Are people too flawed, ignorant, and tribal for open societies?(conspicuouscognition.com)
conspicuouscognition.com
Are people too flawed, ignorant, and tribal for open societies?
https://www.conspicuouscognition.com/p/are-people-too-flawed-ignorant-and
95 comments
I’m really confused by this line of reasoning.
If someone had the power and popular and/or oligarchic support necessary to overturn the entire current system of government and transition to being some kind of emperor, couldn’t they just stage a military coup right now?
Why would they wait for an election to take place? And given that no coup has been executed, what is everyone so worried about? Why would that person even bother campaigning?
If they don’t have the necessary military support, then any coup attempt would just be put down by the military. Simply declaring oneself emperor does not make it so.
I feel like people have watched too many movies.
If someone had the power and popular and/or oligarchic support necessary to overturn the entire current system of government and transition to being some kind of emperor, couldn’t they just stage a military coup right now?
Why would they wait for an election to take place? And given that no coup has been executed, what is everyone so worried about? Why would that person even bother campaigning?
If they don’t have the necessary military support, then any coup attempt would just be put down by the military. Simply declaring oneself emperor does not make it so.
I feel like people have watched too many movies.
The answer is simple: US politicians excel at legalizing corruption. They follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of law and order. As such, there is no need for a coup at all for a one-party system to exist. To set the background, a one-party system is now gravely risked due to a partial judiciary, especially at the Supreme Court level. The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President.
To list examples of legalized corruption, gerrymandering is done in clever ways to win states. Rights to vote are often unfairly denied to groups of people. Third-party candidates are cleverly added to take away votes where they matter, such as in Florida, etc.
As such, the military cannot come into the picture because everything remains neatly legalized.
To list examples of legalized corruption, gerrymandering is done in clever ways to win states. Rights to vote are often unfairly denied to groups of people. Third-party candidates are cleverly added to take away votes where they matter, such as in Florida, etc.
As such, the military cannot come into the picture because everything remains neatly legalized.
Sure but the thing US politicians are good at doing is by definition the status quo. So we have backed down from "we are in danger of losing democracy" to "the status quo is bad". I don't disagree that the status quo is bad.
There is a lot of hysteria in the media right now about the court. It is doing a lot of things that were avoided for political reasons in the past, and the reasons it isn't avoiding them now are also political. But it's not like it's operating outside of the law. For example Roe v Wade was always on shaky ground legally, it just aligned with people's (and my own) sense of morality so they liked it. If there is massive popular support for nationwide abortion legalization, Congress is free to pass that amendment, the court can't stop them. I am personally pro abortion but also pro Roe v Wade overturn because I think the rule of law is more important than any individual right. I would support an amendment on abortion, but obviously that isn't going to happen because not enough people do.
> The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President.
Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
There is a lot of hysteria in the media right now about the court. It is doing a lot of things that were avoided for political reasons in the past, and the reasons it isn't avoiding them now are also political. But it's not like it's operating outside of the law. For example Roe v Wade was always on shaky ground legally, it just aligned with people's (and my own) sense of morality so they liked it. If there is massive popular support for nationwide abortion legalization, Congress is free to pass that amendment, the court can't stop them. I am personally pro abortion but also pro Roe v Wade overturn because I think the rule of law is more important than any individual right. I would support an amendment on abortion, but obviously that isn't going to happen because not enough people do.
> The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President.
Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
> > The first order of business can be to get the Supreme Court to remove the two term limit for President.
> Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life.
The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
> Erm, can you explain how? There is zero legal basis for this. Supreme Court bad?
It turns out that there is one potential exploitable loophole with a little cooperation from the Supreme Court. It is that after serving two terms, a President could still become Vice President, then the new President would step down, and the Vice President would effectively become President again, now for the third term, repeatable for life.
The problem is that there is no explicit term limit for Vice President. The 12th Amendment may grant some unclear protections, but enforcing it as such is up to the Supreme Court.
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
How is that unclear?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
How is that unclear?
Here is the potential evil interpretation of a biased Supreme Court:
The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation.
I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.
The constitutional ineligibility granted by the 22nd Amendment applies only to becoming President by an election. It doesn't apply to becoming President by non-elected means, such as if the Vice President steps down. As such, the applicability of the constitutional eligibility as referred to in the 12th Amendment is subject to interpretation.
I am not saying it's right, only that it is sufficient for a biased Supreme Court to exploit it.
That person might want to become constitutional commander in chief and hope that the executive will follow their unconstitutional orders.
> People of other countries aren't morally better, yet they are at a lesser risk of losing democracy than the US now is. Why is this? It's because the politicians there have to cooperate to form coalition governments.
Look at the mess in Israel at the moment. That's a coalition government in failure mode. Italy has coalition governments, but in recent years they seem to have coalesced into two main factions.
Look at the mess in Israel at the moment. That's a coalition government in failure mode. Italy has coalition governments, but in recent years they seem to have coalesced into two main factions.
> Look at the mess in Israel at the moment. That's a coalition government in failure mode. Italy has coalition governments, but in recent years they seem to have coalesced into two main factions.
Coalition governments are intended to fail fast, then for new replacements to be wiser, to not repeat the old mistakes. Coalitions may make the government slightly more inefficient, but as soon as there is a hint of extremism, the coalition is bound to fail. It protects against real extremes. Factions can emerge, but they can't get carried away with instituting too many crazy ideas.
Coalition governments are intended to fail fast, then for new replacements to be wiser, to not repeat the old mistakes. Coalitions may make the government slightly more inefficient, but as soon as there is a hint of extremism, the coalition is bound to fail. It protects against real extremes. Factions can emerge, but they can't get carried away with instituting too many crazy ideas.
How do you explain the rise of Hitler with this theory?
The Weimar government was a semi-presidential system with multiple parties that required coalitions for the legislature to function.
The Nazi party won a plurality but never a majority of the vote in any election during the Weimar years. They formed a coalition with the right wing German National People's Party through which Hitler was able to rise to the position of Chancellor.
Of course, we know that the Nazis quickly seized power shortly after that and banned all political parties including, including the German National People's Party, were banned with a few months.
The German National People's Party was a radical anti-democratic party as well. Between the two parties, they received around 44% of the vote in 1932. If that many people in your country either openly or tacitly support the dissolution of democracy then your republic's days are numbered. The particular flavor of democracy that your government uses doesn't matter.
That's the situation the US is currently facing.
The Weimar government was a semi-presidential system with multiple parties that required coalitions for the legislature to function.
The Nazi party won a plurality but never a majority of the vote in any election during the Weimar years. They formed a coalition with the right wing German National People's Party through which Hitler was able to rise to the position of Chancellor.
Of course, we know that the Nazis quickly seized power shortly after that and banned all political parties including, including the German National People's Party, were banned with a few months.
The German National People's Party was a radical anti-democratic party as well. Between the two parties, they received around 44% of the vote in 1932. If that many people in your country either openly or tacitly support the dissolution of democracy then your republic's days are numbered. The particular flavor of democracy that your government uses doesn't matter.
That's the situation the US is currently facing.
In theory, the coalition government could have not passed the Reichstag Fire Decree (followed by the Enabling Act), but they did get swayed and pass it. If such a mistake gets repeated, then yes, a coalition won't help. As such, a coalition is not foolproof.
Fortunately, to my knowledge, the US Constitution doesn't have a critical weakness like Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which granted unusual emergency powers to the President.
In summary, it comes down to how many loopholes you can identify and patch before they get exploited. A proof solver might help.
Fortunately, to my knowledge, the US Constitution doesn't have a critical weakness like Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution which granted unusual emergency powers to the President.
In summary, it comes down to how many loopholes you can identify and patch before they get exploited. A proof solver might help.
Maybe the main difference with other democratic countries is that the US is currently losing the absolute domination they had on the world for the last few decades? The societal impact of this turnaround seems massive for the locals and apparently not easy to digest.
If democrats doesn't win next election and balance the supreme court there won't be another fair election in us for a long time.
That's certainly what the Democrats keep saying. As OP points out, though, they have an incredibly strong incentive to get you to vote for them, just as much as the Republicans do. They are not your friends, they are complicit in creating and maintaining the system that entrenches only two parties in power forever. It would behoove us to temper their apocalyptic rhetoric with a little bit of healthy skepticism.
I don't look forward to another four years of Trump and I am particularly nervous about what it will mean for geopolitics in general and the Ukraine war in particular, but based on my observations of the behavior of both parties I would be shocked if it's even 1/100 as catastrophic as internet rhetoric would lead you to believe. Watching both parties, I don't believe the Republicans have in mind anything approximating what the Democrats want you to believe, and I don't believe that the Democrats believe their own fearmongering.
