Should we advocate a Republic form of government instead of Democracy?

@nathansurendran Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me address some of your questions/thoughts:

Q: "I think, that the issue of monetary reform has a much better chance of being accepted as a policy than the issue of the form of governance"

A: I don't believe that monetary reform can effectively happen without economic reform. For example, now the banks provide loans by creating money from nothing, as we've covered at length throughout this forum. Each bank gets to assess a person's credit-risk profile, and determine if they will make a loan. Since the bank is not really risking that much in granting the loan, they are fairly lenient. Also, because there is only a 2% demand for currency in the economy, the bank does not have the associated cost that more currency would incur.

Let's see what can happen if you now take away the bank's ability to create money, while still retaining the current way that money comes into existence. If you centralised the creation of all money at the central bank, you now have a situation where that bank has to try and determine the correct amount to create...not just for currency, but for broad money as well. No country in the world does this. The reason for banks being allowed to create broad money is because they not only create it, they also destroy it as loans get repaid. If the central bank creates all broad money for loans, they are the ones who will have to approve all mortgages and business loans. The bottleneck will become massive. All lending will have to go through a single source.

Then you may be tempted to think that banks can just be limited to lending out currency they have in their vaults. For them to keep enough on hand will become problematic, since only 2% of all money is now in the form of currency. Also, once currency is printed, it is not destroyed by loan repayment like broad money is. That means the amount in circulation never gets smaller, and if lending rates increase, so with the amount of currency required.

Let me state this a little clearer. The beneficial feature of broad money (non-currency) is that it is both created AND destroyed by banks. It is not physical, so this is very easy to do. The creation of money, therefore, is bottom-up, based on the actual demand from people wanting loans. Money creation is not top-down as some assume. So, what happens when money creation becomes top-down? There will simply be way too much or way too little, and the process of loan approval will become severely bottlenecked.

Now, let's say that money creation is not debt-based, but that somehow the central bank decides to just create currency out of nothing, basically backed by nothing. This is what I understand Positive Money proposes. At least at present, the money is backed by debt, meaning that the amount of money is directly related to a human activity...debt demand. If they create fiat currency without any debt-backing, what will it be backed with? Nothing at all. So, how much should they create? At present the amount to create is governed by the demand for loans. What human activity will help measure out the demand for new money? Central banks have tried to control the economy by indirectly controlling the demand for loans, by directly adjusting the interest rate they charge banks for using currency. Now that 98% of all money is electronic broad money, this mechanism no longer works well, because banks can give loans without having to get much if any currency. I bought a house, travel frequently, and do lots of shopping. I never use cash for anything. I am not alone in this, but rather firmly joined by the vast majority of people.

All of the above is why I am proposing a Value-based Economy, so that the money is indeed backed by something...something positive. In fact, I could argue that my system is truly "positive" because it squarely backs money with positive value instead of negative debt. Money is created SOLELY to pay for societal value, and there are strict mechanisms for determining that value. Also, once the value stored in VBE money has reached its expected longevity, it then becomes a candidate for destruction. Wisely, however, we don't destroy it yet, but keep it in the system so that premature losses can be offset by the fully depreciated value, thereby giving the system a powerful ability to absorb loss and failure, without any adverse economic effects. This allows for a massive increase in research and experimentation.

@nathansurendran asked:

Q: "I would question one point: whether it’s actually desirable to have smaller states with the same political power as larger ones? Doesn’t this create a driver for fragmentation, as people realise their town can declare itself a state and veto everything it doesn’t agree with..?"

A: this comes from the basic desire to have a separation of power, so that it is much harder to have collusion and corruption. It also takes into account that in any given country there are different concerns depending on where you are in that country. New Zealand is a bit small for multiple states, but in the U.S., where the land mass is huge, having different states becomes a way of isolating the local will for local issues, and also consolidating the local will for representation at the national level. In a pure democracy, all policies in the U.S. would be determined by the people of New York city, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Here in New Zealand, it would probably make sense to have two states of North Island and South Island. The issues facing each island are quite a bit different. Also, energy revenues in the south island would be mostly used in the north island, which would give the south a nice source of income to help develop their area more. This is what the division into smaller areas provides...a way for the smaller areas to actually compete against the larger ones. The north has nicer weather, so it attracts more people. If the south could actually charge tax on energy extraction they could use that tax to enhance their area, thereby attracting more people to live there.

