Is democracy a failure? (1861)(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Is democracy a failure? (1861)
http://www.nytimes.com/1861/03/14/news/is-democracy-a-failure.html
274 comments
"...until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone."
In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the 49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply barbaric.
Maybe technology will render nation-states obsolete within my lifetime. I can only hope.
In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone, but rather serves as little more than a moral battering ram that the 51% can use to impose their will on the 49%. Perhaps one day people will realize that democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply barbaric.
Maybe technology will render nation-states obsolete within my lifetime. I can only hope.
The Athenians would say that we do not have a democracy but an oligarchy. The only way that they saw to actually make the government the will of the people was to select representation by sortition, i.e. drawing by lot, like jury selections.
I don't think that they were wrong in this regard. If we look at the demographics of the house of representatives, they do not come close to making a parallel of the demographics of the country. If representatives were selected at random, we'd have 51% women in the house, we'd have people from all economic backgrounds according to the current wealth disparity instead of only the wealthy. We'd need to actually focus our resources on education if we agreed that really anybody can be selected for representation. If the pool of representatives was large enough (larger than we have now, which is a limitation put in place to make party control easier), then random selection should always result in a representative body that is actually representative.
I don't think that they were wrong in this regard. If we look at the demographics of the house of representatives, they do not come close to making a parallel of the demographics of the country. If representatives were selected at random, we'd have 51% women in the house, we'd have people from all economic backgrounds according to the current wealth disparity instead of only the wealthy. We'd need to actually focus our resources on education if we agreed that really anybody can be selected for representation. If the pool of representatives was large enough (larger than we have now, which is a limitation put in place to make party control easier), then random selection should always result in a representative body that is actually representative.
> In my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, democracy rarely seeems to come to any consensus that is acceptable to everyone...
To be fair to American democracy as originally described, supermajorities were required to make big decisions (Constitutional amendments). And power was decentralized between branches of government and layers of government (state and local governments had more authority than the federal government on some matters). This design was amended and eroded over the years. One of the consequences of the movement toward a simple-majority democracy is the 'battering ram' effect you're (justifiably) complaining about.
To be fair to American democracy as originally described, supermajorities were required to make big decisions (Constitutional amendments). And power was decentralized between branches of government and layers of government (state and local governments had more authority than the federal government on some matters). This design was amended and eroded over the years. One of the consequences of the movement toward a simple-majority democracy is the 'battering ram' effect you're (justifiably) complaining about.
I'm actually beginning to think that we should require a 2/3 majority for simple legislation and a 3/4 majority for amendments. Maybe it'd help nip a lot of problems in the bud.
Or just create new ones …
Or just create new ones …
In my experience the more common result is some kind of compromise that fails to solve the actual problem and leaves everyone dissatisfied.
You hope that nation-states will be obsolete within your lifetime? Seems to me that's a strange wish given the overwhelming evidence that we would then be faced with a global corporate feudalism from which there would be no retreat. Nowhere to run, no place to hide where people can live as they wish in a way they find congenial. The latter might be unlikely given that local laws could be easily rendered pointless if a powerful central authority elsewhere deemed them unacceptable. Only my view but I'd call that a dystopia.
You say 'democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply barbaric'. Does your "quote" rebut itself as you seem to suggest? What is your non-barbaric alternative to democracy?
You say 'democracy, given its cultish appeals (e.g. "but don't you know other systems are worse!?") is simply barbaric'. Does your "quote" rebut itself as you seem to suggest? What is your non-barbaric alternative to democracy?
its solvable by using consensus democracy rather than majority democracy.
The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.
The literal consent of the governed is necessary for government to be legitimate.
I've participated in such structures before. Honestly, very few people have the time to go to 5-hour-long meetings on a weekly basis.
sounds like you were in the majority.
i have been in it also, and it works just fine. i certainly do not like to be in a minority where the majority gets what it wants and the minority is steamrolled.
i have been in it also, and it works just fine. i certainly do not like to be in a minority where the majority gets what it wants and the minority is steamrolled.
A significant role of government is to manage conflicts. Conflicts, by definition, lack consensus.
Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill).
How does consensus handle this?
Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bill's fence.
An answer about requiring people to be reasonable in a consensus government is not very satisfying, people aren't reasonable.