I don't look forward to another four years of Trump and I am particularly nervous about what it will mean for geopolitics in general and the Ukraine war in particular, but based on my observations of the behavior of both parties I would be shocked if it's even 1/100 as catastrophic as internet rhetoric would lead you to believe. Watching both parties, I don't believe the Republicans have in mind anything approximating what the Democrats want you to believe, and I don't believe that the Democrats believe their own fearmongering.
> the two main parties are too selfish to want this to happen
This is the thing that so many on HN don't get (as evidenced in the replies so far): neither party is your friend. Neither party actually wants solutions because both parties thrive when government is perpetually bad.
The Republicans can't actually accomplish their stated goal of completely dismantling government at the federal level because if they did then there would be no federal bogeyman to rally their base against. They can't actually close the border because then there would be no more immigrants to hate.
Likewise, the Democrats don't actually want Trump's popularity on the right to fade because then they'd lose the most effective rallying cry they've had in years. The policies they've chosen to focus on are unpopular outside of the far left and have cost them a lot of support from the moderate voters, so their only chance of success is to persuade the moderates that this will be the last fair election if Biden doesn't win.
Everyone in Washington knows that the supposed threat to democracy is nonsense. If they believed otherwise they'd have booted Biden out of the race for an electable candidate a year ago. But it's part of the game that they play to get your vote and stay in power.
So, to your point: I agree wholeheartedly. The two existing parties are corrupt to the core and there's nothing left to salvage. We need to dismantle the two-party system, and for that we need to fix the voting system. First past the post has to go.
This is the thing that so many on HN don't get (as evidenced in the replies so far): neither party is your friend. Neither party actually wants solutions because both parties thrive when government is perpetually bad.
The Republicans can't actually accomplish their stated goal of completely dismantling government at the federal level because if they did then there would be no federal bogeyman to rally their base against. They can't actually close the border because then there would be no more immigrants to hate.
Likewise, the Democrats don't actually want Trump's popularity on the right to fade because then they'd lose the most effective rallying cry they've had in years. The policies they've chosen to focus on are unpopular outside of the far left and have cost them a lot of support from the moderate voters, so their only chance of success is to persuade the moderates that this will be the last fair election if Biden doesn't win.
Everyone in Washington knows that the supposed threat to democracy is nonsense. If they believed otherwise they'd have booted Biden out of the race for an electable candidate a year ago. But it's part of the game that they play to get your vote and stay in power.
So, to your point: I agree wholeheartedly. The two existing parties are corrupt to the core and there's nothing left to salvage. We need to dismantle the two-party system, and for that we need to fix the voting system. First past the post has to go.
I will never understand this take. Go look at a map of states implementing/banning ranked-choice voting[1], now go look at a map of states political affiliation[2]. Every state that bans RCV is Republican; every time it's passed it was done so by Democrats or a direct vote. If you want any chance at all of breaking the two party system, it's clear you must vote for Democrats.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_...
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_...
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_...
2: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_...
You're correct on the banning front, but Alaska is one of only three states that use RCV in any state-wide elections and Utah is one of only four states that offer it state-wide as an offical option for local elections. The blue-coded states use it in some local jurisdictions but don't encode it at all at the state level.
There's definitely a Democratic slant to the 7 states that have some sort of statewide policy approving RCV's use. But then again, Utah has more municipalities listed on that article as actually using it at the local level than all 5 Democratic states (Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, Hawaii) combined.
In other words, the issue isn't as cut-and-dry in your sources as you make it sound.
There's definitely a Democratic slant to the 7 states that have some sort of statewide policy approving RCV's use. But then again, Utah has more municipalities listed on that article as actually using it at the local level than all 5 Democratic states (Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, Maine, Hawaii) combined.
In other words, the issue isn't as cut-and-dry in your sources as you make it sound.
Alaska only has it because of a ballot measure[1], so I don't consider Alaska a win for Republicans. It looks as though Republicans are also trying to end the trial of RCV early in Utah[2]. So, of your examples of Republican states with RCV, it either happened in spite of them, or they're actively trying to get rid of it. Add in examples like Maine where the Republican loser tries to sue, claiming RCV is unconstitutional because it didn't work in his favor[3]; you start to see a pattern of Republicans resisting RCV, and Democrats championing alternative voting styles that don't force a two party system.
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Alaska_Measure_2
2: https://www.standard.net/news/government/2024/feb/15/utah-la...
3: https://bangordailynews.com/2018/11/15/news/judge-denies-pol...
1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Alaska_Measure_2
2: https://www.standard.net/news/government/2024/feb/15/utah-la...
3: https://bangordailynews.com/2018/11/15/news/judge-denies-pol...
You can't count Utah out until they actually do something to walk it back, representatives just talking about doing something is usually them just posturing for their base. And if we're excluding ballot measures then you also have to drop Maine [0].
If you drop Maine and Alaska as not representing entrenched party politics then you're left with 4/50 states that implemented a measure allowing RCV at the local (city) level and 1/50 states (Hawaii) that implemented a measure allowing it at the federal level (for special federal elections only). Of the four states that officially allowed RCV at the local level by an act of the legislature, Utah has more municipalities taking advantage of that than the rest of the states combined.
I'm not arguing that Republicans are champions of RCV, just that it's pretty obvious that Democrats aren't much better if at all. By your rules, 1/50 states voluntarily allowed RCV for any state or federal election (where party politics usually matter, unlike most local elections), and even that one state's law is only for rare special cases.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Maine_Ques...
If you drop Maine and Alaska as not representing entrenched party politics then you're left with 4/50 states that implemented a measure allowing RCV at the local (city) level and 1/50 states (Hawaii) that implemented a measure allowing it at the federal level (for special federal elections only). Of the four states that officially allowed RCV at the local level by an act of the legislature, Utah has more municipalities taking advantage of that than the rest of the states combined.
I'm not arguing that Republicans are champions of RCV, just that it's pretty obvious that Democrats aren't much better if at all. By your rules, 1/50 states voluntarily allowed RCV for any state or federal election (where party politics usually matter, unlike most local elections), and even that one state's law is only for rare special cases.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Maine_Ques...
Except Maine shouldn't be ruled out because its congress passed RCV for presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019[1].
You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled. Sure there aren't a dozen Democratic states with RCV yet, that should change! We should push for that. But that's a far cry from preemptively banning it; there's no chance for change there.
That's my point, yeah Democrats aren't the best, or even great; but at least there's the chance for improvement. Republicans have overwhelmingly banned that chance.
1: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-r...
You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled. Sure there aren't a dozen Democratic states with RCV yet, that should change! We should push for that. But that's a far cry from preemptively banning it; there's no chance for change there.
That's my point, yeah Democrats aren't the best, or even great; but at least there's the chance for improvement. Republicans have overwhelmingly banned that chance.
1: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-r...
> presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019
In primaries, which poses no threat to the party structure if the general election is still first past the post. I'm not at all interested in election systems for primaries when the issue at hand is how many parties can exist.
> You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled
I'm ignoring that because I think it's more part of the general Republican hysteria about voting integrity than it is a calculated move by Republican politicians specifically to ban RCV for preserving-the-two-party-system reasons.
The question at hand is whether both parties would really rather not see RCV, and I see no evidence that there's going to be any significant movement from the Democrats towards it for general statewide elections any time soon. The Democrats just don't feel the need to make a big deal about it like the Republicans do at the moment.
In primaries, which poses no threat to the party structure if the general election is still first past the post. I'm not at all interested in election systems for primaries when the issue at hand is how many parties can exist.
> You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled
I'm ignoring that because I think it's more part of the general Republican hysteria about voting integrity than it is a calculated move by Republican politicians specifically to ban RCV for preserving-the-two-party-system reasons.
The question at hand is whether both parties would really rather not see RCV, and I see no evidence that there's going to be any significant movement from the Democrats towards it for general statewide elections any time soon. The Democrats just don't feel the need to make a big deal about it like the Republicans do at the moment.
Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election.
I don't care why Republicans did it, the effect is the same: It forces a two party system which benefits them in the states they've banned it. You can claim that there's no movement towards RCV in the Democratic party (there is in the progressive members), but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions.
The future of the Republican party is clearly only more of the same, only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
I don't care why Republicans did it, the effect is the same: It forces a two party system which benefits them in the states they've banned it. You can claim that there's no movement towards RCV in the Democratic party (there is in the progressive members), but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions.
The future of the Republican party is clearly only more of the same, only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
> Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election.
