In my previous post, I wrote about the deficiencies of democracy as usually practiced. A commenter asked in jest whether I think other systems like fascism, communism or anarchy were better. My original response was in Slovene, but I think it's well-expressed enough that it warrants its own post, so I'm translating it to English.

Anarchy does not exist, or to the extent that it exists, we already live in it. Democracy, communism, feudalism and other systems are phenomena that spotaneously arise within an absolute anarchy.

We know that fascism and communism do not have major advantages on democracy. The problem in fascism and communism is, they permit (or even encourage) oppression of the majority on behalf of a minority. Democracy is good to the extent that it prevents a minority from oppressing the majority.

But on the other hand, democracy fails to the extent that it allows oppression of minorities on behalf of a majority.

In the developed democratic economies of present time, a major issue I see is that the less capable majority is enforcing a socialism-like discrimination against the more capable, which in the long term inhibits economic progress and decreases the long-term well-being of everyone, including the oppressing majority.

In general, there is a trend of ever greater curtailing of an individual's freedom in the name of social good. The majority is using the democratic process to move itself towards socialism. Eventually perhaps even towards totalitarianism.

The fundamental problem of democracy is that most people vote in line with values they learned in school. Most people do not form their own values, they inherit them from their environment when growing up. As a result, the trends that compete in the voting booth are usually not well-thought-out ideas, but largely irrational fixations that spread as memes.

If we want to be successful in the formation of truly beneficial policies, we need to ensure that the most influential voices are those who are the best informed about those policies and have dedicated to them the most thought. Such voices will always be a minority. In a democracy, these voices are ignored, drowned by the voices of populism and the less well-informed majority. The opinions of those who understand are drowned by opinions based on prejudice acquired in school.

A system that were to improve on democracy would:
  1. build on the basis of democracy, in the sense that it would ensure that a minority cannot oppress a majority; but it would also
  2. ensure that a majority cannot oppress a minority; and it would
  3. ensure that when a policy is being debated, the opinions with the most influence are those that are best informed - i.e., those that bring the most added value.
Such an improved system could be:
  • SD-2 (Structural Deep Democracy), which identifies the better qualified voters using the PageRank algorithm; or
  • my idea about wiki laws, which proposes a direct democracy, but where every new law must be met with a high threshold of agreement in the population; or
  • an enlightened absolutism, where a wise ruler protects the rules of engagement until his or her death or abdication, while a congress of psychologists and teachers keeps in readiness a multitude of young and exceptional candidates for succession, one of whom is randomly selected to become the new ruler when a transfer of power occurs.
Finally, an optimal system could perhaps also be found by the enactment of a universal constitution which would guarantee everyone the right to move wherever he or she is accepted, as well as the ability to take their money and capital with them; and that everyone posessing a territory larger than x000 square kilometres is free to form an independent state. However, in enacting such a system, it would be most important to prevent a reoccurence of the tragedy of the United States, where the federal government is now the source of tyranny from which it was originally supposed to protect its people.