Imagine Hal doesn't want Bill to build a fence (to make it fun, let's say Hal isn't even going to be impacted by the fence, he just doesn't like Bill).
How does consensus handle this?
Our current system tells Hal to sit down and shut up about what Bill does on his property. If consensus is the norm, Hal has a veto on Bill's fence.
An answer about requiring people to be reasonable in a consensus government is not very satisfying, people aren't reasonable.
consensus works by give and take. Hal and Bill don't just have to deal only with the fence. They have many more items they need to negotiate if they are to live as neighbors.
our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.
our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.
our current system does NOT allow Bill to do whatever he wants on his property.
Of course not. My point was that it doesn't give Hal a veto over anything Bill might want to do.
Of course not. My point was that it doesn't give Hal a veto over anything Bill might want to do.
According to a definition of legitimacy concocted specifically to apply to a few selected forms of government.
Any ideas on how technology would render nation states obsolete?
nation states fight over borders to increase tax revenues. wars are governments jockeying to get bigger pieces of the pie.
the solution is to make the pie arbitrarily large.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
the solution is to make the pie arbitrarily large.
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
That's why real democracies have more than 2 [real/major] parties. Governments are a lot more interesting and concensusy when they're made up of 23%, 27%, 24%, and 26% for example. Suddenly there's no single majority to ram its will down everyone else's throat.
Except that cases are hardly rare where a small minority party becomes crucial for forming a government and winds up wielding power far beyond its numerical support among the population. And its not rare for countries to be unable to form a government for months or even years.
That's probably because their system is flawed.
In Denmark, we never have to wait for long. Whenever those in power want to pass something big or important in parliament, they seek a broad support - otherwise, it'll just get repealed whenever they lose power.
Everything certainly isn't perfect here (yes, it can be darn annoying when center parties hold too much power - but then again, it is a stabilizing factor), but healthy mechanics can get you a long way with democracy.
I feel a lot of people in this thread point out cases where democracy doesn't work. That's easy. But maybe it would be better to look for cases where it does work and learn from it.
In Denmark, we never have to wait for long. Whenever those in power want to pass something big or important in parliament, they seek a broad support - otherwise, it'll just get repealed whenever they lose power.
Everything certainly isn't perfect here (yes, it can be darn annoying when center parties hold too much power - but then again, it is a stabilizing factor), but healthy mechanics can get you a long way with democracy.
I feel a lot of people in this thread point out cases where democracy doesn't work. That's easy. But maybe it would be better to look for cases where it does work and learn from it.
Part of the problem with the US is that it is just so damned big and so diverse. I' not sure democracy scales well.
To take your example of Denmark; Denmark has less population, and half again as much area as Massachusetts. Comparisons between the US as a whole, and individual European countries don't always make the most sense; the more appropriate comparison would be to the EU, to have the same kind of multitudes of disparate people under a common banner.
To take your example of Denmark; Denmark has less population, and half again as much area as Massachusetts. Comparisons between the US as a whole, and individual European countries don't always make the most sense; the more appropriate comparison would be to the EU, to have the same kind of multitudes of disparate people under a common banner.
It's much easier to agree on which cases are failures than which ones are successful.
God forbid society should invest in the interests of small minorities occasionally to win their support for the majority interest?
Imagine party A has 23%, party B has 28%, and party C has 49%. Party A and B join forces; they decide per consensus on how they would vote in parliament. Since they have together 51% and vote as one, they don't need to consult party C, even though it's the party with the most votes.
We have again a situation where 51% crushes the 49%.
We have again a situation where 51% crushes the 49%.
That's only true if party A and party B agree on every decision, in which case you simply have two parties, "AB" and C.
Also, in some countries, there are way more than 3 factions (over a dozen in Belgium and the Netherlands), making it less likely that the same subset of parties will find itself in agreement every time.
The effect of having that many factions is that the majority part of parliament will always take the minority opinion into account because they know that, in the next vote, they may be part of that minority.
Of course, that is not a guarantee; I think it is part of a nation's culture. Other countries may value the short-term "let's win this vote" way above the longer term "we have to live in this country together".
That certainly seems the case in the USA, where "in four years time, we might end up with the shorter straw." doesn't seem to play a big role in politics (?anymore?)