That was as a result of the referendum, though, which you don't want to count because that's the citizens doing it and not the established politicians. That's a reasonable position that I'm happy to make a ground rule for this discussion, but it needs to be applied evenly, not just used to exclude Alaska.
> but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions.
No, but it doesn't matter if there was never any risk of it happening, which there isn't in the vast majority of the US. You don't need to ban something if your voters have never heard of it and wouldn't think to ask for it.
> only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
There's no evidence here in the sources you've cited that shows that the Democratic politicians are interested in trying something new in state and federal general elections (the ones that could actually challenge the two-party system). If you can count Maine then I can count Alaska, which again balances out to not be obviously one-sided.
That was as a result of the referendum, though, which you don't want to count because that's the citizens doing it and not the established politicians. That's a reasonable position that I'm happy to make a ground rule for this discussion, but it needs to be applied evenly, not just used to exclude Alaska.
> but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions.
No, but it doesn't matter if there was never any risk of it happening, which there isn't in the vast majority of the US. You don't need to ban something if your voters have never heard of it and wouldn't think to ask for it.
> only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
There's no evidence here in the sources you've cited that shows that the Democratic politicians are interested in trying something new in state and federal general elections (the ones that could actually challenge the two-party system). If you can count Maine then I can count Alaska, which again balances out to not be obviously one-sided.
You've now gotten the facts about Maine's RCV wrong multiple times, it's to the point I won't continue discussing this with somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided.
The Maine legislature passed RCV for both the primary and general presidential election[1]. I don't really care if you don't think national primaries don't matter they obviously do; otherwise the Republican party in Maine wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to not have to do RCV for their primaries.
1. https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-v...
The Maine legislature passed RCV for both the primary and general presidential election[1]. I don't really care if you don't think national primaries don't matter they obviously do; otherwise the Republican party in Maine wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to not have to do RCV for their primaries.
1. https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-v...
> somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided
I read the article you cited and just reread it. It was about the primaries. The only mention of the general election is referring to Congressional candidates, which was implemented by referendum.
I'm now doing my own research into additional sources and seeing that what you're saying is correct, but you sent me a source that said nothing of the sort. I suspect I read that source more carefully than you did, so it's a bit rich for you to berate me for not reading it critically enough.
Regardless, I'm not sold on the idea that this is something the Democratic party picked up on their own. Maine's ballot initiative came first and they had to overcome opposition from the legislature to get it through. Now that the people of Maine have spoken quite forcefully the Democrats are going along with it, but they didn't start this process on their own.
If it were a Democratic party thing, why are we not seeing this anywhere else?
I read the article you cited and just reread it. It was about the primaries. The only mention of the general election is referring to Congressional candidates, which was implemented by referendum.
I'm now doing my own research into additional sources and seeing that what you're saying is correct, but you sent me a source that said nothing of the sort. I suspect I read that source more carefully than you did, so it's a bit rich for you to berate me for not reading it critically enough.
Regardless, I'm not sold on the idea that this is something the Democratic party picked up on their own. Maine's ballot initiative came first and they had to overcome opposition from the legislature to get it through. Now that the people of Maine have spoken quite forcefully the Democrats are going along with it, but they didn't start this process on their own.
If it were a Democratic party thing, why are we not seeing this anywhere else?
Are you saying the two parties are equally to blame? It seems to me that one party is trying to turn the US into a dictatorship while the other is trying to prevent that to happen, and failing.
> Are you saying the two parties are equally to blame?
Even though I agree with the points in your second statement, the counterintuitive conclusion is that the Democrats are slightly more to blame because even after realizing that they're in a losing position, that democracy is at stake, that one-party rule is risked, they still fail to want to fix the voting system, preferring instead to risk losing everything forever.
Even though I agree with the points in your second statement, the counterintuitive conclusion is that the Democrats are slightly more to blame because even after realizing that they're in a losing position, that democracy is at stake, that one-party rule is risked, they still fail to want to fix the voting system, preferring instead to risk losing everything forever.
Both parties contributed to and maintained the status quo, because they both profit from it. Game theory works out and both try to balance their power roughly 50/50 and keep everybody else out of the game.
All topics are polarized to the extreme to fit into the 2 party divide. If a third party would emerge it would be slightly closer to one of the poles. Then it would immediately make that side lose even if more people voted for that position. That is because there is no percentage voting but a cascaded threshold voting. Thus, suppressing underdogs is in the interest of both.
Abstract example:
44% vote party A for X
10% vote party B for X
46% vote party C against X
44% + 10% = 54% for X, but 46% is the biggest party so they win
Question is why the Grand Old Party suddenly quit that century old cartel.
All topics are polarized to the extreme to fit into the 2 party divide. If a third party would emerge it would be slightly closer to one of the poles. Then it would immediately make that side lose even if more people voted for that position. That is because there is no percentage voting but a cascaded threshold voting. Thus, suppressing underdogs is in the interest of both.
Abstract example:
44% vote party A for X
10% vote party B for X
46% vote party C against X
44% + 10% = 54% for X, but 46% is the biggest party so they win
Question is why the Grand Old Party suddenly quit that century old cartel.
For the record, the equation you noted makes sense only in a first-past-the-post system such as what we have in the US. It does not behave as such in a more advanced voting system, e.g. a ranked-choice system. Also, in a coalition party system, the 54% win.
They're saying the two-party system is to blame. Although one could've hoped that the current situation would've pushed the Democratic Party to work to open it up.
I probably agree with you on many things but I feel the current party has also abandoned the people, to a lesser extent, for big money interest.
We live in an effective oligarchy and that’s the sad truth of things.
We live in an effective oligarchy and that’s the sad truth of things.
One of the most important lessons of classical history is that no form of government is suited to all peoples at all times.
When a democracy degenerates into tribalism, it enters into a period of conflict until somebody manages to transcend the tribal conflicts. This individual has the potential to become a king if he so desires.
The king remains in control for his lifetime and his son will likely also hold real power but eventually you get a king who doesn't want to be bothered with the business of government when he can be doing other things like hunting in his personal forests. So the king relinquishes most of his power to the nobility and you get an aristocratic government.
This aristocratic government, at first, wants to rule for the good of the people. Eventually, after several generations, it serves its own interests instead creating a crisis. At this point, the king can re-assert real power and restore an absolutist monarchy. Or the wealthier portion of the common people can decide they want some power too and gradually get some of it from the nobles.
Once the wealthier portion of the common people have power, the general logic of democracy is to expand the suffrage. This is a one way ratchet because no politician can hope to win elections running on reducing suffrage. So you gradually end up with a mass democracy. Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself.
This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity. It is likely playing itself out yet again in our own time. Because human nature doesn't change and all governments degenerate.
When a democracy degenerates into tribalism, it enters into a period of conflict until somebody manages to transcend the tribal conflicts. This individual has the potential to become a king if he so desires.
The king remains in control for his lifetime and his son will likely also hold real power but eventually you get a king who doesn't want to be bothered with the business of government when he can be doing other things like hunting in his personal forests. So the king relinquishes most of his power to the nobility and you get an aristocratic government.
This aristocratic government, at first, wants to rule for the good of the people. Eventually, after several generations, it serves its own interests instead creating a crisis. At this point, the king can re-assert real power and restore an absolutist monarchy. Or the wealthier portion of the common people can decide they want some power too and gradually get some of it from the nobles.
Once the wealthier portion of the common people have power, the general logic of democracy is to expand the suffrage. This is a one way ratchet because no politician can hope to win elections running on reducing suffrage. So you gradually end up with a mass democracy. Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself.
This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity. It is likely playing itself out yet again in our own time. Because human nature doesn't change and all governments degenerate.
This theory does not seem like a good fit for most societies across most of the world across most of the historical record. It may tell us something about city states in antiquity around the Mediterranean.
How, for example, could it even explain the middle ages in Europe?
How, for example, could it even explain the middle ages in Europe?
An irony of Polybius’s writings is that he complimented Rome on its balanced constitution which had the appearance of holding all these forces at bay (the consuls with limited monarchical powers, the senate representing the aristocracy, the tribunes the people and army etc), but he stopped writing at the exact moment the tide began to turn.
With Amazon Prime’s new Roman series I’ve just been rereading Tacitus, who sees the collapse as equally inevitable:
That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs.
With Amazon Prime’s new Roman series I’ve just been rereading Tacitus, who sees the collapse as equally inevitable:
That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs.
> Eventually, this mass democracy degenerates into tribalism and the cycle repeats itself.
