Great topic, close to my heart.
As I see it, the problem with representative democracy is that it becomes the abrogation of individual responsibility. You assign your responsibility for and your authority over yourself, your life, your family, to others, to whom you say, take responsibility for all these things. At the same time you also say 'if you screw up, I will blame you, not myself'.
This is where I believe the Libertarian movement has a point - the libertarian ultimately assumes responsibility for himself. Where the tru-blew libertarian is 'off this planet' is when he asserts that he does not need a government. Who and how, for example, decides on which side of the road everyone should travel. That needs national consensus, and the only way of achieving that is through some or other form of national government (aka a national law-making process). So I would argue, that instead of the tru-blew vision of a government-less nation, we need a vision that allows for the appointment of a representative government, with severely restricted powers (only authority over matters of a collective nature, such as national defense and foreign affairs and national laws, where uniformity and singularity of behaviour and purpose is necessary) and all other matters are sorted out between empowered individuals. For the latter to happen, we need a set of laws (A person may do anything he wishes so long as he does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same and so long as they do no harm or damage to the life, limb or property of another), and a fully empowered judicial system to which every person has equal access (to sort out claims one against another for infringing on the 'a person may' law).
Another necessity would be the scrapping of collective empowerment. No collective of any form whatsoever should have greater power or rights than any other individual in the land. Thus, a corporate body (trade union, trade association, national, regional or local government, boy scout or the mafia or other voluntary association) may not lobby for a law which places the corporate body (trade union&etc) in a preferred position over that of any individual in the land (for example the laws of eminent domain) , or which protects them from legal action for restitution (eg settlements limiting rights to legal recourse) in terms of the 'a person may' law.
Think of the ramifications of such a structure upon the tobacco industry, for one, the finance industry, for another, the real estate (realty) profession, for yet another. They may do no harm, or if they do, they are held accountable to every individual whom they harm. No longer would they be protected by convoluted legislation designed to permit them to harm with impunity. Just imagine it - a nation of honest bankers. They would be all too shit scared to risk other peoples' capital in the ways of the past decade or so.
So my argument would be that representative democracy needs to evolve to where it no longer provides cover for collective irresponsibility, but serves to empower all the people of the land, equally and effectively. In such a democracy, the laws would be few and simple, the bureaucracy would be minimal and cost effective, government would be reduced to the minimal consistent with an ordered society, taxes would be minimal and individuals would be responsible for their own lives, be they failures or successes, but the likelihood would favour successes because folk would be empowered to succeed.
If that seems too simplistic, try this: In a land where group rights are protected, by definition, they would take precedence over the rights of the individual, therefor protection of group rights harms individual rights (some would argue it is an acceptable compromise, to which I respond, tell that to the individuals whose rights are harmed).
Even more simplistic: In a land where the rights of all individuals are recognized, respected and protected by law, (the 'any one may' law), the rights of all the groups of which they are a part are similarly protected.
'nuf said.