Also, in some countries, there are way more than 3 factions (over a dozen in Belgium and the Netherlands), making it less likely that the same subset of parties will find itself in agreement every time.
The effect of having that many factions is that the majority part of parliament will always take the minority opinion into account because they know that, in the next vote, they may be part of that minority.
Of course, that is not a guarantee; I think it is part of a nation's culture. Other countries may value the short-term "let's win this vote" way above the longer term "we have to live in this country together".
That certainly seems the case in the USA, where "in four years time, we might end up with the shorter straw." doesn't seem to play a big role in politics (?anymore?)
"WAIT GUYS! Half A has 1 more vote than Half B. Looks like we don't need to do any science, let's just assume the people from Half A were right".
Democracy and religion share beds, occasionally, I might even say they were married on upon a time. Barbarism indeed.
Democracy and religion share beds, occasionally, I might even say they were married on upon a time. Barbarism indeed.
Why do you assume all questions are answerable by science? Science says that if you assemble materials in a particular way you will get a solar panel, and if you assemble other materials in a different way then you get a toaster; it can't say which you should do.
Science says that a human being is a collection of genes which are formed at conception; it can't say anything about abortion, murder, capital punishment or self-defense. Those aren't topics on which it is competent: all it can do is inform discussions thereon, by affirming, 'yes, we are talking about a human being in this case, but in this other we are not.'
You simply can't address every issue with an appeal to science.
Science says that a human being is a collection of genes which are formed at conception; it can't say anything about abortion, murder, capital punishment or self-defense. Those aren't topics on which it is competent: all it can do is inform discussions thereon, by affirming, 'yes, we are talking about a human being in this case, but in this other we are not.'
You simply can't address every issue with an appeal to science.
I never actually assumed that. The scientific method applies to systems which have a set of observables. Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed. Therefore, it seems more prudent to ask "why" (i.e. applying the scientific method, or some more general inquisitive process) Half A and Half B disagree rather than simply assuming one half is correct and moving on. In the latter case, there is no learning.
> Social science is not a second class citizen to natural science, as both society and nature are systems which can be observed.
I honestly think social science is only slightly more scientific than astrology.
But even were it not, science is not capable of answering questions like what one ought to do. Sure, A & B disagree; it's interesting why they do; maybe they're both wrong; maybe they're both partially-correct; but what should be done about it? Science can only say what is, not what ought to be.
You have to make some philosophical assumptions (e.g. utilitarianism) in order to even think that science can provide direction, and even then you will get bogged down in questions like, 'what is the greatest good for the greatest number?'
As an aside to the downvoters: don't downvote if you think I'm wrong; please share how you think science can answer a question like 'ought we execute murderers.'
I honestly think social science is only slightly more scientific than astrology.
But even were it not, science is not capable of answering questions like what one ought to do. Sure, A & B disagree; it's interesting why they do; maybe they're both wrong; maybe they're both partially-correct; but what should be done about it? Science can only say what is, not what ought to be.
You have to make some philosophical assumptions (e.g. utilitarianism) in order to even think that science can provide direction, and even then you will get bogged down in questions like, 'what is the greatest good for the greatest number?'
As an aside to the downvoters: don't downvote if you think I'm wrong; please share how you think science can answer a question like 'ought we execute murderers.'
It doesn't work when the population is composed of different social groups with vastly opposite systems of values. Iraq for example (I was born in Iraq).
We can already see a similar thing happening in America with different ethnic groups not getting along well together. I think this will only get worse over time.
Pro Trump and anti Trump camps are really about how a significant number of whites are not getting along with a significant number of Hispanics (and other ethnic groups).
We can already see a similar thing happening in America with different ethnic groups not getting along well together. I think this will only get worse over time.
Pro Trump and anti Trump camps are really about how a significant number of whites are not getting along with a significant number of Hispanics (and other ethnic groups).
Unless of course those groups mix and form new ones. Unfortunately people like to self-segregate and push down others for their own cultural pride.
What you speak of is backwards. The answer to disagreement isn't for both parties to walk away in opposite directions, nor is it for one party to kill the other party. Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something. Your solution is to run away? That's seriously very sad, and I feel like crying that we still have people who think like this. The solution isn't crying, either. Many people are observed to get along with people who have different ideas, culture, and ethnicity. Perhaps a better solution is in education and learning.