Well, given my personal ignorance since the moment I more or less understood (the) "complexity, invisibility, incentives, and politically motivated cognition", I can safely speak for millions of smarter and more capable people (apologies, nevertheless) that this degeneration and succeeding repetition is the failure of the smart crowd.
They, the smart and intelligent crowd, and we, people with capable but less trained & thus less powerful brains, fail to keep the echo and hall going. We'd rather balance work/life, and hustle up side projects than pick up the fight against the aristocracy and politicians, who are, with everything that is (and always has been) going on, mocking and provoking the smart crowd and quite literally defecating all over the place, which is, kind of, sorry for the sentimentality, our home & garden, too ...
It's not a programmed cycle, not an infinite loop, there are plenty of distinguished and graceful ways to handle all the errors, warnings, negative effects and shitty outcomes, that, for the sake of completeness, create just as much or even more (and more meaningful) work. ... and a great many people to handle the foundational work.
Well, given my personal ignorance since the moment I more or less understood (the) "complexity, invisibility, incentives, and politically motivated cognition", I can safely speak for millions of smarter and more capable people (apologies, nevertheless) that this degeneration and succeeding repetition is the failure of the smart crowd.
They, the smart and intelligent crowd, and we, people with capable but less trained & thus less powerful brains, fail to keep the echo and hall going. We'd rather balance work/life, and hustle up side projects than pick up the fight against the aristocracy and politicians, who are, with everything that is (and always has been) going on, mocking and provoking the smart crowd and quite literally defecating all over the place, which is, kind of, sorry for the sentimentality, our home & garden, too ...
It's not a programmed cycle, not an infinite loop, there are plenty of distinguished and graceful ways to handle all the errors, warnings, negative effects and shitty outcomes, that, for the sake of completeness, create just as much or even more (and more meaningful) work. ... and a great many people to handle the foundational work.
> This cycle, which was recognized by Polybius and called anacyclosis, played itself out in both Athens and Rome in antiquity.
Could you be more explicit about Rome please? From what I know, the transition from Roman kings to the Republic doesn't match the pattern you describe. Neither does the fall of the Western Empire. In neither case is there a transition from kings to aristocratic rule to democracy.
Could you be more explicit about Rome please? From what I know, the transition from Roman kings to the Republic doesn't match the pattern you describe. Neither does the fall of the Western Empire. In neither case is there a transition from kings to aristocratic rule to democracy.
Saying “people don’t change” doesn’t give you a crystal ball. The vast differences in technology, economics, beliefs, and the structure of society mean that whatever supposedly universal cycles you see in ancient history aren’t going to apply neatly.
my theory is that we have to keep repeating this until a stable formula is found. It probably wont be any good but i think given enough time it will happen.
if we excessively simplify the problem is people acting in their own interest rather than that of the system. If you want to build something you do have to put building it first or else you are just dishonest.
imho if you want results you have to exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute. The system must be such that those who expect others to organize everything don't become victims. perhaps just ask them if the thing is working with some kind of punishment and rollback logic.
if we excessively simplify the problem is people acting in their own interest rather than that of the system. If you want to build something you do have to put building it first or else you are just dishonest.
imho if you want results you have to exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute. The system must be such that those who expect others to organize everything don't become victims. perhaps just ask them if the thing is working with some kind of punishment and rollback logic.
> exclude people who are unwilling or unable to constructive contribute
Exclusion comes with the brutal side-effect that the excluded people become ignorant towards and alienated from their own kind and thus accept any cost of punishment and negative consequences, including their own suffering! It's crazy. This then becomes the base and nourishment for extremists and their marketing strategies.
Exclusion comes with the brutal side-effect that the excluded people become ignorant towards and alienated from their own kind and thus accept any cost of punishment and negative consequences, including their own suffering! It's crazy. This then becomes the base and nourishment for extremists and their marketing strategies.
the problem is that the form of government doesn't really matter. if a lot of people are corrupt and greedy or selfish then even the most well meaning forms of government will fail. but if all people including the leaders are doing their best to be good and supportive of each other then even a dictatorship will be beneficial to everyone.
so instead of focusing on the form of government, what we really need to focus on is to educate everyone to become better people.
i made a similar argument before in response to an article by peter kropotkin titled "are we good enough?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561
so instead of focusing on the form of government, what we really need to focus on is to educate everyone to become better people.
i made a similar argument before in response to an article by peter kropotkin titled "are we good enough?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40644561
Seems a noble plan but you will always have some good and some bad players.
The form does matter as you can set things in stone to safeguard and make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves.
I think we can pay people to study election programs and pay for getting an (otherwise unimportant) diploma.
We are currently some place at 0% of the voters knowing more than 0.1% of the programs.
Much progress to be made for very little money.
The form does matter as you can set things in stone to safeguard and make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves.
I think we can pay people to study election programs and pay for getting an (otherwise unimportant) diploma.
We are currently some place at 0% of the voters knowing more than 0.1% of the programs.
Much progress to be made for very little money.
we will certainly never eliminate all bad players, but i think we can make them into a minority that doesn't have much influence.
what would make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves?
form of government matters in as much as it empowers the people and doesn't enable bad players. form doesn't matter if and only if we were to be able to eliminate all bad players.
the point is that reducing bad players is more important than the perfect form of government, but practically, once we have reduced bad players to a minority, we can tweak the form of government to render the remaining bad players powerless.
in the end that probably means that some form of democracy that allows people to remove bad players from positions of power is probably going to achieve the best outcome.
none of the current systems, including all western democracies, allow the removal of bad players in part because there are just to many of them.
what would make it impossible for future generations to rule themselves?
form of government matters in as much as it empowers the people and doesn't enable bad players. form doesn't matter if and only if we were to be able to eliminate all bad players.
the point is that reducing bad players is more important than the perfect form of government, but practically, once we have reduced bad players to a minority, we can tweak the form of government to render the remaining bad players powerless.
in the end that probably means that some form of democracy that allows people to remove bad players from positions of power is probably going to achieve the best outcome.
none of the current systems, including all western democracies, allow the removal of bad players in part because there are just to many of them.
It struck me once that the elections every 4 years was pretty ambitious for that time. Today the delay doesn't seem required. Have people change their vote when they like with a min max to take and leave office.
The greeks had ostracism the winner got 10 year banishment. That too we could do in real time.
It doesn't just seem nice or interesting. We have enough evidence to see the current formula is dangerous. Are we at 200 million deaths already?
I would also like to see politicians make draft laws and projects that citizens can vote for and against. Let them explain their ideas with nice docu style visuals.
Say one set per week with 2 months to vote.
If the internet is useless for secure elections we can make a new network with new hardware.
I just read about the kleroterion, seems a hilarious approach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleroterion
If you didn't already listen/watch/read to some professor Guy Standing. It is at least inspiring
The greeks had ostracism the winner got 10 year banishment. That too we could do in real time.
It doesn't just seem nice or interesting. We have enough evidence to see the current formula is dangerous. Are we at 200 million deaths already?
I would also like to see politicians make draft laws and projects that citizens can vote for and against. Let them explain their ideas with nice docu style visuals.
Say one set per week with 2 months to vote.
If the internet is useless for secure elections we can make a new network with new hardware.
I just read about the kleroterion, seems a hilarious approach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleroterion
If you didn't already listen/watch/read to some professor Guy Standing. It is at least inspiring
Important subject, so-so article.
One decline in democracy: do you belong to any organization where the members regularly vote, make binding decisions, and occasionally fire the leader? A co-op? A union? A club? A homeowner's association? Anything? Most non-profits and voluntary organizations used to be organized that way, but in the US today, they tend to have self-perpetuating boards, ones which choose their successors.
This is a problem for democracy, because Americans don't regularly do democracy any more. It takes practice. You need to see the process work. If people are not familiar with the process, it won't get used.
Democracy is a consensus-forcing process. There's argument, then a vote. Then a decision, which is carried out. The expectation, and this is a tough one, is that after a decision is made, the opposition mostly accepts it, whether they like it or not. That's tough. Countries currently struggling hard with that include the US, France, and Israel.
If voting can't force a decision and action, democracy stalls. This leads for calls for a "strong leader" and some form of autocracy. Countries which failed at democratic consensus and ended up as authoritarian states in recent years include post-USSR Russia, and Iraq.
Then you get a coup or conquest, sometimes you get a revolution, and once in a while, a stable democracy emerges. You have to have people who know how to do democracy to make that work.
One decline in democracy: do you belong to any organization where the members regularly vote, make binding decisions, and occasionally fire the leader? A co-op? A union? A club? A homeowner's association? Anything? Most non-profits and voluntary organizations used to be organized that way, but in the US today, they tend to have self-perpetuating boards, ones which choose their successors.
