the founding fathers are often criticized for their preference for having only landowners (which meant wealthy white males in general) vote. painting the picture in such a simple way (it's undemocratic! sexist! racist!) is dangerous. all democracies restrict suffrage to varying degrees (we do not allow children, felons, or the mentally unstable to vote). the purpose of this is to concentrate power int he hands of the responsible. it is my belief that restricting suffrage to landowners was actually a rather clever hack. who has an interest in being well informed on issues that affect a community? its permanent citizens. the people who own land in an area have the most to lose from policies that are detrimental to that area's long term prosperity.
one of the major issues of democratic systems is that it is always in the interest of whomever is in the minority position to dilute suffrage.
It's related to the arguments by Hans Herman Hoppe that monarchies throughout history have on net demonstrated better long term decision making and planning than democracies. A hereditary monarch has some level of incentive to optimize tax revenue over generations. An eight year politician has only incentive to ensure reelection.
Remember, there will always be thugs, and thieves, and swindlers out there. There will be hostile nations. And there will be freeloaders; people who try to take advantage of any sort of public or semi-public works or institutions, such as roads, schools, hospitals, and the like without paying.
Do you have a (realistic, please no Ayn Rand power fantasies) proposal for dealing with all of these problems without a government? Or do you have a proposal for selecting that government fairly, justly, and well without democratic elections?
While it is presumptuous to think that I would support a government, public roads, public hospital, of any kind, but alas, I have no real "plan" to speak of.
However, I could describe in details how might an anarchistic free market society would work.
If there are any plans, it would be mostly be about trying seasteading, counter-economic black market activities, among other things.
Liberty to me, can only occurs on an individual level, not through social engineering by a carefully selected technocract.
Indeed, I don't have anything to answer for a "plan" nor do I know if it is realistic at all.
Did I presume anything? I asked how you would solve these problems without a government, or provide a fair government without democracy.
And I said public or semi-public. It's pretty hard to prevent anyone unauthorized from getting onto a road; by definition they are big, and need easy access to be valuable. That's what I mean by "semi-public." If you have private roads, how do you prevent freeloaders without some sort of de-facto government? Likewise with hospitals; you can't distinguish between someone covered by your insurance and someone not when they come in from an automobile wreck, nor can you negotiate prices with them.
Liberty to me, can only occurs on an individual level, not through social engineering by a carefully selected technocract.
So you would prefer to be a lone hunter-gather than take advantage of the benefits that modern society has to offer you? Because beyond the lone, solitary hunter-gatherer, someone else's needs are always going to affect what options are available to you.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." --Mencken