> Disagreement is valuable in that it provides the world an opportunity to learn something.
Please stop. I dont want to have disagreement. I dont want to have this endless debate. I want to be left alone. I dont want people to make descision for me. I want to spend my brain cycles in my work. Not this. Please stop.
Please stop. I dont want to have disagreement. I dont want to have this endless debate. I want to be left alone. I dont want people to make descision for me. I want to spend my brain cycles in my work. Not this. Please stop.
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Disagreement is the way a society grows. If everyone agreed on everything, we'd be stuck in the dark ages. It's very simple. This happened with pretty much every advancement in science, most notably with Galileo. Strive to disagree. Don't strive for agreement, for then we are stuck in some sort of pseudotopia.
This is great and all in words, but in reality a lot of democratic decisions end up with really close counts like 51% against 49%. If you look at it like this, a majority is forcing the minority into something even though there is actually a significant number of people it effects who are against the motion. This is far better than a dictatorship, but it is a flaw and something that human society still needs to find a solution too.
What's the alternative, assuming that you can't reach into peoples' heads and change their positions on an issue? Regardless of the decision, you would still have 51% of the population in support of it and 49% opposed (or vice versa, if the system were minority rules).
If I could reach into peoples' heads, there's a solution: "mind your own damn business". If we didn't care so much what other people did, then we wouldn't disagree so much. And in general, I think the world would be a better place if more people did this. But some fraction of issues will always affect multiple people (that's the whole point of government, after all).
And besides, nobody's yet invented a mind-control ray, and it would be pretty icky if they did. (There's a certain irony to altering peoples thoughts so that they care less about what other people think...)
If I could reach into peoples' heads, there's a solution: "mind your own damn business". If we didn't care so much what other people did, then we wouldn't disagree so much. And in general, I think the world would be a better place if more people did this. But some fraction of issues will always affect multiple people (that's the whole point of government, after all).
And besides, nobody's yet invented a mind-control ray, and it would be pretty icky if they did. (There's a certain irony to altering peoples thoughts so that they care less about what other people think...)
> What's the alternative, assuming that you can't reach into peoples' heads and change their positions on an issue?
Supermajority voting on all legislation & referenda? After all, 2/3 of the population forcing 1/3 to obey a law is much more reasonable than 51% forcing 49%.
And making amendments take a 3/4 vote is even better: if 75% of people think something is a good idea, then it probably is.
Supermajority voting on all legislation & referenda? After all, 2/3 of the population forcing 1/3 to obey a law is much more reasonable than 51% forcing 49%.
And making amendments take a 3/4 vote is even better: if 75% of people think something is a good idea, then it probably is.
As I stated, there is no alternative as of today, and that is the flaw. Its not terrible flaw, and I think that the democracies on this earth are far better than any other form of government, but maybe one day someone will think up the alternative. Mind control though would just be an uber-dictatorship.
If 51% and 49% cant come to agreement they should live separately. I am not advocating full secession but something like Hong Kong (HK handles everything except Defence and External Affairs).
(I think) In democracy, voters are less likely to compromise. This is result of weak discussion between >1m.
(I think) In democracy, voters are less likely to compromise. This is result of weak discussion between >1m.
Unfortunately ideology and geography have a correlation that, while positive, is less than one. There will always be a minority that gets overridden. And while it is a good thing for people to have freedom to move to a place that supports their values in extreme cases (some are even talking seriously about it this election), in most situations that isn't practical.
Still that does not stop me from solving 90% of the problem using seperations. For example I would like to have greater say in where my taxes are spent. If we can all agree on this, this would be great.
But likely technology (as always) will come to rescue before democracy. This is in reference to rise of renunciations, AirBnB etc.
But likely technology (as always) will come to rescue before democracy. This is in reference to rise of renunciations, AirBnB etc.
I think there's an alternative already available and sparingly in use today: certain decisions can require 2/3rds, 3/5ths etc. majorities.
For instance, any decision that will last for generations and impact profoundly in everyone's life, like secession or a "Brexit" should require slightly more votes than a majority one. Unfortunately it's only typically used by parliaments, courts and senates for constitutional change, never for popular vote on issues.