This is a problem for democracy, because Americans don't regularly do democracy any more. It takes practice. You need to see the process work. If people are not familiar with the process, it won't get used.
Democracy is a consensus-forcing process. There's argument, then a vote. Then a decision, which is carried out. The expectation, and this is a tough one, is that after a decision is made, the opposition mostly accepts it, whether they like it or not. That's tough. Countries currently struggling hard with that include the US, France, and Israel.
If voting can't force a decision and action, democracy stalls. This leads for calls for a "strong leader" and some form of autocracy. Countries which failed at democratic consensus and ended up as authoritarian states in recent years include post-USSR Russia, and Iraq.
Then you get a coup or conquest, sometimes you get a revolution, and once in a while, a stable democracy emerges. You have to have people who know how to do democracy to make that work.
It seems this muscle has atrophied in nearly every niche it once thrived:
neighborhood kids self organizing play, multigenerational households and family run businesses, boarding houses where personal spaces are shared with strangers, participation in civic clubs and churches (which was as much about business networking and social prestige as anything but still organized collective effort to worthy causes), self organized physical markets (like the grove in LA in the 30s), chambers of commerce, local business (cartels) parceling up their markets, barn raising, “culture scenes” like the west village in the 60s…
perhaps most saliently to me personally, the end of faculty led university management.
neighborhood kids self organizing play, multigenerational households and family run businesses, boarding houses where personal spaces are shared with strangers, participation in civic clubs and churches (which was as much about business networking and social prestige as anything but still organized collective effort to worthy causes), self organized physical markets (like the grove in LA in the 30s), chambers of commerce, local business (cartels) parceling up their markets, barn raising, “culture scenes” like the west village in the 60s…
perhaps most saliently to me personally, the end of faculty led university management.
It's an unanswerable question, but the only option we have is to try and make them work. At least until the next best system comes about. Regressing backwards because old things lasted awhile is hardly the place we should aspire towards.
This article doesn't mention the biggest solution, that we can directly observe in the healthiest democracies : having a strong free education system.
Switzerland and Northern Europe countries are amazing for that. The political consciousness of the average Joe is incredible in comparison of the average American.
It's a chicken-egg problem. You need free education for democracy to work. And you need democracy to fund free education.
Switzerland and Northern Europe countries are amazing for that. The political consciousness of the average Joe is incredible in comparison of the average American.
It's a chicken-egg problem. You need free education for democracy to work. And you need democracy to fund free education.
It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure the statistics line up. Searching online gives the proportion of the population (age 25+) holding at least a bachelor's degree in the USA to be around 50%, which is higher than in Switzerland, Denmark and the Netherlands, to make an arbitrary selection. In fact there is no northern European country whose population has a higher proportion of tertiary education attainment than the USA. As far as I'm aware, primary and secondary education is available without cost in both the USA and across the entirety of Europe.
Percentages aren't of course the whole story; maybe secondary education in these countries is of such higher quality that fewer people need to study further to participate intelligently in political discourse. Perhaps the implications of free degree education on graduates' personal finances gives northern Europeans more free time to use that knowledge and participate in politics.
I like the idea of free education, but I am not confident that this is to blame for the USA's issues - mostly because of the situation in my country, the United Kingdom. Despite having had no tuition fees until 1998, this has not done anything to prevent an almost completely two-party system from prevailing for the last hundred years. For me, the non-proportional electoral system has become both the probable symptom and the probable cause of voting tribalism in both countries.
Percentages aren't of course the whole story; maybe secondary education in these countries is of such higher quality that fewer people need to study further to participate intelligently in political discourse. Perhaps the implications of free degree education on graduates' personal finances gives northern Europeans more free time to use that knowledge and participate in politics.
I like the idea of free education, but I am not confident that this is to blame for the USA's issues - mostly because of the situation in my country, the United Kingdom. Despite having had no tuition fees until 1998, this has not done anything to prevent an almost completely two-party system from prevailing for the last hundred years. For me, the non-proportional electoral system has become both the probable symptom and the probable cause of voting tribalism in both countries.
Ah that's a good counterexample. Political education could play a big part, as well as independent media.
Society is an illusion; "people" is not a singular entity.
Imagine a loaf of sliced bread: so long as the pieces are fairly consistent and sound, it can resemble a loaf.
If one or more of the pieces is unsound, irregular in shape or consistency, the illusion of a singular loaf breaks.
It isn't the nature of "people", it is the imperfect nature of the metaphor of "people" itself.
Imagine a loaf of sliced bread: so long as the pieces are fairly consistent and sound, it can resemble a loaf.
If one or more of the pieces is unsound, irregular in shape or consistency, the illusion of a singular loaf breaks.
It isn't the nature of "people", it is the imperfect nature of the metaphor of "people" itself.
Silly and pointless reductionism. You assign meaning to each slice, but not to the loaf, even though the same logic applies to the "illusion" of a slice? It's turtles all the way down, and the concept of society is as real and as important as any of the other layers.
To add to the point you were making: an "individual" who's been starting at a screen doing nothing but typing aphorisms for a week straight will look visibly unhealthy to their friends.
That change in countenance reveals all the hidden social connections on which that person necessarily relies for their mental, physical, and emotional well-being.
That change in countenance reveals all the hidden social connections on which that person necessarily relies for their mental, physical, and emotional well-being.
It's right for everyone to be questioning the foundations of our political order, because our political order isn't working great these days.
My assessment is that the US is a structure built on several solid conceptual pillars, and one pillar that is absolutely broken. The strong pillars are concepts like democracy, civil rights, economic freedom, and science.
The broken pillar is "E Pluribus Unum" - the idea that we'll all naturally converge on some set of shared ethical values with enough reasoning, debate, and discussion. In reality, the opposite happened - we've split into at least two separate nations. There are millions of people in the US who believe that gun ownership is basically murder and abortion is a sacred human right, and millions of people who believe the exact opposite. These groups cannot be expected to share a political structure, especially one that vests such enormous amounts of power in the central government. And this point of violent disagreement is merely the beginning, there are dozens of other bitterly contested ethical issues.
Americans should begin to ask what we actually gain by being locked in a political system with millions of people with moral systems that are utterly different from our own. Remind me why it is so great to live in such an enormous and unwieldy country? What do I gain, exactly?
I believe that those who follow this train of thought will see that the only answer to our present problems is National Divorce. Texas should be governed by Texan values; California should be governed by Californian values.
My assessment is that the US is a structure built on several solid conceptual pillars, and one pillar that is absolutely broken. The strong pillars are concepts like democracy, civil rights, economic freedom, and science.
The broken pillar is "E Pluribus Unum" - the idea that we'll all naturally converge on some set of shared ethical values with enough reasoning, debate, and discussion. In reality, the opposite happened - we've split into at least two separate nations. There are millions of people in the US who believe that gun ownership is basically murder and abortion is a sacred human right, and millions of people who believe the exact opposite. These groups cannot be expected to share a political structure, especially one that vests such enormous amounts of power in the central government. And this point of violent disagreement is merely the beginning, there are dozens of other bitterly contested ethical issues.
Americans should begin to ask what we actually gain by being locked in a political system with millions of people with moral systems that are utterly different from our own. Remind me why it is so great to live in such an enormous and unwieldy country? What do I gain, exactly?
I believe that those who follow this train of thought will see that the only answer to our present problems is National Divorce. Texas should be governed by Texan values; California should be governed by Californian values.
Remember that this is really by design rather than something that just happened by itself. The creation of an us-vs-them is critical in order to keep the status quo for the ruling class (otherwise _they_ would eventually be the "them").
Right diagnosis, wrong treatment.
My treatment would be to first try to address the root cause of polarization, which is in large part social media. Somehow eliminate the foreign troll farms that have been caught running far-right and far-left Facebook groups for example. Mandatory proof of humanness.
Then try less extreme civic measures like more Federalism and a weakening of the executive.
My treatment would be to first try to address the root cause of polarization, which is in large part social media. Somehow eliminate the foreign troll farms that have been caught running far-right and far-left Facebook groups for example. Mandatory proof of humanness.
Then try less extreme civic measures like more Federalism and a weakening of the executive.
I'm not American, but it doesn't sound to me like this is less radical of a solution. For a country that espouses the principle of free speech so passionately - in my experience, from both sides of the political divide - for the USA to require a form of 'proof of credibility' before allowing a citizen to participate in social and political debate would be for it to lose perhaps the most important part of its identity. Would that situation preserve 'America' more than a collection of not-so-united states which would probably retain bilateral trade and travel agreements, as well as the now-immutable, deep-rooted cultural ties?
