Previousy, I described how the United States could implement a direct democracy . One of the principal advantages of direct democracy is that it makes citizens, and not their elected representatives, responsible for the laws that guide the nation. This is the truest expression of democracy. Almost.

In fact, democracy will reach its highest form of expression when citizens have both:

• authority to make decisions (as in a direct democracy); and

• accountability for the consequences of those decisions.

I call such an accountable democratic process "responsible democracy".

There are a variety of ways in which we can hold citizens responsible for their actions in a direct democracy. In this note I propose one approach to implementing responsible democracy, namely, that:

• Any citizen who votes in favor of a new law, or in favor of repealing or modifying an existing law, must pay his share of the cost of implementing that new or changed law.

• By the same token, those who either:
  • vote against a new or changed law, or

  • do not vote at all with respect to that law,

  will not be required to contribute to defraying either the direct or indirect cost associated with implementing that law.

I'll refer to this particular subset of responsible democracy as "fiscally responsible democracy".

Under a fiscally responsible democracy, everyone who votes in favor of a particular bill or resolution will be required to pledge a dollar amount that he will contribute to the cost of implementing that bill if it passes. Depending on the nature of the bill being voted on, the voter may be required to pledge either a one-time or multi-year contribution, (usually the latter). If the sum of all the pledged dollar amounts does not equal or exceed the estimated cost of implementing the bill, then the bill will not be considered to have passed, regardless of the number or percentage of the citizenry that voted for it. Conversely, regardless of the sum of the pledged amounts, if the majority of those voting do not favor the bill, it will not be considered to have passed.

Benefits Of Fiscally Responsible Democracy

Here are a few benefits that will be derived if fiscally responsible democracy, as outlined above, is put into effect.

• The national debt will be eliminated, possibly being replaced in part by an increase in the citizenry's combined personal debt.

• The nation will avoid the near-annual shameful charade in which Congress and the President, stalemated over proposed budget resolutions, threaten to (and occasionally actually do) shut down the goverment.

• Fraud and waste in government spending will probably be reduced, as citizens will more carefully evaluate the ways their tax money is being spent.

• The power of special interest groups and their lobbyists will be dramatically reduced if not altogether eliminated.

• By having to "put their money where their mouth is", people will learn more about their true values.

• Re-establishing the connection between actions and their consequences will permit citizens to learn from their mistakes in judgement, something that is difficult if not impossible to achieve under our current representative democratic system, in which the consequences of decisions and actions are usually obscured, if not hidden, from the voting public.

• The majority will not be able to force the minority to pay for the institutionalization of its values.

• Interpersonal and intergroup conflict will be reduced since people with different philosophies will not be able to blame others for forcing them to pay for activities and/or entities that they oppose.

Pseudo-Problems With Fiscally Responsible Democracy

There are a variety of objections that will be brought to bear against the notion of fiscally responsible democracy. Here are a few of them that I have encountered, along with my rebuttal.

Pseudo-Problem

Important programs, projects and initiatives will not be funded. For example, the arts, basic research, beautification programs, not to mention (he mentioned) various forms of welfare for the needy, that are now funded in large part by government grants, will cease to exist if individuals are required to pay for them.

Rebuttal

Nonsense The issue here centers on the word "important". There is no absolute standard of importance. Programs that are important to some people are not important to others. Those that feel they are important will be willing to pay for them. Those that feel they aren't, won't.

It is perhaps true that many programs and activities that are now supported, knowingly or unknowingly, by taxpayers will cease to exist, or be scaled back significantly if only those who believe they are important will be paying for them, but this is as it should be. It may be, for example, that these "important" programs are truly important only to a small subset of the taxpaying public, namely those who benefit directly or indirectly from their existence.




Pseudo-Problem

Required services will be inadequately funded and the national infrastructure will crumble. Here people are talking about required services such as police and fire departments, road building, sewer and water facilities, national defense, the post office, etc. The thought is that these services would be inadequately funded if taxpayers were given the option of paying for them or not.

Rebuttal

Nonsense. With the potential exceptions of national defense, the judiciary function, and the prison system, there is no "service" offered by a government agency that cannot be obtained on a fee-for-service basis, either from the government or alternative sources. For instance:

• In many communities fire protection is presently optional. If you don't pay the fee, your home will not be protected by the local fire department.

• Emergency medical services are routinely offered on an optional subscription basis in many communities. Those who do not ante up the annual subscription cost are charged on a fee- for- service basis when they actually use the service.

• Mountain climber and hiker rescue services now are beginning to charge those they rescue for the cost of their service.

• While I know of no communities in which police protection is optional, there is no conceptual reason why it could not be funded in a manner similar to that of the fire, EMT, and rescue services mentioned above.

• Many roads, bridges, sewer systems, and other components of the national infrastructure are presently paid for entirely by user fees, sometimes called tolls. There is no reason why this principle could not be applied to all elements of the national infrastructure.

These examples suggest that elimination of tax support for most, if not all, of the services presently provided by government agencies need not result in the elimination of those services that citizens actually desire or require. Those that might not be funded by taxes under a responsible democracy can be funded in other ways.

