During a debate for the U.S. Senate in the state of Arizona, the Libertarian candidate by the name of Marc Victor gave his thoughts regarding what he referred to as "unrestricted democracy".
"Our problem with voting is that everything is up for a vote today.
I don't want anybody telling me how I should use my body, my property, my money, and my time. None of that should be up for a vote.
And, I don't want to tell any of you how to use your body, property, money, or time.
We are a constitutional republic, not an unrestricted democracy.
Today, everything is up for a vote. Very little should be up for a vote.
Like, for example, who should represent the good people of the State of Arizona? That should be up for a vote.
What should the age of consent be? This is something that reasonable minds disagree on that should be up for a vote".
If it's true that democracy is an inherently good thing, then the more direct it is, the better it will presumably be.
The most disastrous thing for a nation is to be presided over by a political elite that is totally divorced from the proletariat.
Indeed, it is considerably easier to buy or corrupt a few hundred “representatives” in a representative democracy than it is to deceive half of all eligible votes in a direct democracy.
While I, too, hold criticism concerning the functionality of a representative republic, I contend that the root of the problem has little, if anything, to do with everything being up for a vote, as opposed to having everyone granted the right to vote in the first place.
I would pose these two questions: Why have any restrictions on democracy at all? And, why were such restrictions instituted in America by the Founding Fathers the first place?
The truth of the matter is, most people should not be permitted to vote in a constitutional republic.
Quibbling over precisely where to draw the line is anachronistic, for it is an observable reality that restrictions on voting are necessary to ensure an electorate with a genuine commitment to individual liberty as expressly delineated in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
But, since that doesn’t seem possible at the moment, becoming a direct democracy, wherein the Supreme Court and Congress get disbanded, and national referendums are voted on by the people instead may be a stronger option as the history of state referendums would demonstrate, the people are more to be trusted with political power than the ruling oligarchy.
And, as for the candidate’s comments relating to the age of consent, one can’t help but find irony in the fact that libertarians today believe that knocking up a sixteen-year-old may potentially be permitted under certain legal jurisdictions depending on the will of the voters, whereas the decision of whether an abortionist is authorized to operate on the sixteen-year-old without parental consent is a matter that is never to be determined by the ballot box.