"Democracies are surprisingly successful" doesn't mean they are perfect, or even really good. The way to dramatically improve them is to offer citizens Tradable Citizenships. Then people would really start voting for more sensible things because they would see the changes in value of their personal property [their citizenship] depending on electoral outcomes. Democracies are successful compared with the alternatives, in most instances, though not all. < Democracies are on the whole proving to be failures in this regard. The larger and more complex the democracy, the less successful, or so it seems.
Which countries do you consider to be successful democracies? >
Most of the non-African ones. Maybe the African ones are better than the African dictatorships which means they are successful.
Compare democracies with states which are not. The problem places are those places which are not democratic.
South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, Australia, NZ are democratic and successful. China, Vietnam and others are not though China is recovering somewhat from the worst of communism. Indonesia is giving democracy a run: time.com
The first country to make citizens the owners of the state, rather than the reverse [the citizens are owned by the state] will see phenomenal success. The USA constitution went part way but kept basic communist principles of the state above all. Nobody could sell their share in the state and leave. That's how Hippie communes run - everyone puts their bit in and the ownership is collective. Because individuals can't escape with their share of what they have put in by selling to a new member, they limit their efforts to make it good and the commons is depleted. If they leave, they start again with nothing.
Hippie communes don't work and neither do Hippie countries [all democracies].
Mqurice |
