I would be delighted to read your paper.

If you want voters to be more directly involved in governing, then there should be more referendums — romanv

I have to agree with most of your statements, but I am not sure if direct democracy is a good solution. Too many problems. We can’t have a referendum without rules. Someone must decide (1) who votes?; (2) how the voting process works?; (3) what are the options that will be voted?, etc.
There always seems to be an element of authoritarianism involved.

In my country, we had a severily restrictive firearms regulation a few years ago. To the point that, basically, only rich people and criminals have guns nowadays. To “legitimize” the ban, we had a referendum about firearms commerce. The permissive option won by a large margin.
The problem is that the question was not about gun ownership, but gun commercialization. The result is that nothing changed. To this day people argue over the redaction of the question asked, the referendum’s effects, if it is time to do it again, etc.

But this is just a criticism of mine, with no solutions proposed.

I'm a fan of industry specific taxation rates. — Devans99

I don't feel that comfortable with government deciding what I should or should not consume.

Our dignity, honor, and ability to govern ourselves begins with education. — Athena

The problem that I see here is: who decides what will be taught?

I would be honoured if you read the first post in the following thread: — romanv

Read it and I do agree with you that a NOTA option is a requisite for any electoral system that intends to be democratic. Whoever, it really only makes practical sense in a political system that does not allow candidates who are not with any party. If anyone can run - no barriers imposed -, than someone must please your taste, even if it has to be yourself.

In Brasil, my country, we had a really smart rule. If more than 50% of the voters (especially for the executive branch) annulled their votes, the election would have to be held again. Unfortunately, our Electoral Court (yes, we do have a different court for each matter) gave it a twisted interpretation, making it only effective when the votes are judicially annulled (like when the candidate that got more than 50% is ousted from the race for cheating).

I have a lot of trouble imagining such a community. Logic is not an idea. It is mathematical tool inherent to human thought. I guess that, even if all logic books were misprinted, burned, etc., logic would prevail as an unconscious thought process.

Isn't that what the capitalist Harvey Weinstein is being prosecuted for? — Bitter Crank

This, for me, is another argument pro capitalism.

See, if an agent of the market (Mr. Weinstein) is oppressing you, you can call the State to protect you.

If an agent of the State is oppressing you, you can only count on the State itself.

In capitalism, the power is divided between the market and the State, thus creating an obstacle to corruption (not a very good one, but one nonetheless).

In socialism, the power is concentrated in the State. If it is corrupt, you are in a very tough situation.

Markets can exist in a socialist economy. — Bitter Crank

I honestly want to understand your reasoning. So, Mr. Candyland does good popcorn. People love his popcorn. He sells it for a profit. He accumulates this earnings.

So, capitalism or socialism, it is pretty much the same until now.

In a capitalist model, Mr. Candyland would hire people to work for him, reproducing his recipe and allowing him to sell to more costumers and, thus, accumulate exponentially more capital.

In a socialist model, how would it work? Anyone who wanted to join his venture would do so? He can stipulate a criteria? What if one worker is a terrible cook? Or if he is lazy? How do they share the profit?

One of the things I find very hard to recognize as desirable in socialism is this idea of each one developing their capabilities to the fullest.

I mean, in a capitalist society, each one's role in society is determined more or less in a democratic fashion. If people think I do a good job making popcorn, they will buy it from me, thus making me a popcorn seller. I recon it does not work like this always, but this is pretty much it.

In a socialist society, we would have to find another way to determine it, since people would not be able to freely trade with each other. I think everyone will agree that not all activities are desirable. Who would determine if I can be a singer or will have to drive a garbage truck? And, if the answer is "popular vote", how many pools would we have to have? If it is the bureaucrats, them we are back to the USSR, where high rank officers would exchange artistic posts for sexual favors.