Forcing people to vote doesn’t solve these problems, it just forces people to make a decision when they would admit they don’t have enough information to make the decision that truly reflects their preferences.
Placing constitutional limitations on the power of government might be a better solution. “No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
“No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
It’s more stable, but hard to define, let alone implement. All government spending benefits somebody—and usually there are un-obvious beneficiaries. For example, road construction helps the construction business and also those who use the roads and those who own property near the road. So you can’t really put “no subsidies” in the Constitution in a way that’s judicially or politically enforceable, at least if you want to maintain any of the sort of government services that society assumes will be there.
Placing constitutional limitations on the power of government might be a better solution. “No subsidies for anyone” seems more stable than arguing over each specific subsidy.
It’s more stable, but hard to define, let alone implement. All government spending benefits somebody—and usually there are un-obvious beneficiaries. For example, road construction helps the construction business and also those who use the roads and those who own property near the road. So you can’t really put “no subsidies” in the Constitution in a way that’s judicially or politically enforceable, at least if you want to maintain any of the sort of government services that society assumes will be there.