@nathansurendran said:

Q:"There seems to be an underlying assumption that you’re displaying, that the minority knows better, and that it should have more power than the mob?

My understanding of the issue is that majority rule is better from the fairness angle"

A: well, let's see. In the recent issue of gay marriage, the majority of MPs decided that it was not proper to continue discriminating against people just because of their sexual preference. So, now, gay people have equal rights to everyone else. Prior to this decision, was it right to deny marriage to this particular group? Was it fair morally speaking? In the U.S. there was a time that the majority thought it was perfectly fine to own slaves. Now, if you think that way, you are an abomination. So, was it fair or right to have slaves back then, but now it is not?

Let's take a more closer-to-home issue. Building accessibility for the disabled. Would the majority vote for such a thing? What if this appeared on the ballots 20 years ago: "Should the government mandate that all buildings provide special access to handicapped individuals, installing special stalls in restrooms, wide doors, ramps, elevators, and special parking spaces close to entrances?" Do you really think that the majority would have said "yes" to that? I think that the only ones that would have said "yes" are those who are handicapped, know somebody who is, or that fairly small percentage of people who are very empathetic towards general human suffering.

If you want to see how this works in reality, just look at this forum. There are lots of proposals here that would benefit a minority of people, but because the majority has no direct connection to those issues, they simply say "NO". This is also a function of the fact that the society is expected to pay for all government activities through taxes, which means that people have to have a sense of direct benefit, or they will be against it.

San Marino is not a Republic under the definition you are using her, Kenneth

This discussion is a waste of time. Whatever people might think of democracy, and whatever alternatives they might favour, it is not going to change, and the effort needed, which is revolution, is not worth it. They always end badly, and become a habit. And, as Kafka pointed out, 'After the dust of revolution has settled, there arises the slime of a new bureaucracy.' The power-hungry grey horde, the bureaucrats, will slither into dominance whatever system we have. The would love this 'my law' trick.

We should concentrate on making democracy work better, not indulge in time-wasting discussions about systems that could never be, and this case should never be.

A Constitutional Democracy can give a number of the benefits of a republic without being a republic. Also, we have a republic in that everywhere has two representatives for that location (a Maori electorate, and a "regular" electorate MP). They are our representatives in Parliament, elected to REPresent the PUBLIC in their electorate.

Or is the problem that the electorate candidates are controlled by the party, and a party vote will trump the electorate's wishes? That's a procedural issue with the parties, not a problem with the type of representation.

How is it that no matter what discussion is proposed @kennethkopelson turns it into a debate on his version of the economic system. Is this topic on democracy simply a ruse to get your views on banking aired once again? For the record your democracy sounds like anarchy. What we are doing now is closer to democracy than your proposal is, and the main weakness of the system we are sharing is that certain people invent the rules as they go along...... which seems to be the main flaw in your own proposal.

I'd like to bring the topic back to discussing republics. @marcwhinery provided an interesting comment:

"A Constitutional Democracy can give a number of the benefits of a republic without being a republic."

Can you please list some of those benefits you see? Which benefits would not be present in a Constitutional Democracy?

Also, I find that common law is highly desirable in a republic, as it recognises the individual sovereignty of people, thereby making it quite compatible with a republic.

http://www.nlnrac.org/earlymodern/common-law

@kennethkopelson Not sure about this one Ken. I don't want NZ to be anything like the USA, or any other country for that matter. The treatment of the Native Americans and Black people over in the States is nothing to be proud of. We're unique here in that the Native Maori people actually have sovereign rights themselves. Now all we need is for Pakeha/European's to get the same rights, and we might actually get somewhere! Lol
We need to bring both races/cultures together, and stop this 'Us versus Them' mentality. So that would mean an end to the Treaty of Waitangi, in a way that is fair to the Maoris in regards to land and reparations. The way the Government payouts work now is that the Tribes of each area get a big lump sum, but most Maoris don't see any of that money. The Tribal Elders/Chiefs keep most of it for themselves. So I think individual payouts to anyone with Maori ancestry would be the fair way to do it..then hopefully it will put an end to the 'hard done by, ripped off, you stole our land' attitude I always hear when I talk to my Maori friends. And of course with your Value based economy, fair payouts would not be a problem!
Then, when the Treaty is finally settled once and for all, we can move forward and draft a new Constitution that benefits ALL New Zealanders equally

@kennethkopelson https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

"Common law is generally uncodified. This means that there is no comprehensive compilation of legal rules and statutes."