For instance, any decision that will last for generations and impact profoundly in everyone's life, like secession or a "Brexit" should require slightly more votes than a majority one. Unfortunately it's only typically used by parliaments, courts and senates for constitutional change, never for popular vote on issues.
No, some countries use referendums for lots of things, like Switzerland. Including quite small things like whether or not to build new tunnels.
Simple majority has the advantage that it's fair. If you're going to start claiming that decisions that will "profoundly impact everyone" need higher than majority you're just going down the road to totalitarianism. Anyone can claim a decision they think they're on the losing side of is too important to leave to majority decision making. Then it's just about ramping up the threshold until you win.
Simple majority has the advantage that it's fair. If you're going to start claiming that decisions that will "profoundly impact everyone" need higher than majority you're just going down the road to totalitarianism. Anyone can claim a decision they think they're on the losing side of is too important to leave to majority decision making. Then it's just about ramping up the threshold until you win.
First, I think you might be overestimating the number of decisions that come down to 51% vs 49%.... there are countless actions that the government takes that have a much higher societal-agreement rate than 51%. It only feels like everything is 51v49 because those decisions are the ones people spend their time arguing about; we never talk about the things we all agree on.
Secondly, for spectrum decisions (e.g. what tax rate we should have, how much to spend on defense and education, etc) getting as close to 51v49 for the decision is probably the most equitable outcome.
Secondly, for spectrum decisions (e.g. what tax rate we should have, how much to spend on defense and education, etc) getting as close to 51v49 for the decision is probably the most equitable outcome.
> a lot of democratic decisions end up with really close counts like 51% against 49%.
America (and the few other remaining non-proportional systems) suffers from this problem much more than the more advanced democratic systems. If America is all you know, you shouldn't generalize too much.
America (and the few other remaining non-proportional systems) suffers from this problem much more than the more advanced democratic systems. If America is all you know, you shouldn't generalize too much.
>Democracy is interesting because it requires you to step outside your own head, understand that there are people who hold different values and different experiences from you, and then mentally engage with them, holding your own doubt and revulsion at bay, until you can come to a consensus that's acceptable to everyone.
Objectively, it can be seen that this is completely untrue. No understanding or empathy is strictly required by democracy. Democracy only requires that you obstinately stick to your preferred viewpoints and shout down those who disagree with you. This can be seen in the legislative chambers of nearly every Western-style democracy on the planet. Specifically:
- in Canada, the hallmark of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper's rule was a complete rejection of anything outside his personal ideology, even when his ideology flew directly in the face of fact or public opinion.
- in the US, we are seeing someone who most certainly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder not only excelling in politics, but may soon come to hold the highest public office and command of the world's most powerful military.
The days of good-old collaboration and working together for the common good back in the 1950s were a short-lived phenomenon created by the shared experience of surviving the deadliest conflict in human history.
Those days are over.
Objectively, it can be seen that this is completely untrue. No understanding or empathy is strictly required by democracy. Democracy only requires that you obstinately stick to your preferred viewpoints and shout down those who disagree with you. This can be seen in the legislative chambers of nearly every Western-style democracy on the planet. Specifically:
- in Canada, the hallmark of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper's rule was a complete rejection of anything outside his personal ideology, even when his ideology flew directly in the face of fact or public opinion.
- in the US, we are seeing someone who most certainly suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder not only excelling in politics, but may soon come to hold the highest public office and command of the world's most powerful military.
The days of good-old collaboration and working together for the common good back in the 1950s were a short-lived phenomenon created by the shared experience of surviving the deadliest conflict in human history.
Those days are over.
No understanding or empathy is strictly required by democracy.
Yes, it's required. Democracy is compromise. The people need to be highly intellectual to make their roles in the society balance between what they want and what society (other people) want them to be. Without understanding of difference, everything breaks down easily. See what happened when us bomb other countries with simply unbelievable execuses. You can see that people having no understanding of outside world basically do not afraid to use violence to make their thinking a reality...
Yes, it's required. Democracy is compromise. The people need to be highly intellectual to make their roles in the society balance between what they want and what society (other people) want them to be. Without understanding of difference, everything breaks down easily. See what happened when us bomb other countries with simply unbelievable execuses. You can see that people having no understanding of outside world basically do not afraid to use violence to make their thinking a reality...
