dissatisfied with this result. That is inevitable. Consider the difficulties that America faced under the Articles of Confederation and multiply those problems.

Anonymity: the need for anonymity cannot be overstated. Anonymity is necessary to control the pressure upon the voter. The example of getting fired for failure to vote as your boss wanted to is actually a very great problem. The best example of this is in the fight for government to recognize unions. Without an Australian (secret) ballot, a boss will be able to fire all of the workers that voted for unions and then black-list those workers so that nobody in the industry will hire them. When the choice is between compromising your conscience and permanent unemployment resulting in utter poverty and possible starvation, this hardly seems like a fair system.
Moreover, I have actually researched the effects of open and closed ballots upon voter responses. My research has indicated that there is a strong trend for voters in an open ballot to go with whichever option they perceive to be popular. They do not pick the option they think is best, ulterior motives or subconscious desires to join the majority seriously skew the results. A lack of anonymity would be the death knell for true democracy.

Free rider: wow. Just wow. It is clear that the free rider problem was not properly understood. The problem with free riders is that there is no way to exclude payers and non-payers. The effects are felt throughout the community. That is why it is necessary for everyone to pay in to public goods. If payment for public goods was limited to those who voted in favor of them, there would be no public goods. Everyone would want a majority of other voters to support the project, so that they could keep their money and reap the benefits. There would be no highway, because everyone would try to be in the 20% (the highway example is not that good because it is still theoretically possible to exclude non-payers. Better examples include cleaning the environment and military defense, where just having these programs benefits everyone). I would encourage you to read my article on taxation, where I propose an alternative solution to the free rider problem.

Unanimity: this should not be a criteria for the vast majority of decisions. The all-or-nothing approach to governance will fail to bring an progress. It is impossible to satisfy everyone.

This is why I am pro-market and anti-State! In a situation where we need to use force or compulsion to make someone act in a certain way or ban someone's actions, it is very important that we don't just offer a 50%+1 group power over the 50%-1 group. The closer you can get to unanimity, the better the decision is in terms of a market stance. I would be happier with a 66% democracy, much happier with a 75% democracy, extremely happy with an 80% democracy and ecstatic with a 100% unanimocracy.

My other solution for the political cronyism and corruption issue is to count _EVERY— registered voter in the voting totals. Total up the actual votes made (for any side) and then count the registered-but-non-voters as "None of the above." I don't look at non-voters as apathetic but angry -- they don't like either side, so they don't vote. I believe if you register to vote it should always be a registration as the "None of the above" party. This way, the likelihood of a referendum passing or a bad politician passing is nil -- we'd see a lot of positions unfulfilled which is how I'd prefer to see government.

Without an Australian (secret) ballot, a boss will be able to fire all of the workers that voted for unions and then black-list those workers so that nobody in the industry will hire them.

As a business owner, I think I _should— be able to fire people based on their beliefs. The right to expression exists only within your own property or public land -- if it is on my property I should very well be able to tell people I won't hire them because they support something that is coercive, immoral and ignorant. If an employee of mine was a child porn addict, I see no reason why I can't fire them because I disagree with them. If they're pro-union, they're worse in my mind than a child porn addict (who doesn't actually directly hurt anyone, unlike a union that uses government force and coercion to destroy markets and businesses). Black-lists don't work without government acceptance -- in every situation where a black-list existed it was because competition in the market was not available due to government licensing, regulation and market control. Black-lists don't exist otherwise.

If payment for public goods was limited to those who voted in favor of them, there would be no public goods. Everyone would want a majority of other voters to support the project, so that they could keep their money and reap the benefits. There would be no highway, because everyone would try to be in the 20% (the highway example is not that good because it is still theoretically possible to exclude non-payers. Better examples include cleaning the environment and military defense, where just having these programs benefits everyone).

I think this is ignorant as well. Highways are not a public concern but a market one -- if businesses want to get customers, they'll have to finance private highways. Local roadways are a residential concern -- if homeowners want roads, they'll have to finance the portion in front of their home. I truly believe that public financing of roadways is the #1 reason why we're still stuck with unintelligent cars and non-flight vehicles. There is a LOT more room in 3D in the sky than on 2D on the land, and the FAA and the public-financing of roads keeps the small aviation market virtually dead.

I also see no reason why one should finance something that the unanimous don't agree on -- anything else is theft and force. If I don't want to pay for a roadway, you have no right to tell me to (the Constitution is pretty specific on the use of taxation and public improvement isn't one of them). Almost everything that government builds would be better built, cheaper and more market-friendly when done privately (see the California highway that was private until government took it over -- low traffic, great quality roads, fluctuating price based on demand).

I sit here imagining disconnected roads that only go from one neighborhood to a local store... which is empty, since the store couldn't afford to build the highway for the trucks to bring the food in. Likewise, roads and bridges to nowhere.

Well, keep imagining because you're living in a dream world with that attitude, I'm sorry to say. The first roads in the US were private ones and they worked just fine. The first transcontinental railroad was built with private funds and absolutely no government involvement. In my subdivision our roads are privately funded and they're gorgeous. In the town over, all the roads are publicly funded and they're terrible. Highways can easily be built without public dollars -- it is zoning laws and regulatory requirements that prevent the idea from happening.

Government does everything worse than a competitive market does. When I invision a country without government roads, I invision a country where airplane manufacturers compete to provide every citizen with a vehicle that travels safely in 3D for the same price as a vehicle that travels in 2D. It is short sighted to think that roads are the best way to travel from A to B -- who knows where we'd be if it wasn't for the wasted subsidies that the road builders and the car builders received on your tax dollars.

Amtrak is subsidized, but it also tries to operate as a commercial enterprise... without subsidies it wouldn't exist. How is private enterprise doing with that?

It isn't a private company, though. It is funded solely by the US government, or it wouldn't exist. In order to get around constititutional limits, the US government incorporated it privately, but it is 100% public.