Proportional Representation

The arguments in favor of democracy are usually made as an appeal to fairness -- that rule by a monarch or an elite class is inherently unfair, therefore every individual citizen should have the opportunity to participate in the political system and have a direct say in how their society is governed. But, democracy, as it has been practiced throughout history, has been nothing more than glorified mob rule. There are three different types of democratic systems in the world today; first, there is the sham democracy that exists in United States, which is not a democracy all, it is a republic dominated by a closely allied two party cartel that corrupts corporations, community groups and individuals who become parasites that feed off the system and are obsessed with violating the rights of individuals in their pursuit of greater political power. The only real democracy in the world is in parliamentary systems, but that has not led to a better system of government, in fact, on the whole, parliamentary systems are even more tyrannical than a constitutional republic because they are based on mob rule with no constraints on power. Most parliamentary systems allow for the appearance of proportional representation in parliament, but the result is the formation of a ruling coalition (a ruling mob) that makes subjects of all minority groups and claims as a mandate the license to violate their rights without limits or restrictions. Parliamentary systems tend be more volatile and ruled by the passions of the mob, with opposition parties pushed to the side, they are in fact, little more than formalized procedures for institutionalizing street thuggery. Direct democracy is the other alternative, which exists only in Switzerland and to a limited degree in some U.S. states and localities, but of course, this is direct mob rule where the vagaries of popular opinion are used to bludgeon the rights of the individual. In none of these systems are there true proportional representation nor are the rights of minorities respected. So what is the alternative?
   The alternative is Libertocracy, a system of competing free enterprise governments whose laws are enforced through consensual contracts in which individuals choose their own government or start their own, with conflicts among them settled through voluntary treaties that respect the sovereignty of the individual to live in freedom. To move the world from current mob rule barbarism and corruption to a world of freedom, we seek to use the institutions of the world as both a weapon against the tyranny of political-states and as a tool to empower individuals to liberate humanity. This can be achieved through true proportional representation in democratic systems that respect the rights of the individual and pursue Libertocracy as its ideal.
   People around the world must rise up and demand full proportional representation in the political systems that rule over them, they must demand an end to the corruption and mob tyranny that plagues every country in the world, they must take power for themselves as individuals who are united together in defense of each other's freedom.
   We must attack the system as inherently unfair and demand proportional representation, we must form a powerful movement of resistance against political gangsterism and boycott those companies that support the mob state, we must protest, lobby, go on strike, refuse to use statist money, refuse to pay taxes, refuse to work for their system, until individuals are free to form voluntary alliances to govern themselves within a legitimate and just system of government.
   No political-state can rightfully claim legitimacy that violates the rights of individuals and denies the full proportional representation of all citizens, including representation of small minority groups. To achieve the goal of proportional representation there must be a diversification of power sharing that allows people to form cooperative political networks at local community levels that empower them to create a government that protects their rights and allows them to pursue their preferred way of life.
   This can be more easily achieved in the parliamentary system, though it has many flaws, and tends toward mob rule without constitutional protections for the individual, it nevertheless provides the best opportunity for the realization of proportional representation, which is already nominally recognized, though minority groups who are not part of the ruling coalition are shut out of power. To change this system and make it fairer we must demand structural changes in a parliamentary system that will take the framework of a parliament, that is proportionally represented by different parties, and write constitutional contracts that allow for the creation of multiple coalitions that each function as competing service providers. Instead of one centralized ruling coalition, parliament would be composed of several coalitions that would operate like corporations, they would sign up citizens as subscribers to their provision of government. Citizens would then have the choice to subscribe to the type of government they choose, socialists could subscribe to the socialist coalition who would raise their taxes, but would only have the power to raise the taxes of their socialist subscribers, and offer a full socialist system of programs, cradle to grave dependency, handouts, socialized medicine and heavy regulation of businesses who sign up to the socialist system. A conservative coalition would offer less taxes and regulation but would make stricter rules over private, social activities. People who believe in regulating morality should begin enforcing it upon themselves and leave other people to the responsibility of interpreting morality in line with their differing beliefs. In a centralized state the attempts to impose morality result in the use of tactics that are fundamentally immoral, and are often driven by prejudice that leads to the suppression of good, moral behavior and results in creating greater social problems. That is evidence of the enforcement of natural law, when you violate the true law you are punished in innumerable ways. In a proportional system, different social groups may subscribe to different social rules which would be enforced on their property and the public space that they themselves pay to create and maintain, which leaves other coalitions to pay for the maintenance of their preferred public spaces. The result would be different private and public spaces that offer the same opportunity of choice that private enterprise offers. Instead of a monopoly over all public space and even over private property, there would be communities that spring up that are very austere and conservative or that are very liberal, it allows for nude beaches, parks, brothels or drug clubs in one area maintained by those who support them, while other people may pay to support parks and beaches that have very strict codes of dress and behavior. It is the most favorable trend to find that more of these choices are now being offered, but for the sake of fairness, people should not be forced to support things that they consider to be immoral. A component of this liberty is the responsibility that communities assume to keep their behavior contained properly and prevent it from infringing upon the rights of others or breeding crime. If the red light districts allow prostitution and drug use in one area then the authorities in charge of that zone and the people who frequent it must be held responsible for preventing that area from breeding crime that harms the rest of society, since that is the usual argument used for suppressing vice, if people want freedom they must take responsibility, when they do and the consequences do not produce crime then that eliminates the excuse for prohibition.