>Texas should be governed by Texan values
What happens to the Texans who don't ascribe to whatever the government decides are "Texan values?" Forced march to the California border? Re-education camps?
What happens to the Texans who don't ascribe to whatever the government decides are "Texan values?" Forced march to the California border? Re-education camps?
You can have stronger federalism without a “national divorce”.
I don't think that the complexity problem is so crucial, at least if we accept that the society doesn't need to find optimal solutions to complex problems, rather it just needs to avoid the really bad ones.
You need experts for optimizations, but not necessarily for avoidance of really bad solutions.
You need experts for optimizations, but not necessarily for avoidance of really bad solutions.
> On the one hand, the costs of becoming politically informed—learning about politicians, issues, policies, and relevant social science—are very high for individual voters. It takes a lot of time and energy, which could be spent on other important—or simply more fun—activities. On the other hand, the negligible impact of individual votes means that being informed has little benefit. Given this, political ignorance is rational.
I have been toying with the idea of a system that allows voluntarily delegating my vote to someone who I think is rational, more informed than me, and cares about things important to me, more than me. I would love to know the flaws in such a system.
I have been toying with the idea of a system that allows voluntarily delegating my vote to someone who I think is rational, more informed than me, and cares about things important to me, more than me. I would love to know the flaws in such a system.
That's just representative democracy, no?
I don't think adding a level to it would help, a new class of voter-politicians would soon emerge anyway, and they'd probably merge with "proper" political parties.
I don't think adding a level to it would help, a new class of voter-politicians would soon emerge anyway, and they'd probably merge with "proper" political parties.
I mean I mark my vote as same as XYZ's vote in the system. XYZ doesn't have to know about it.
Wikipedia calls it Liquid Democracy but I've never seen nor heard that term outside and I don't think it's used anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
I think people are simply too little "social" (in the real world sense) for open society: modern societies tend to concentrate people to a point of starting some real-life human variant of an old experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink and that's why we see many flawed, tribal behaviors IMO.
Aside I suspect that most people are unable to know/understand the purpose of a society, why we do anything, so they do their best to avoid any change and anyone who is "different" as a way to "remain on the right track". However this seems to be always the case at least in large part of known human history and in the past we have had many open societies so such behavior while presenting many social issue should not be a showstopper for an open society anyway.
Aside I suspect that most people are unable to know/understand the purpose of a society, why we do anything, so they do their best to avoid any change and anyone who is "different" as a way to "remain on the right track". However this seems to be always the case at least in large part of known human history and in the past we have had many open societies so such behavior while presenting many social issue should not be a showstopper for an open society anyway.
Yes.
I argue "people don't scale". The only time you see large amounts of people accomplishing big projects is in a military context, with constrained individuality, explicit chains of command, and authoritarian, top-down leadership.
And why might that be?
John Lennon answers: "You may say I'm a dreamer".
Yes, John, you and the various idle rich humming your tune are just that.
Your dream does not encompass the full spectrum of human experience, to include all the dark, chaotic stuff that makes scalability so terribly hard.
I argue "people don't scale". The only time you see large amounts of people accomplishing big projects is in a military context, with constrained individuality, explicit chains of command, and authoritarian, top-down leadership.
And why might that be?
John Lennon answers: "You may say I'm a dreamer".
Yes, John, you and the various idle rich humming your tune are just that.
Your dream does not encompass the full spectrum of human experience, to include all the dark, chaotic stuff that makes scalability so terribly hard.
You're comparing top-down structures with each other.
We all live in top-down structures. Even Switzerland is a representational democracy (or a bunch of representational democracies in a trenchcoat) at its core. States are extremely allergic against relinquishing power so they usually only allow for federations in constrained, often bureaucratic forms: clubs, corporations, interest groups, etc, all of which often end up being top-down structures themselves, either through mimicry (gotta have your by-laws) or legal compliance (someone has to foot the bill).
The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds. We also know that close-knit groups of humans are very stable and often engage in acts of altruism, even within groups beyond this scale (think neighborhoods, villages) as long as they follow a web of trust they can intuitively comprehend.
Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust without having to engage in violence and war. This is the brotherhood of man. The only problem with this kind of scaling is that it doesn't allow for the concentration of power and wealth in individuals because it is ultimately a network of peers rather than a hierarchy of domination.
I think Democratic Confederalism is an interesting approach to a horizontal model that satisfies our modern need for a certain level of formality and structure while still building on our evolutionary strengths.
Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people. Our intellect may allow us to defeat any natural predator but we come into this world naked, defenseless and entirely dependent on the kindness of others. Helping other humans is literally in our DNA, not just when it comes to child-rearing.
We all live in top-down structures. Even Switzerland is a representational democracy (or a bunch of representational democracies in a trenchcoat) at its core. States are extremely allergic against relinquishing power so they usually only allow for federations in constrained, often bureaucratic forms: clubs, corporations, interest groups, etc, all of which often end up being top-down structures themselves, either through mimicry (gotta have your by-laws) or legal compliance (someone has to foot the bill).
The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds. We also know that close-knit groups of humans are very stable and often engage in acts of altruism, even within groups beyond this scale (think neighborhoods, villages) as long as they follow a web of trust they can intuitively comprehend.
Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust without having to engage in violence and war. This is the brotherhood of man. The only problem with this kind of scaling is that it doesn't allow for the concentration of power and wealth in individuals because it is ultimately a network of peers rather than a hierarchy of domination.
I think Democratic Confederalism is an interesting approach to a horizontal model that satisfies our modern need for a certain level of formality and structure while still building on our evolutionary strengths.
Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people. Our intellect may allow us to defeat any natural predator but we come into this world naked, defenseless and entirely dependent on the kindness of others. Helping other humans is literally in our DNA, not just when it comes to child-rearing.
> The assumption seems to be that "scale" must be vertical. The various idle rich humming John Lennon's tune are completely oblivious to its message. We know that human brains are evolved to deal with "small" groups of people (think families or housing blocks) and that this breaks down once you get into the dozens let alone hundreds.
This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
> Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust
For some values of "settle".
> Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people.
Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
The real point I'm after here is Dunbar's Number. The scope of concern tapers radically outside of that clan unit. We attempt to have representative systems and public institutions to factor out the individual quirks (and mortality) and provide continuity.
But Dunbar's Number works negatively within these public institutions to breed corruption.
This is why, if I were to wax prescriptive, the least-worst approach is to Term Limit All The Things. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, merits frequent turning. Keep the systems simple, and turn politics into shift work, say I. We have copious population to draw from; don't tell me only this selected crop of nitwits can do the job.
This is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
> Humans are really good at scaling horizontally. We even invented diplomacy and currency to settle disputes with groups outside our web of trust
For some values of "settle".
> Remember: our evolutionary advantage isn't our individual intellect, it's other people.
Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_labour
The real point I'm after here is Dunbar's Number. The scope of concern tapers radically outside of that clan unit. We attempt to have representative systems and public institutions to factor out the individual quirks (and mortality) and provide continuity.
But Dunbar's Number works negatively within these public institutions to breed corruption.
This is why, if I were to wax prescriptive, the least-worst approach is to Term Limit All The Things. Capitol Hill, like any compost heap, merits frequent turning. Keep the systems simple, and turn politics into shift work, say I. We have copious population to draw from; don't tell me only this selected crop of nitwits can do the job.
[deleted]
The current noosphere doesnt have good autonomic defense systems. Every impulse sent our way comes unguarded, as a dark forest of signals being sent at us.
My hope is that we can start to emerge some larger tools & networks to help give us meta-review, of who else argues this & what folks say about arguments like this. What have these people warned us about in the past, what have their concerns been over the past 10 years & how many of those were right or wrong?
Being endlessly blown about by fear & popularism has been the name of the game on Fox News & talk radio for decades. Bill O'Reilly was on a very hot Daily Show recently, decrying polarization, & it was amazing to see such a cheer leader for disdain & disgust trying to say enough (in a way dripping with disdain & disgust) and him & John Stewart having this hostile chat even though they sort of are trying to say some similar things. https://youtu.be/h7qZE4C_neo
It's amazing how little progress we've made getting sharp at thos online world. But notable things were terrible in the old broadcast world too; we were defenseless there too.
My hope is that we can start to emerge some larger tools & networks to help give us meta-review, of who else argues this & what folks say about arguments like this. What have these people warned us about in the past, what have their concerns been over the past 10 years & how many of those were right or wrong?
