Does Every Democracy Corruptly Degenerate Into Control By The Richest?

Every national Government that includes public elections between competing politicians has degenerated into control by the richest, because the richest donate more than half of all of the money that is donated to political campaigns, and they can and do aways spend enough on politics to deceive enough voters to vote against any candidate who refuses to be bought, so that only the candidates who are willing to do what their megadonors say — obedient candidates (obedient to the billionaires especially) — will have any real chance to win a major public office. So, if a democracy is to be defined as ONLY a system that includes public elections between competing politicians, then it will always degenerate into an aristocracy of the super-rich, which is a type of dictatorship (sometimes called by such names as “aristocracy,” “oligarchy,” “plutocracy,” etc.), NOT a democracy.

So, that is a phony definition of “democracy” (though it’s the normal way that “democracy” is defined), because a democracy is instead a Government by representatives of each citizen equally, without regard for wealth, religon, ethnicity, or any other attribute — it is (and the term “democracy” can realistically be applied ONLY to) “Equal Justice Under Law” — and it CAN exist but never yet HAS existed (because of that false common definition for it*). An authentic democracy would be based upon replacing all public competitive elections (which inevitably will be corrupted) between competing politicians, by, instead, random assignment of members of the public, to the legislature; and, then, if that person is willing to serve as a legislator, be paid by the Government so to serve; and, then, voting BY those legislators, in the legislature. Those legislators would then select from amongst themselves a head-of-state, the Government’s executive power, likewise paid by the Government. Randomly selected bar-certified lawyers would also be paid by the Government, to interview and select all judges; and all trials would be jury trials; and only pre-certified experts would be able to be paid by the court to testify on expert matters in trials. Certification of such experts would be based upon scores on purely multiple-choice specialized tests so as to eliminate subjective factors and any influences by the rich. Any legislator or other Government-employee will be paid ONLY by the Government and annually audited, and any effort by any such person to derive income from any other source THAN the Government would be subject to trial and automatic firing from that Government-office if found guilty.

This would be a Governmental system that is designed so as to prevent corruption of the Government. Corruption comes almost always from the aristocracy, the super-rich, who own control over the large corporations, including the news-media and the most prestigious educational institutions, which they donate to. The purpose would be to eliminate corruption from the Government.

I have also described some other features of this proposed new Governmental design system, in a prior article, which was titled “To achieve democracy, we must have no elections.” It also discussed objections that some readers had presented to my proposal. (All of those objections assumed that the legislators and head-of-state in existing ‘democratic’ nations are more competent persons than the average person is; that some ‘elite’ should control the Government — the public should not. All of those objections despised the public, and started with the false assumption that the fundamental problem is NOT the corruptness of Government officials due to their corruption by the billionaires, but IS the competency of the public officials. That IS — and I keep needing to repeat this — a FALSE assumption.)

Since then, I have received additional objections, and have replied to them, as shown here:

“How about randomly generating compact census tracks by one national computer based on a random drawing for a common geographic point of the states or US, e.g.in next census year, randomly generate census tracks beginning the northern most point in California. Next, use those census tracks to randomly generate compact congressional and assembly districts. Repeal direct election of senators. Only people can give, directly or indirectly, up to $2,500 to candidates. Violation is 10 years in prison.”

Here is my problem with your proposal: It says “Only people can give, directly or indirectly, up to $2,500 to candidates.” In other words, it allows political elections.

“I’ve been told that a Democracy should be better called a Mobocracy.  We are supposed to be a Republic which is based on a set of laws and the vote in a Democratic fashion to be sure the set of laws are followed.

I’ve often thought that we should not allow anyone from outside our voting districts to fund elections.  Also They need not be that  expensive if anyone running would publish papers about how these problems should be handled.  We don’t need all these fake political commercials.  It’s probably not that simple, but I do think that changes need to be made. … I’m not sure what kind of people we would get in office without you further defining how a lottery would work.  You would have to have some sort of qualifications for leaders.  Of course now many of them we have seem to be ignorant or the real world.”

Here’s the problem I have with your thoughts about my article:

“I’ve often thought that we should not allow anyone from outside our voting districts to fund elections.  Also They need not be that  expensive if anyone running would publish papers about how these problems should be handled.  We don’t need all these fake political commercials.”

In other words, your thoughts are only about a system that allows political elections. You are still thinking in the old way. My proposal allows no political elections, none. Your thoughts aren’t relevant to it.

“There is no ‘government’ money. All government funds are provided by the taxpayer and deficits are paid for by selling government backed bonds. What is that backing? Future taxation of the public.

Even without elections, whoever you put into office will be subject to corruption and bribes because that is what the wealthy does to protect their wealth. They have to have control of the system to ensure they do not lose their wealth and power. They can easily buy that control.

Democracy, however you define it, it not the answer because government is never the answer.”

Are you advocating that there be no lawmaking authority, that there be no laws at all, and that there be no connection of that to an enforcement authority if there is, and that there be no connection of those to a judicial authority if both a lawmaking and enforcement authority exist?

——

I welcome any additional inputs regarding my proposal, at the.eric.zuesse@gmail.com.

——

* Documentation of the falsity of the common definition of “democracy” can be found here. Given that the common definition for it is empirically false, the need exists for a true definition of democracy, and I have provided in this article what I believe that to be.