Common law is unknowable by the people.

" Which benefits would not be present in a Constitutional Democracy?"

I'd ask the question the other way. What benefits do you see in a Republic that aren't in a democracy? Those you find lacking, you put in the Constitution. If there's a 50% threshold to change "minor" laws and a 75% threshold to change "major" laws, that would give some of the protections against a tyranny by the majority.

You mention the US. The original US allowed the vote to rich white males only. The Constitution allowed for, but did not require Sufferage, so it was up to the local rules, and initially, they restricted voting to land owners in a time when only white males owned land, and much of the land ownership was still from royal grants.

Less than 10% of the USA population was eligible to vote in the first elections. Now it's up to 40%. I presume the remainder are resident (legal or illegal) non-citizens and children. Though in the first elections those numbers would have been different, as anyone in the country at the time it was formed was a citizen, so there'd have been almost no resident non-citizens.

So I'm not sure such a restrictive, elitist system as the US is based off is such a good template. It was a good compromise at the time, but better has been done since. And we should be aiming for better now, as well.

And yes, I took constitutional law classes in the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum (also a building in the Law School for Texas A&M Uni).

@marcwhinery asked:

"I’d ask the question the other way. What benefits do you see in a Republic that aren’t in a democracy? Those you find lacking, you put in the Constitution."

Originally, you said "A Constitutional Democracy can give a number of the benefits of a republic without being a republic." Since you said that Constitutional Democracy (C.R.) can give a number of benefits of a republic, I wanted to know which ones it did not provide. My question to you was to ask for clarification on your comment. Something caused you to qualify your statement with words like "can give a number of the benefits", so I'm curious which benefits of a republic YOU see lacking in a C.R.

Fundamentally, it comes down to personal sovereignty. Obviously, people in New Zealand don't relate to this idea too well, having lived their entire existence under a monarch who is THE only sovereign.

Also, I can argue all day long about the U.S., showing clearly that the problems there are NOT a feature of it being a republic, but rather, they are a feature of the fact that the republic has been surreptitiously supplanted by a rogue government, and this government has slowly, over time, trained the population to think like serfs, and to become ignorant of their own true history and status.

@marcwhinery

I liked this particular analysis from The Federalist Papers, where James Madison writes:

"[The republic can] refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people."

And then the blogger Hestal writes:

"The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favourable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favour of the latter...

Mr. Madison answered his own question by deciding that the large republic is better than the small republic for electing "proper guardians of the public weal." He argued that each size of republic would have the same percentage of good men within its own population, and therefore the large republic, in absolute terms, would have more good men to choose from. Simply put, he argued that the republic that is twice as populous as another would have twice as many good men. He also argued that the districts in a large republic will be made of more voters and therefore it will be more difficult for a bad man to fool all of the people thereby making it more difficult for such a man to win office. And finally, he argued that a large republic would be likely to have more diverse points of view and more diverse interests in various issues than would a small one. These different parties would tend to control each other and limit their adverse effects on society as a whole. By having several small parties rather than a few large ones, or, say, two large ones, the People would be better served. From all these arguments we get our current form of government, a republic, a representative democracy. Or so it is widely believed."

And then further down, he writes:

"Mr. Madison said that the republic would have an advantage over the smaller pure democracy because a smaller population would more easily fall victim to "plans of oppression:"

"The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression."

The blogger continues:

"So today we have a huge republic, with only two parties—not the many "distinct parties and interests" that Mr. Madison expected. Mr. Madison’s theory has not worked. In fact, the members of Congress, acting in their own self-interest, have acted to increase, rather than dilute, their power by voting to maintain the number of representatives to the House at 435 rather than increase it as our population increased.

