Is this new democracy compatible?
One of my students got an $800 speeding ticket. He was doing 180 km/hour on a 4-lane highway with a 110 km/hour limit.
He believed he had the driving skills to drive this fast on this highway. He thought his liberty was being taken away.
Political agitators from both sides of the spectrum like to shout “liberty” and “freedom” to make their points. As if everyone understands what these two words mean. And if someone else has a different definition than they, that is not freedom.
But the fact is that we don’t have freedom or liberty. Instead, we have laws. Laws that define what we can and cannot do.
For example, a police officer did not issue a speeding ticket to my student just because the officer felt the student was driving unsafe. Rather, my provincial legislature deliberated on an appropriate speed limit for that highway, put that speed limit into law, and gave the officer a bunch of rules to follow to issue that ticket. Not only that, my student has the right to challenge that ticket in a courtroom.
While my student would argue that his freedom is being limited, most of us reading this article would agree that 110 km/hour for that highway is a sensible law. So should we, the majority, get to force our way on my student? Or should my student be given his freedom?
I don’t know about you, but letting people drive at whatever speed they feel like sounds like chaos to me. I’ve been to Egypt. The freeways in Houston, Texas are much less hair raising.
I like “laws” better than “freedom.”
Where the true freedom is
When calls of “freedom” and “liberty” are being shouted out, the callers are usually missing important aspects of a strong, civil, society. Rather than freedom and liberty to do whatever we want, our freedom and liberty actually mean we have a say in the laws we are making.
Here is a list of our true freedoms:
1. The media has the freedom to report on issues that it feels that need to come to public attention. The media has the freedom to report on bills that might become law.
2. We have the freedom to follow a certain media outlet — or not.
3. We have the freedom to write to our political leaders and newspapers.
4. We have the freedom to peacefully protest.
5. We have the freedom to post articles and memes on the internet.
6. We have the freedom to vote for a political party that best exemplifies the laws we want or not want.
7. We have the freedom to work for or donate to that party.
8. We have the freedom to aspire and work towards to being an elected politician.
In the end, we — the people — have a say in the laws. Whether we support or oppose laws, we certainly had the freedom to shape society in this regard. Most people in times past did not have these freedoms. Many people in many places in today’s world do not have these freedoms.
Thanks, Dave, for the civics lesson, but what’s your point?
I suspect most people reading this article have a basic understanding of civics. So this speeding ticket story seemingly has no point.
My student was young. He did not have the life experience to understand why he got that ticket. I hear he is married and has children. We should ask him what he feels about people driving 70 km/hr over the speed limit.
While young people might have an excuse, the disconnect between the people and the laws that govern them is getting bigger. Politicians can now get elected by promising to throw away many laws that are getting in our face. Laws about food safety and resource extraction are on the radar. We know there will be big consequences for letting big and small businesses having an unregulated free hand in these fields.
Admittedly, some of these laws have become obsolete. Yet the civil service is still obligated to follow these laws, especially if there are activists watching. Activists can force the supposed law breakers into a courtroom.
We could change the laws to bring them up to modern times. However, our legislatures were designed for the 19th century. We are in the 21st century. It takes time to change laws, which may be a good thing. But when a bill is introduced into our legislature, other worthy bills are not introduced. The issues around those other worthy bills still fester, causing more disconnect between the laws and the people.
Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG)
My few lukewarm fans know about my alternative democracy. And they know that we — the people — have to build it. The political elite, the wealthy, the academics, the civil authorities, and the majority are not going to build it for us. All great social movements start with 1% or less of the population getting to work. A core group has to start things off.
Admittedly, I cannot envision what the TDG legislatures are going to look like. The final structure will depend on how the early TDG builders build their local TDG. From there, the TDG grows and evolves — slowly moving from self-governance to societal governance. While this TDG is growing, the TDG members are going to have more trust of their TDG leaders than today’s politicians. With this increased trust, we will find ways to streamline 18th-century legislative procedures to turn good ideas into laws. We will make better laws than we are making today.
And the new TDG politicians will also be more able to repeal or amend laws that no longer work well. Obsolete laws will no longer fester.
Conclusion
Let’s assume this unlikely scenario 30 years from now: we will still be driving our own cars. So my student’s grandson gets a speeding ticket for driving 180 km/hr. Under TDG governance, he is more likely to think:
“Maybe there is a good reason for this law,”
rather than think
“Politicians and police officers just want to take away my fun and my way to save time.”
We need to rethink how we look at laws — and making laws. Citizens need a better connection to our laws. Citizens need to have a better connection with each other.
The TDG will narrow those widening disconnects.
Are you ready to investigate this new way?
Published on Medium & Substack 2025