Being endlessly blown about by fear & popularism has been the name of the game on Fox News & talk radio for decades. Bill O'Reilly was on a very hot Daily Show recently, decrying polarization, & it was amazing to see such a cheer leader for disdain & disgust trying to say enough (in a way dripping with disdain & disgust) and him & John Stewart having this hostile chat even though they sort of are trying to say some similar things. https://youtu.be/h7qZE4C_neo
It's amazing how little progress we've made getting sharp at thos online world. But notable things were terrible in the old broadcast world too; we were defenseless there too.
As much as I appreciate using precise language, I had to look this one up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
I guess the use of the term instead of a more common descriptor like "society" implies a religious or at least spiritualist world view, but the way you're using it implies the attacks stemming from an unspecified "other", which doesn't quite fit at least from a cursory look at the philosophy behind it.
My criticism would be that much like Thatcher said though in a very different sense: there is no such thing as society, there are just individuals. Or more specifically: there's no such thing as a unified whole of society or humanity across history, there are actors with different interests and different levels of influence and each actor may consist of more than one person and each person may be part of more than one actor. The assumption that debate between political opposites on shared interests must bring them closer presupposes that both sides want to be closer and that the purpose of the debate is to find truth rather than to loop in the audience to join your side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere
I guess the use of the term instead of a more common descriptor like "society" implies a religious or at least spiritualist world view, but the way you're using it implies the attacks stemming from an unspecified "other", which doesn't quite fit at least from a cursory look at the philosophy behind it.
My criticism would be that much like Thatcher said though in a very different sense: there is no such thing as society, there are just individuals. Or more specifically: there's no such thing as a unified whole of society or humanity across history, there are actors with different interests and different levels of influence and each actor may consist of more than one person and each person may be part of more than one actor. The assumption that debate between political opposites on shared interests must bring them closer presupposes that both sides want to be closer and that the purpose of the debate is to find truth rather than to loop in the audience to join your side.
> people
Alongside software-managed person[udge]s impersonating people.
> noosphere doesnt have good autonomic defense systems
Or threat models, e.g. funding unlocked by 2012 Smith-Mundt Act for industrial-scale weaponization of online speech.
Alongside software-managed person[udge]s impersonating people.
> noosphere doesnt have good autonomic defense systems
Or threat models, e.g. funding unlocked by 2012 Smith-Mundt Act for industrial-scale weaponization of online speech.
There are plenty of open societies that are working just fine right now.
It's American society that isn't working.
We as a society are incredibly hostile to the non-wealthy individual American, and not in a "you should feel guilty for being white and christian" kind of way like the right claims.
We have a massive number of laws governing individual behavior, a justice system that incarcerates more people than any other country in the world in total or per capita, and is almost entirely focused on being punitive rather than reformative despite plenty of evidence the latter works better and costs less. Meanwhile, we let the leadership of corporations murder people, engage in widespread environmental pollution, etc and rarely to never face criminal punishment - usually just a financial slap on the wrist.
We heap benefits and freebies onto corporations with almost nothing required back in results or documentation, and give little to nothing to our poorest while requiring them to go through more paperwork and rules and conditions for pittances in aide.
We refuse to treat medical care, shelter, water, and food as a human right - ditto for a livable wage for work performed (despite being one of the most productive-per-worker countries in the world) has been an unmitigated disaster. Very predictably, more and more of Americans are slipping into poverty. But phew, good thing corporations have the right to a "voice" in politics (because apparently the leadership of the corporation doesn't...)
Most of the ills can be directly traced to the grossly oversized influence rural midwestern Americans have politically.
They're highly religious, uneducated, bigoted, selfish, vindictive, gullible, and arrogant (they are the 'real' America, they are 'hard working' and 'earn their keep'...despite being a net negative in federal revenue vs spending, hilariously enough. The quiet part: "unlike those people in the cities").
It's American society that isn't working.
We as a society are incredibly hostile to the non-wealthy individual American, and not in a "you should feel guilty for being white and christian" kind of way like the right claims.
We have a massive number of laws governing individual behavior, a justice system that incarcerates more people than any other country in the world in total or per capita, and is almost entirely focused on being punitive rather than reformative despite plenty of evidence the latter works better and costs less. Meanwhile, we let the leadership of corporations murder people, engage in widespread environmental pollution, etc and rarely to never face criminal punishment - usually just a financial slap on the wrist.
We heap benefits and freebies onto corporations with almost nothing required back in results or documentation, and give little to nothing to our poorest while requiring them to go through more paperwork and rules and conditions for pittances in aide.
We refuse to treat medical care, shelter, water, and food as a human right - ditto for a livable wage for work performed (despite being one of the most productive-per-worker countries in the world) has been an unmitigated disaster. Very predictably, more and more of Americans are slipping into poverty. But phew, good thing corporations have the right to a "voice" in politics (because apparently the leadership of the corporation doesn't...)
Most of the ills can be directly traced to the grossly oversized influence rural midwestern Americans have politically.
They're highly religious, uneducated, bigoted, selfish, vindictive, gullible, and arrogant (they are the 'real' America, they are 'hard working' and 'earn their keep'...despite being a net negative in federal revenue vs spending, hilariously enough. The quiet part: "unlike those people in the cities").
An important aspect of the human psyche is that we can band together around arbitrary ideas, both negative and positive
There are many reasons we can point to as to why we don't see changes in society that will bring a about a better place for everyone.
Maybe it's because capitalism doesn't allow for it, or only in its later stages and we are just not there yet.
Or maybe because there still needs to be a revolution that will feed the masses that are starving both physically and mentally.
There are many thinkers trying to point to flaws in the current way of viewing things that might be blocking us from moving forward. Byung-Chul Han, Slavoj Zizek, Michael Sandel...
I really enjoy the podcast Philosophize This, the author does a nice job of introducing many concepts that are important.
In my case, I wrote a recent essay that might fit this discussion: https://xd1.dev/2024/07/against-political-realism
In it I try to extend the concept of Capitalist Realism to the realm of politics to use it as a motivation to call for a kind action in the private sphere that could increase the odds of us having meaningful debates in the society about the kind of changes we want to bring about for the next generations to come.
Maybe it's because capitalism doesn't allow for it, or only in its later stages and we are just not there yet.
Or maybe because there still needs to be a revolution that will feed the masses that are starving both physically and mentally.
There are many thinkers trying to point to flaws in the current way of viewing things that might be blocking us from moving forward. Byung-Chul Han, Slavoj Zizek, Michael Sandel...
I really enjoy the podcast Philosophize This, the author does a nice job of introducing many concepts that are important.
In my case, I wrote a recent essay that might fit this discussion: https://xd1.dev/2024/07/against-political-realism
In it I try to extend the concept of Capitalist Realism to the realm of politics to use it as a motivation to call for a kind action in the private sphere that could increase the odds of us having meaningful debates in the society about the kind of changes we want to bring about for the next generations to come.
Nope. For decades if not centuries people were just fine and could function in societies.
The main problem of the last ~15 years.
Multiple dying political movements, kind of all at once and its a bit of a meltdown for those who still believe. They see their proposed idea as dying and going away, which makes them think that democracy is ending or something along those lines. Which is absurd at best.
The main problem of the last ~15 years.
Multiple dying political movements, kind of all at once and its a bit of a meltdown for those who still believe. They see their proposed idea as dying and going away, which makes them think that democracy is ending or something along those lines. Which is absurd at best.
Cynically, people collectively are a sum of their evolutionary lessons. Evolution is never wrong.
You seem to define right and wrong in terms of winners and loosers at the game of life. If you survive, you’re right? No matter what you do, the end justify the means? Is that what you’re saying?
In a way yes. However my emphasis is more that the collective society can't be just wrong, as much as we may sometimes want to paint the picture as such.
Evolution often fails.
Of all the species that have existed on Earth at some point over the past 3.5 billion years, over 95% have gone extinct. That's part of the natural process of evolution.
(Stat from https://www.theworldcounts.com)
Of all the species that have existed on Earth at some point over the past 3.5 billion years, over 95% have gone extinct. That's part of the natural process of evolution.
(Stat from https://www.theworldcounts.com)
Comparing human evolution to 3.5 billion years of millions of other species is irrelevant to the subject matter (assuming it is even possible to foolproof data that goes back that long). And your claim doesn't mean that evolution failed necessarily.
[deleted]
my guy, people are too flawed, ignorant, and tribal to select a cellular telephone, let alone participate in society
Open Society: "Its ideals include commitments to the rule of law, freedom of association, democratic institutions, and the free use of reason and critical analysis."
