There is a statement like, "America is a Republic, not a Democracy". The idea is that you can't trust the masses to make the right decisions. You need to have a constitution that insures basic rights, and also elect representatives who will factor in the wants of the public, but then act for the greater good. The argument is that direct democracy produces mob rule, and the minority people could be harmed in the process.
Well, what then are markets? Aren't markets like a direct democracy, where people spend their limited resources and vote? The only difference I can see is that some people have greater influence on markets, because they have more money. So, is that the only reason why markets can be trusted is that some people have a greater degree of voting in them, than others? If you could have a direct democracy where some could end up with more votes, would then it be able to be trusted more?
I ask this, because the Tea Party political side seems to argue more for free markets, but then also will argue direct democracy is bad, and America is a "Republic". Just curious if anyone here believes markest are good but direct democracy is bad. If so, why. Please explain.