Now let's talk about the potential exceptions:

• National Defense

  An argument can be made that all residents of this country, including those that pay taxes and those that don't, derive benefit from our uniformed armed forces (e.g., the army, navy and airforce), as well as such "intelligence" agencies as the FBI, CIA, and NSA. This benefit, some contend, includes, among other things, deterring potential invasions by the nation's "enemies"; as well as inhibiting unlawful civil unrest by our citizens and other of the nation's residents.

  But an argument can also be (and has been convincingly) made that the nation's military posture encourages, rather than inhibits international conflict, and that the results of the intelligence agencies' actions are often harmful, rather than beneficial, to the nation's citizens.

  Even within the camp of those that believe a strong national defense serves the country well, there is considerable disagreement with respect to "how strong" is strong enough, and whether particular initiatives and weapon systems act to strengthen or weaken the nation's defense.

  Similarly, within the camp of those who generally oppose the buildup of the military, there is often disagreement as to how much it should be weakened, and precisely which intiatives or weapon systems should be dismantled, and which should remain.

  I will not attempt to enumerate or synopsize the arguments between and within these two camps. The point here is that there is no consensus regarding the extent, if any, to which a strong national defense actually does benefit the nation, nor regarding what, precisely, constitutes a strong national defense, nor precisely how strong is strong enough.

  Thus, while there is (almost) certainly a specific configuration for this country's national defensive posture (i.e., a specific number of combatants of various types, and a specific set of weapon systems) that actually does affect the citizenry in ways that most of them would agree is beneficial, no-one knows what that configuration is.

  In the absence of such knowledge, anyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. (If you doubt this, listen, as I have, to two equally knowledgable and respected defense experts arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions regarding the benefit to be derived from various weapon system programs such as the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka"Star Wars"), or at a more mundane level, the relative benefit of a $2 billion submarine versus a $50 thousand sea mine.)

  Since everyone's guess is as good (or bad) as everyone else's, there is no rational basis for arguing that anyone should be required to pay to fund someone else's idea of what our national defense should look like. Moreover, no-one should be required to pay for an element of the national defense (e.g., a particular force level or weapons system) that he believes is harmful to the nation's (and/or his personal) safety and well-being.

  
  

• The Judiciary

  There are, in general, two distinct classes of activity undertaken by the judiciary that need to be dealt with: civil cases and criminal cases.

  • Civil Cases

    In civil cases, the losing party pays court costs. No tax support is necessary. End of story.

    
    

  • Criminal Cases

    In criminal cases, one of the parties is always the government. If one accepts the principle that the losing party pays court costs, then someone is going to have to pay when the government loses its cases, and when the government wins its cases but the convicted criminals can't afford court costs.

    There are a number of ways of dealing with these situations. In the following paragraph I discuss one alternative. The clever among you will, I'm sure, think of even more interesting approaches.

    Using historical data, determine the fraction of criminal cases brought by the government in which the government has lost, or the government has won, but the losing party (the criminal) is unable to pay the actual court costs. Then have the convicted criminals that can afford to pay, pay a multiple of their actual court costs, based on the aforesaid fraction, sufficient that the sum of all such court costs paid by convicted criminals equals the total of all criminal court costs. For example, if in one-half of its criminal cases, the government either loses the case or the convicted criminal is unable to pay court costs, then the convicted criminals that can pay, will be required to pay double their actual court costs.

  
  
• The Prison System

  We can charge the convicted criminals for their stays in jail. Of course, the criminals may not be able to afford the full cost of their stays, but charging them what they can afford is a good beginning, and will substantially reduce the unfunded obligation associated with the prison system.

  One way of dealing with the remaining (unfunded) cost of the prison system, is to include it in the total cost of police protection, which, as noted above, can be paid for on a fee-for-service or contract basis by those who elect to have police protection.

Real Problems With Fiscally Responsible Democracy

If one subscribes to the notion that democracy is the preferred form of government, then the only real problem associated with fiscally responsible democracy is determining the best way to implement it.

(Another, indirect, problem is that, combined with direct democracy , fiscally responsible democracy will tend to reveal many of the limitations and frailties of the democratic process that are not evident under our present representative democratic government. In the long run, this may change our assumptions about whether democracy truly is the preferred form of government.) .

Myriad questions will need to be answered before fiscally responsible democracy can be implemented. Here are a few of them:

• Who is delegated authority to determine (in advance) and monitor (on an ongoing basis) how much a particular initiative costs (or saves)?

• What happens if an initiative ends up costing more (or less) than originally predicted? How is any deficit handled, and how are any excess funds (re)distributed?

• How is the money that voters pledge when they vote in favor of an initiative collected from them?
  • By whom? Using what mechanisms?

  • Will credit be advanced to voters?

    • If so, how? Using what collateral?

    • What happens in the event that the voter defaults on his pledge (and/or loan)?

  • If a particular initiative falls short of being funded on the first ballot, will there be a mechanism to bring the shortfall to the attention of those who voted for it, giving them an opportunity to pledge (or borrow) an additional sum?

  • What formula will be used to allocate charges for an intitiative among those voting for it? Will rich and poor citizens be charged equally? If not, what?

I feel confident that the interested reader will be able to think of many other practical difficulties that will be encountered in attempting to bring fiscally responsible democracy into being. I never said it was going to be easy.

But none of these obstacles is insurmountable. More than one viable solution can be developed for each of them. And the benefits that will accrue from fiscally responsible democracy will more than repay the effort required to design, implement and fine-tune it.