   Conversely, conservative, religious communities can create exactly the kind of culture they prefer, in a voluntary community association they may ban anything they wish, have dress codes, prohibit certain substances and behavior in private homes and promote positive social programs that support their religion. Since the members of this community association would join it voluntarily and none of its rules are imposed on other property owners, they would have complete control over their community. Developers can build integral communities where all of the homes are under the association. In other neighborhoods, people who seek an integrity and unity must buy up properties of people who have not yet chosen to join or pay them to join. There are many community associations like this in the world today, it is one of the most encouraging movements afoot. In a free enterprise government system, these different community associations could sign up with different governmental service providers and public utility providers who compete within the free market to provide the services, security and programs that subscribers demand. Instead of a federally controlled one size fits all education system, each community would pay for and control its own schools, just as it used to be, only there would be more choice for individuals to choose the community that reflects their values.
   In a proportional system, a libertarian coalition could sign up subscribers who would agree to only pay fees for the services they use, with no direct taxes. A libertarian program would offer law and order that protects individual rights, a fair justice system and security services to defend individual freedom. It could offer more, but they wouldn't have to, if people want more they could choose some other coalition. So that libertarians and free enterprisers would be limited to the spaces created by their coalition, if they use any public spaces or services provided by other coalitions then they would have to pay the fees for their use.
   Such a system allows individuals the freedom and opportunity to choose the services they prefer, just like in the free marketplace, it breaks up and diversifies power and encourages individuals to form consensual networks that are responsible for themselves. Such a system can only function in a society with a legitimate government that recognizes the true law of sovereign individual freedom, the system can only work in a society where people respect the rights of others to associate and live as they choose as long as they respect the equal right of other people to the same freedom. This system promotes free enterprise as it encourages the privatization of public programs and it pushes the institutions of power down to the local level where people have more control over their own communities and will be better able to work together to create the way of life that they envision.
   Such a proportional system would be enforced through constitutional contracts, where each coalition and all of the entities, public and private, that operate within the coalition, must create and sign contracts with their subscribers and with other coalitions as partners who respect each other's rights and claim responsibility for themselves. These contracts would be enforced through contract insurance which places the total assets of all coalitions and their member entities under neutral trustees chosen by the members. This takes the ultimate power completely out of the hands of the central state and denies a coalition of any size the ability to seize total power. As long as individuals are free to choose their coalition and free to choose the neutral courts and trustees who will enforce the contracts they voluntarily sign, then free, self-government will be maintained and the centralized state will be banished from the world.
   What about the numerous laws and regulations enforced on the country? The vast majority of regulations are not necessary, they are criminal as they violate natural human rights law. These petty rules and regulations are justified only within voluntary organizations, like private clubs or associations and on property specifically created by those who choose to join the system of rules that create the environment they prefer. Legitimate law is based entirely upon the protection of the sovereignty of the individual to be free. In a country where there is polycentric, proportional coalitions, there would be competing government service providers all bound together under a limited constitution that protects individual rights against government and prevents coalitions from forming monopoly cartels that violate individual rights and coerce citizens into subjugation.
   The executive in such a proportional parliamentary system would be charged with the duty of overseeing and managing the administration of the system itself, to maintain its structure and operations. The Prime Minister would then become more like a CEO or even more like the director of an organization like the United Way or the International Red Cross which is a structural organization that allows different local organizations to operate on their own. The United Way (an American charitable organization) operates nationally as an organization that supports its local member groups. The local United Ways do most of the organization's work, they determine their own rules, lay out their own values and direct their own money and activities to the charities and social actions they prefer.
   As a statist model, Switzerland is the best in the world, while Switzerland is not a free country and it is plagued by heavy regulation by the cantons (the aforementioned mob rule problem), it certainly allows individuals the freedom to govern their local communities better than the U.S. or any other country. The Swiss system is a limited federal structure based on what the United States Republic originally was. Unlike in the U.S., where the system of checks and balances has fallen apart as the federal cartel has seized almost total power, the Swiss federal level has remained very limited in its power, the Swiss President is just a committee-like manager with very limited powers. In Switzerland, the cantons are the primary institutions of government, and because they're relatively small in territory, about the size of some counties in the U.S., they allow people to better address their needs as communities and to maintain a government that actually protects their interests in maintaining a good quality of life, rather than building an aggressive empire bent on world domination, and so far, they've maintain their independence by staying out of entanglements with the European Union and NATO.
   A freer model of governance has been most nearly realized in the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Hanseatic League, and local American communities through the first 125 years after American independence. There was a time in America when new and experimental communities sprang up all over the continent, groups of people joined together to build their vision of utopian societies, communes and experimental villages, like the Shakers, Rugby, Tennessee and communities formed by the transcendentalists. Then, people didn't need the permission of Washington to do anything, they didn't need a license, neither were their attempts at building new communities blocked by invasive regulations. None of these experimental communities posed a threat to the larger society, they were operated by their members for their members, they raised their own revenue, made their own rules and regulated their own conduct, if you didn't like the rules of the community then you were free to leave it and move to a community of your own choosing or to live in sovereign independence in the country or in non incorporated neighborhoods. That tradition of voluntary community building continues today in America but is plagued by numerous licenses and regulations that rob homeowners of full control of their communities, private property and schools. The United States has been taken over by people who are the antitheses of the American spirit and ideals.
   People must take power away from the ruling bureaucracy and return it to local control where they may create competing systems of governance and public services offered through the free market to voluntary subscribers.

-- Libertocracy Association; 15/2/5002                                                                                           by Libercratus