I’m an anarcho-capitalist; so I’ll kick in a few cents here.
Majoritarian government, while possibly the MOST version, is still stilted enough to be a danger to every individual under its control. If 51 percent of people approve something, that still leaves 49 percent of people subject to something with which they do not agree. Of course, that 51 percent now has an armed authority group (the police) to enforce its will at gunpoint, which is bad.
In addition, there is never a neat 51-49 split. In most elections, only a small percent of the eligible turn out to vote. For example, take the following hypothetical numbers.
If you have a population of 1.5 M homeowners, let’s assume 1M are eligible to vote. Let’s say, for a given election, one of the ballot questions is whether everyone has to paint their house red.
Of the 1M eligible, 20 percent (200,000) come to the polls. The vote splits 51 (102,000)-49 (98,000) in favor of the proposition. As a result, 102,000 people decide for 1,500,000 that every house in the jurisdiction has to be painted red, at the homeowner’s expense. That’s hardly fair or equitable.
Sure, everyone SHOULD have showed up to vote; however one of the cornerstones of freedom should be the ability to not get involved in the political process and to be safe doing so.
Another thing we have problems with is governmental manipulations of the market. Favoritism, protectionism and governmental “oversight” enable small groups of businesses to maintain virtual monopolies and set prices that are out of adjustment with market forces. Subsidies, tax abatements, guaranteed loans, etc. are all passed on to the consumer and/or tax payer and make us all pay for things we don’t want or could get more cheaply if the government hadn’t butted in.
We also take a stance of personal liability and responsibility. All right stem from property rights, and the foremost property right is that one’s body is one’s own property, which one can do as one pleases with provided the action or actions do not directly harm the person or property of another.
If that is not the case, and your actions do cause harm to someone else or their property, you are liable for total restitution. This would, ideally, be determined by an impartial adjudicator selected by both parties, whose determination would be binding. That’s all the government we want or need. Volunteer judges to handle property and liability disputes.
Lastly, we take the stance the personal safety is the responsibility of the individual. That may seem, as stated above, to be living in fear, since most of us carry individual weapons and are trained in their use, but it’s actually much more liberating than being forcibly disarmed by the government and relying on the government to provide you the safety you can guarantee for yourself if you’re actually free to do so.
Cops aren’t there to protect us; they exist to take reports and handle paperwork after the fact. If people take responsibility for their own safety, a few things happen as a natural by-product:
Government decreases because people realize they can (and should) fend for themselves.
Crime drops, because a) fewer criminals survive their foray into the field and b) those criminals who are still around try to find easier ways to make a living, such as working. (Also, since only actions that damage the person or property of an unwilling other are now “crimes” the sheer number of illegal things reduces dramatically)
Intimidation all but disappears, as everyone realizes everyone else is (most likely) armed and the playing field for daily interaction is now level.
If government is eliminated, people will have to deal with themselves and each other. Market forces and natural selection will deal with the vast majority of social problems we face, and they will do it much more efficiently than any combination of A-B-C agencies, bureaus and administrations ever could.