| richardhutnik said: Clarification here: I had debated whether or not I should go with "markets" or "free markets". I decided to go with free markets for more ideological idealism and a stronger view. If one wants to replace "free markets" with "well run and well regulated markets" please feel free to do so. The basic question is: If direct democracy can't be trusted to make sure a country runs well, then why would a country dominated by markets provided the best possible outcomes? |
Well that largely depends on your definition of "best possible outcome"...
but it's a very simple one.
Economically.
The market is reactive. It reacts to what people want.
Direct democracy is proactive. It votes on what people thinks it will want.
Direct Democracy is only as effective as the market when people have 100% insight in what they want, what they will want in the future, and laws change immediatly in regards to this.
In terms of social justics. It's often because markets are fragmary and elective. If Gay marriage were a product in the free market gay marriage would of happened decades ago. Slavery in a direct democracy just requires a majority to not care about a minority. In the free market it would require slaves to assent to slavery.
The general answer is... the Free market allows individual choice in the face of majority opinion while direct democracy forces everyone to go along with the majority. Niche markets are valued in a free economy, as are niche viewpoints, because you can make your buisnesses in the "niche."
Though I'm not sure what Tea Party people your talking too... in general I think the tea party wants the federal government's power reduced because it is a republic. Elite pushing their agendas on people and concentrating power at the top.