Uneducated, ignorant people have always existed in democracies. Those democracies still exist.
Being "Highly intellectual" is therefore not a requirement to participate in a democracy.
Just look around you, man. There are stupid people everywhere.
Being "Highly intellectual" is therefore not a requirement to participate in a democracy.
Just look around you, man. There are stupid people everywhere.
> But I'd much rather have it than any system of forced social roles, where there is one person or small cabal of people who make the decisions and everyone else knows their job is simply to obey.
If Clinton wins the election in a few days, then at the end of her first term, you're looking at 32 years of only three families in the Whitehouse. If she wins a second term, then that's 36 years - almost two whole generations. It's symptomatic of how little things change at the top.
To be a big gun in US politics, you need so many connections and so much money that only a few people can do it. This election has had a two-year electioneering cycle, a ridiculous expense. The notion that 'anyone can become president' just doesn't pan out in reality.
If Clinton wins the election in a few days, then at the end of her first term, you're looking at 32 years of only three families in the Whitehouse. If she wins a second term, then that's 36 years - almost two whole generations. It's symptomatic of how little things change at the top.
To be a big gun in US politics, you need so many connections and so much money that only a few people can do it. This election has had a two-year electioneering cycle, a ridiculous expense. The notion that 'anyone can become president' just doesn't pan out in reality.
Seems to me that cabals can always form and skew the implementation away from the ideal balance that makes the concept of democracy seem so fair in the first place. I'll recite a personal narrative as my main observation of this potential outcome in the wild.
Several years ago I helped cofound a worker owned for-profit software and design cooperative. Its constitution was formulated around a mix of product incubation and consulting in support of labour solidarity through cultivation of progressively more interesting/motivating/challenging work. It was founded after we had all quit our high-performing and very profitable agency whose non-technical/non-creative ownership cut one too many corners on the sustainable systems that we were working on. Typical anti-flow type management decisions with arbitrary deadlines, death marches, and silly promises to clients despite solid contracts (which I had written and negotiated directly with the clients and our lawyers).
In the new co-op that us engineers and designers from the old company formed, there was growth early on, and a plan to expand to new cities/markets because the cost structure was horizontally scalable by design. This was before boutique remote app studios and incubators became commonplace (at least before all the really big agencies tried to get in on it, e.g. Sid Lee, Ogilvy).
Lo and behold, it turned out there were just barely enough members who wanted to take a more employee/entitlement oriented tack (as opposed to entrepreneurial) vs the other half. These members were of the same local cultural and linguistic background (the socially dominant one), whereas the rest of us were from all over. The locals formed a "cabal" of sorts and pushed for spending lots of money on a swanky office, vetoed horizontal expansion and denied the right to work for one of the members who had just moved to a new city as part of the previous plan (by voting to refuse to allocate some of our mandated work to him).
The original vision fell apart and was replaced by something more parochial. The more "ambitious" cofounders all left and the co-op continues to thrive in its own way today but as a shadow of the dream we had in the beginning.
An autocracy would not have endured these trials so early on. In top-down mode, the boss gets to enforce focus. Certainly not good if the dictator is not benevolent, but the experience provided for a lot of reflection on governance.
Reminds me of this explainer video I saw recently from CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=344s
No matter the exact loci of power, there are always gradients between the points, and forces that can bring imbalance are very hard (perhaps undesirable) to control.
Several years ago I helped cofound a worker owned for-profit software and design cooperative. Its constitution was formulated around a mix of product incubation and consulting in support of labour solidarity through cultivation of progressively more interesting/motivating/challenging work. It was founded after we had all quit our high-performing and very profitable agency whose non-technical/non-creative ownership cut one too many corners on the sustainable systems that we were working on. Typical anti-flow type management decisions with arbitrary deadlines, death marches, and silly promises to clients despite solid contracts (which I had written and negotiated directly with the clients and our lawyers).
In the new co-op that us engineers and designers from the old company formed, there was growth early on, and a plan to expand to new cities/markets because the cost structure was horizontally scalable by design. This was before boutique remote app studios and incubators became commonplace (at least before all the really big agencies tried to get in on it, e.g. Sid Lee, Ogilvy).
