Edward R Weick wrote:
> Keith Hudson appears to be proposing some form of direct democracy -
> dispensing with the intermediary politicians and letting the public as a
> whole decide via referenda. He has answered an already complex question
> with an even more complex one. What the state should do is lay the
> question, with all of its nuances, before the public and it will then
> somehow come up with the answer.
Last Sunday, we had this kind of referendum (actually 3 of them)
here in the direct democracy of Switzerland:
1. Solar-Cent: A tax of CHF 0.001 to 0.005 /kWh on fossil fuels,
to be used for the development of solar energy.
2. A more modest version of the Solar-Cent. (as an alternative to (1))
3. Energy Saving: A tax of CHF 0.02 /kWh on fossil fuels, compensated
by reduced labor taxes (i.e. those who save energy can *gain* money).
Although the gov't was *in favor* of all 3 referenda, and although
these referenda were pretty modest proposals, all 3 were rejected
by the people. :-( (with 68.1%, 53.4%, and 55.4% No, respectively)
Why? Because the energy lobbies had been *misinforming* people
for years, and did an aggressive ad campaign with slogans like
"MILLIONS OF NEW TAXES? 'SMALL' PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BLEED!", showing
a man who points a petrol pump to his head (like a finger to say
"you're mad", or like a pistol to commit suicide). Ironically, the
ongoing "oil crisis" also contributed to the rejection.
So, the point is that direct democracy is not enough. Fair information,
and an end to the immense power of the energy cartels, is a necessary
precondition to reach sensible results.
Chris