Interesting that this set doesn't include the one thing that seems to be required for Civil Society: high trust. In other words, an general internal locus of control and set of shared morals that essentially allows you to leave your doors unlocked.
If a classic sociopath can completely agree with your set of ideals, perhaps you shouldn't complain about the outcomes?
Interesting that this set doesn't include the one thing that seems to be required for Civil Society: high trust. In other words, an general internal locus of control and set of shared morals that essentially allows you to leave your doors unlocked.
If a classic sociopath can completely agree with your set of ideals, perhaps you shouldn't complain about the outcomes?
> internal locus of control
Can you expand on that? It seems potentially but not necessarily consistent with "democratic institutions" but the "control" must be limited to preserve the various freedoms required for openness.
> shared morals
But the degree to which two people's moral views need to overlap is minimal. Yes, I shouldn't invade your home, but I also don't need to approve of what charities you donate to, what happens in your bedroom, how you worship, etc, all of which some people will perceive as part of their morality.
Can you expand on that? It seems potentially but not necessarily consistent with "democratic institutions" but the "control" must be limited to preserve the various freedoms required for openness.
> shared morals
But the degree to which two people's moral views need to overlap is minimal. Yes, I shouldn't invade your home, but I also don't need to approve of what charities you donate to, what happens in your bedroom, how you worship, etc, all of which some people will perceive as part of their morality.
exactly this. what is also missing (although maybe this will be included in the follow up article) is education. education is a powerful tool to change peoples attitude and create this high trust. it will take time, but it is achievable. same goes for the problem raised in the article. if people are to flawed, ignorant and tribal, then we need to change how we educate our children so that the next generation will be less flawed, less ignorant and less tribal.
the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.
the earth is but one country and mankind its citizens.
Also the idea that "commitment to the rule of law" should be a virtue assumes high trust. It's entirely rational not to be "committed to the rule of law" in a society where law enforcement faces less scrutiny or risk of consequences than those on the receiving end of the enforcement. It also ignores that laws can be unjust and defiance of unjust laws can be a political driving force - although I guess in this ideal society unjust laws would just be discovered by thinking really hard and agreeing that they're unjust.
The article also throws the term "democracy" around without ever defining it. "Freedom of association" implies a direct democracy, possibly allowing for delegates, but "democratic institutions" and "politicians" implies a representative democracy at which point the distinction between democracy and technocracy becomes less clear.
Lastly, the article is very much begging the question by idealizing the "disinterest truth seekers". This implies there is an underlying truth that is orthogonal to ideology and social norms. Even in the natural sciences this is hardly a given. Mathematics famously is the only science that can claim absolute correctness but such "truths" are only relevant within their respective systems, e.g. the obvious statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only true if we agree to submit ourselves to the underlying assumptions, many of which are ultimately arbitrary. Physics is probably a close second but the consensus on what might currently be the closest approximation of a model perfectly describing empirical reality is so complex that most applications instead use models that are known to be wrong but are simpler and ultimately good enough for the given purpose.
At this point in science it is functionally impossible for a single person to have a holistic understanding of any given field, let alone the renaissance man ideal of a holistic understanding of a broad range of fields. So all views of "truth" are ultimately filtered through biases (e.g. discarding information as "irrelevant" or "unrelated") and often layers of abstractions. Imagining that this alone can result in a functioning society is the ultimate folly of liberalism: the total blindness to its own ideology.
Ideology is not a flaw. Ideology is a lens through which we can understand society and a value system which informs us in how we want to progress as a society. If you don't take the time to build out a coherent ideology or at least a coherent value system - and understand it as such - you'll just be left chasing an inconsistent and often contradictory assortment of "virtues" and ad hoc preferences like those 85% of people who are not "politically engaged" (and arguably being politically engaged is neither necessary nor sufficient to having a coherent value system or else we wouldn't have the widespread problem of very vocal Lions Eating People's Faces Party voters).
The article also throws the term "democracy" around without ever defining it. "Freedom of association" implies a direct democracy, possibly allowing for delegates, but "democratic institutions" and "politicians" implies a representative democracy at which point the distinction between democracy and technocracy becomes less clear.
Lastly, the article is very much begging the question by idealizing the "disinterest truth seekers". This implies there is an underlying truth that is orthogonal to ideology and social norms. Even in the natural sciences this is hardly a given. Mathematics famously is the only science that can claim absolute correctness but such "truths" are only relevant within their respective systems, e.g. the obvious statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only true if we agree to submit ourselves to the underlying assumptions, many of which are ultimately arbitrary. Physics is probably a close second but the consensus on what might currently be the closest approximation of a model perfectly describing empirical reality is so complex that most applications instead use models that are known to be wrong but are simpler and ultimately good enough for the given purpose.
At this point in science it is functionally impossible for a single person to have a holistic understanding of any given field, let alone the renaissance man ideal of a holistic understanding of a broad range of fields. So all views of "truth" are ultimately filtered through biases (e.g. discarding information as "irrelevant" or "unrelated") and often layers of abstractions. Imagining that this alone can result in a functioning society is the ultimate folly of liberalism: the total blindness to its own ideology.
Ideology is not a flaw. Ideology is a lens through which we can understand society and a value system which informs us in how we want to progress as a society. If you don't take the time to build out a coherent ideology or at least a coherent value system - and understand it as such - you'll just be left chasing an inconsistent and often contradictory assortment of "virtues" and ad hoc preferences like those 85% of people who are not "politically engaged" (and arguably being politically engaged is neither necessary nor sufficient to having a coherent value system or else we wouldn't have the widespread problem of very vocal Lions Eating People's Faces Party voters).
The set of underlying assumptions implied by the phrase "commitment to the rule of law" is astounding. Most people blithely assume it means something like "acceptable behavior is defined by these laws, not by arbitrary edicts of men". But, it means no such thing.
First, any "rule of law" can only operate in the assumption that law-breakers can be easily captured and sentenced. This is so clearly impossible (witness the almost complete inability of law-enforcement to interdict drugs entering prisons) as to be laughable.
No, unless a group of free people basically agree, internally, not to do something -- of their own free will -- you aren't going to have a civil society free of that thing.
Basically, the "rule of law" is a guard-rail that allows a civil society to expel individuals who choose to not abide by the "high trust" commitments of members of that society. Which is fine -- they just have to pursue their behaviours elsewhere.
And this is where it becomes sticky. Most people want the benefits of "high trust" and "rule of law" -- as long as it enforces behaviors on others and not themselves. Which is also fine, so long as they are living with others, of like mind, in their own society. Just let us know in a generation or two how that works out for you!
Furthermore, they also demand not just Reasonable Accommodation, but full Mental Assent to their (fill in the blank) beliefs. Which, also, is fine -- so long as they are living in a society of their choice, with others who (also, presumably) have the same demands on each-other for Mental Assent to (whatever).
But, for whatever reason, people are generally not OK with a society that says: "Well, you are clearly not in agreement with these constraints that we believe leads to Civil Society, so we'd like to you to go somewhere more amenable with your beliefs. And, no, this is not a request."
Which I don't understand.
First, any "rule of law" can only operate in the assumption that law-breakers can be easily captured and sentenced. This is so clearly impossible (witness the almost complete inability of law-enforcement to interdict drugs entering prisons) as to be laughable.
No, unless a group of free people basically agree, internally, not to do something -- of their own free will -- you aren't going to have a civil society free of that thing.
Basically, the "rule of law" is a guard-rail that allows a civil society to expel individuals who choose to not abide by the "high trust" commitments of members of that society. Which is fine -- they just have to pursue their behaviours elsewhere.
And this is where it becomes sticky. Most people want the benefits of "high trust" and "rule of law" -- as long as it enforces behaviors on others and not themselves. Which is also fine, so long as they are living with others, of like mind, in their own society. Just let us know in a generation or two how that works out for you!
Furthermore, they also demand not just Reasonable Accommodation, but full Mental Assent to their (fill in the blank) beliefs. Which, also, is fine -- so long as they are living in a society of their choice, with others who (also, presumably) have the same demands on each-other for Mental Assent to (whatever).
But, for whatever reason, people are generally not OK with a society that says: "Well, you are clearly not in agreement with these constraints that we believe leads to Civil Society, so we'd like to you to go somewhere more amenable with your beliefs. And, no, this is not a request."
Which I don't understand.
For democracy to thrive, the information content extracted from a voter has to be higher in terms of votes cast, points voted on, and the data type of the vote. Currently it is too low in the US. Imagine if you had to do all your programming with a handful of booleans without the freedom to implement any higher data structures.