Lo and behold, it turned out there were just barely enough members who wanted to take a more employee/entitlement oriented tack (as opposed to entrepreneurial) vs the other half. These members were of the same local cultural and linguistic background (the socially dominant one), whereas the rest of us were from all over. The locals formed a "cabal" of sorts and pushed for spending lots of money on a swanky office, vetoed horizontal expansion and denied the right to work for one of the members who had just moved to a new city as part of the previous plan (by voting to refuse to allocate some of our mandated work to him).
The original vision fell apart and was replaced by something more parochial. The more "ambitious" cofounders all left and the co-op continues to thrive in its own way today but as a shadow of the dream we had in the beginning.
An autocracy would not have endured these trials so early on. In top-down mode, the boss gets to enforce focus. Certainly not good if the dictator is not benevolent, but the experience provided for a lot of reflection on governance.
Reminds me of this explainer video I saw recently from CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&t=344s
No matter the exact loci of power, there are always gradients between the points, and forces that can bring imbalance are very hard (perhaps undesirable) to control.
"Under the relentless thrust of accelerating over-population and increasing over-organization, and by means of ever more effective methods of mind-manipulation, the democracies will change their nature; the quaint old forms—elections, parliaments, Supreme Courts and all the rest—will remain. The underlying substance will be a new kind of non-violent totalitarianism. All the traditional names, all the hallowed slogans will remain exactly what they were in the good old days. Democracy and freedom will be the theme of every broadcast and editorial—but Democracy and freedom in a strictly Pickwickian sense. Meanwhile the ruling oligarchy and its highly trained elite of soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators will quietly run the show as they see fit."
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (1958)
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited (1958)
If you would like to elevate your thinking on this subject in order to understand what's going on, I recommend:
1. Iron law of oligarchy (1911 - 1700 words on wikipedia): "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies."
2. Dictator's handbook (2011) - Or CGP Grey's summary: rules for rulers (2016 - 18 minutes): "Bad behavior" is emergent from power structures rather than human weakness. From democracies to dictatorships, organizations select for Machiavellian and psychopathic behaviors.
I can't recommend these enough. This life altering perspective takes <30 minutes to go over - plus potentially several days of despair.
The problems with the world are not user error. How can technology help?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
1. Iron law of oligarchy (1911 - 1700 words on wikipedia): "all complex organizations, regardless of how democratic they are when started, eventually develop into oligarchies."
2. Dictator's handbook (2011) - Or CGP Grey's summary: rules for rulers (2016 - 18 minutes): "Bad behavior" is emergent from power structures rather than human weakness. From democracies to dictatorships, organizations select for Machiavellian and psychopathic behaviors.
I can't recommend these enough. This life altering perspective takes <30 minutes to go over - plus potentially several days of despair.
The problems with the world are not user error. How can technology help?
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I'm glad to see CGP Grey being noticed here. His YouTube channel[1] is highly addictive, and I'm glad he's taken a foray into longer form narratives as well as the fast paced.
His videos on elections are particularly relevant these days!
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
His videos on elections are particularly relevant these days!
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/user/CGPGrey
"The problems with the world are not user error." - wow. This is why HN is mostly the only forum I hang around.
If you really want to go deep study game theory. IMHO it offers very satisfying hard mathematical explanations for at least some of these things.
I consider it and its related fields (evolutionary informatics, complexity) to be among the greatest intellectual achievements of the 20th century. These fields are grossly under-taught. You generally won't hit them unless you study economics, ecology, or evolutionary biology.
If there is an answer to any of these awful paradoxes, it is going to be found in these subjects rather than in any form of conventional or even unconventional politics, religion, philosophy, etc. These are just rearrangements of the deck chairs.
If you really want to go deep study game theory. IMHO it offers very satisfying hard mathematical explanations for at least some of these things.
I consider it and its related fields (evolutionary informatics, complexity) to be among the greatest intellectual achievements of the 20th century. These fields are grossly under-taught. You generally won't hit them unless you study economics, ecology, or evolutionary biology.
If there is an answer to any of these awful paradoxes, it is going to be found in these subjects rather than in any form of conventional or even unconventional politics, religion, philosophy, etc. These are just rearrangements of the deck chairs.