As we saw above, if we had maintained the ratio of citizens to representatives at 30,000 to 1, as Mr. Washington preferred, we would have a House of 10,000 members. Because of this artificial limitation of 435 members our House needs only 218 members to constitute a majority and control the agenda. And there is nothing to keep such a majority from carrying out schemes that defeat the design goal the Framers had in mind: to control tyranno-parties. Such a tiny majority could easily take actions that are "adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community."

So, in my view, no matter if the government is a republic or a pure democracy, the person who is present and who has the power to vote will vote his personal opinions and beliefs. This means that a representative democracy, a republic, contrary to its underlying theoretical characteristics, actually functions as a "pure" democracy, with all its deficiencies, so long as the republic has a small number of representatives who meet to administer the government in person. This fundamental weakness could not be corrected until very recently. But during my lifetime technologies have been developed and proved which make it easy finally to establish what the Framers wanted."

After considering the various options, and looking at the results, along with the factors presented above, I do now believe that we need a form of government that allows all members of society to participate in keeping the government honest and working for the people. This is the most crucial aspect. So, perhaps what we need is something altogether new...a participatory democracy that has built-in protections for the minorities. This is going to require some further thought and discussion :)

@kennethkopelson As you have deleted most of my comments as well as your responses - my time in this discussion has been wasted. You said it was because they were off topic, but it was you that initiated the off topic discussion, and it is you that has also continued to discuss off topic further. I think you just don't like what I say. I took the liberty of deleting the last two of my posts for you. I won't be participating in any further discussions that you initiate because my comments get deleted. You'll probably delete this one too.

@amandavickers I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I thought you wanted me to delete your comments, which no longer made any sense out of context. I thought that is why you said "You only left my comments!" with an exclamation. I thought that was your complaint that your comments now seemed out of context.

Yes, I got the subject off track, and I wanted to bring it back on topic. I kept all comments that seemed to have some applicability.

Now that I know you want your comments left there, I will not delete them any more. It was a simple mistake, and had nothing to do with not liking what you said. I was thinking more about other readers who may be confused. I wanted my comments gone because it was a pure bunny trail, and was not serving the main objective. I'm human, and make mistakes (obviously). I also like to fix them whenever I can.

@ryansimmiss I agree with you mate, and that is why I posted a modification to my discussion proposal. I'm not sure that my current thinking is the best, but it is at least somewhere to start. Glad to hear thoughts, concerns, ideas...

@amandavickers I have also removed all my comments about economics from this discussion, so my time was wasted also. Oh well...that's life in a forum that doesn't allow posts to be moved to other discussions. I would have gladly moved all our comments to the appropriate conversation, but that facility does not exist here, like so many other deficiencies of this Loomio system.

I actually liked all your comments, and was glad that we finally came to some mutual understanding. I do regret upsetting you by removing all the comments about economics, and for that, I blame the inadequacies of this incubator software. I just didn't want all that economic talk to prevent people from looking down further to see the continued republic conversation.

Please reconsider your stance of not participating in my discussions. It was not my intention to upset you. I suppose if you had not drawn attention to me leaving your comments, they would still be there now. Anyhow, I do apologise for my mistake.

P.S. I did not delete your comment where you express your displeasure with me deleting comments.

@kennethkopelson "So, perhaps what we need is something altogether new…a participatory democracy that has built-in protections for the minorities."

That's commonly called a constitutional democracy. There's nothing in the rules where all decisions in a democracy are made at 50% majority. They can be at all sorts of different levels for different things, and with restrictions for certain actions.

@marcwhinery Well, I believe that constitutions are there for the purposes of the government, to define their features, limits, and responsibilities. People are inherently free agents, so it is the artificial construct of government that needs boundaries set around it. Even when a constitution mentions rights, it is not granting those rights, but rather it is affirming that the government will recognise them.

If a constitution ends up having the features of a republic, then I would suggest it is now a Constitutional Republic. Incidentally, a republic is a special form of democracy, so if you take a democracy, give it a constitution that has the features of a republic, voila...you have a Constitutional Republic. Anyhow, here is an interesting article that talks about different kinds of Liberal Democracies, which may apply in this case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Here is a related discussion thread:
https://internet-party.loomio.org/d/IGEkMq9J/should-aotearoa-new-zealand-become-independent-from-the-crown