Comment Re:Same thing every other Libertarian missed (Score 1) 60
To achieve that, you need to limit the amount of population the system represents.
It depends on what you mean by "represents." Our federal system represents the members of the population only in a very limited sense, by law and by design. Again, we just haven't had enforcement of that, and we've allowed explict and intentional degradation of that design (e.g., the 17th Amendment). The population is only supposed to be represented in those areas the government is allowed to operate, most of which have nothing to do with domestic policy at all.
If you allow freedom for even one individual to transcend the system, eventually that one individual will own all the systems.
I don't know what you mean by "transcend." We should all transcend the system. The system should be smaller than us. That's how you know you're doing it right.
Every system eventually gets upended by the individual overcoming the common good. It is the achilles heel of free markets.
The system of government that protects free markets should be essentially orthogonal to free markets. It's only the achilles of free markets like it's the achilles of every other economic system. This is a political question, not an economic question: how do you design and enforce a system that is self-limiting? We designed one that was self-limiting, but due to human error, we no longer enforce it. You can't take human error out of the equation, so how do you account for human error and still give the thing a chance of success?
That's the challenge.