"...the checks and balances we have in true democratic systems still Works."
That is utter and complete fantasy. Name one example.
In every example of true democratic systems I have been told of, I see that they are not truly democratic, and are corrupt. Further, the checks and balances are, also. Not one of them actually works as they were claimed to by their founders.
From the village I was raised in to the big cities I have lived in, I have never seen one exception to this.
I was talking in theory, forgot to add that.
But yeah, in the real world things aren't pretty, because human greed always take a part on the equation.
But comparing the true democratic system with the libertarian ideas, so far, i still choose the democracy system.
While it is still flawed, the power is more dilluted between more people, and can change hands fastest than it seems to me in a full libertarian state.
In democracy, smaller parties still have voice, and can still pass bills that benefits a minority.
Also, the people and the press can apply some influence if it gets big enough, because there is legal mechanisms to change the ones in power.
What i can see from libertarian way, these legal mechanisms wouldnt exist, so i dont see a feasible way for the small people to fight the big ones.
The big ones have the possibility to amass a huge amount of power, and there is nothing stoping them to do so.
I still want to know a better way, but so far, haven't found it yet.
You aren't well versed in LIberty, I see. Various mechanisms are proposed by a myriad of authors to subject corrupting influence and oppression to checks. Neither the press nor the people themselves have ever been supposed by even one libertarian I am familiar with to be eliminated.
I am new to the libertarian ideas, and i always question something i want to understand better. And i find the libertarian ideas pretty interesting, but i am not yet convinced.
I learned that because when i was young, i really liked the idea of communism, wich in theory is a perfect egalitarian system, but as i started to acquire more knowledge i started to see the holes in it, especially because human nature is never factored on most of the theories.
So far, i have been presented that only two rules would apply (right to property and no physical harm allowed), and they seem paradoxical, a lot of issues come from having these rules that could create the exact opposite of a free market/state.
But could you rephrase the last sentence? i didnt understand it...
I was responding to your statement here:
I said that neither the press nor the people wouldn't be part of any libertarian proposal I am familiar with.
Hope that helps =)
Also, could you recommend me some authors and books?
I am not widely lettered, but can recomment Lysander Spooner, Fredric Bastiat, John Locke, and there are many, many more.
@ekklesagora has an extensive knowledge and familiarity with literature, and even a brief visit to his blog with probably overwhelm you with authors and works that can better provide you with substantive knowledge than can I.
Be well, and Merry Christmas!
Ty. Merry Christmas to you too.