I am faving this comment. Huxley was a true visionary.
However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.
However I dont agree with the "...new kind of non-violent totalitarianism..." Our democracies are non-violent only if you obey. Otherwise they use violence and force to lock you up. Most people in prisons are there for victimless crimes like drugs. That is not a non-violent system in my opinion.
It is often said that Huxley's Brave New World prediction was more accurate than Orwell's 1984, but Orwell actually got the boot-stomping-your-face prediction right: even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull. Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised. The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.
Aldous Huxley vs George Orwell:
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huxley-or...
(The creator, Stuart McMillen, felt compelled to remove it from his own website. He explains: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...)
http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/huxley-or...
(The creator, Stuart McMillen, felt compelled to remove it from his own website. He explains: http://www.stuartmcmillen.com/blog/cartoon-blog/amusing-ours...)
Are you saying that peaceful protests in the US are met with baton-swings to the skull? That seems veritably untrue; there have been a large number of protests recently that have not ended in any violence.
The Dakota Pipeline protestors have been getting maced and tear gassed this past week. There are also reports of protestors being locked in dog cages[1].
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/0...
Yes, but there have been many other protests that did NOT end in violence.
The Dakota Pipeline protesters were actually shooting at cops, and committed millions of dollars worth of arson.
The Sioux tribe and other protestors claim he was a plant by the oil company to intentionally turn public opinion against the protestors[1].
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s...
That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in the wrong.
It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used constantly during the occupy protests, and many of those offenders were later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up the protests and destroy their message.
[1]: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-s...
That, and the other incidences of protestors using firearms is something anyone managing a protest of this scale cannot control. As long as the leadership involved condemns the gun violence, and the protestors do what they can to stop people from escalating the situation, they cannot be themselves in the wrong.
It is a very common tactic to plant radicals in peaceful protests who will use violence as an attempt to ruin the reputation of the movement, mainly by distraction - "oh, someone shot at the police, they are all violent monstrous scum now, and nobody should listen to their grievances anymore" was used constantly during the occupy protests, and many of those offenders were later found to be plants by either private or even police agencies to break up the protests and destroy their message.
Sadly you have to have been a protester at least once to know that, otherwise you just cannot believe how prevalent (and effective) this tactic is.
It sure is odd how these evil tools of the Man are never identified and flushed out by the noble, gentle, peaceful protesters before they start committing arson and shooting cops. Nobody noticed that these agents provocateurs were carrying guns? Nobody went up to them while they were getting ready to burn millions of dollars of equipment -- something which requires a lot more effort than just tossing a match -- and said "hey, don't do that, we're all about peace"? The pipeline protesters knew damn well they had bad apples, and they did nothing about it.
I wonder if you were this generous towards the Bundy Ranch protesters.
> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull
...except the police officers murdered in Dallas this year didn't wear riot gear on purpose and the violence started when a sniper started shooting officers. Some crazy person executed two officers in Iowa three days ago.
I'm not advocating riot gear, but there are holes in your narrative.
...except the police officers murdered in Dallas this year didn't wear riot gear on purpose and the violence started when a sniper started shooting officers. Some crazy person executed two officers in Iowa three days ago.
I'm not advocating riot gear, but there are holes in your narrative.
A police officer or two killed says nothing about police brutality.
It says a lot actually. Police officers are humans who want to go home to their kids. Hence the riot gear. We can blame them for being too fearful, but we can also recognize that they have reasons to be afraid.
These reasons don't fit into "because The Man" narratives without some explanation.
These reasons don't fit into "because The Man" narratives without some explanation.
Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face.
They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment.
How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?
They're not fighting a war, and acting like they are only increases popular resentment.
How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?
"A police officer or two killed" ...
"Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
"acting like they are only increases popular resentment"
Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear...
"How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?"
Valid point. Lets ask a similar question. How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
"Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
"acting like they are only increases popular resentment"
Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails. Sniper fire appears to be a reaction to the riot gear...
"How does can an officer covered head to toe in riot gear, carrying military equipment, jumping out of an armored vehicle, engage with the community?"
Valid point. Lets ask a similar question. How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
> "A police officer or two killed" ...
> "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
> Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa.
> Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails.
Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed.
> How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
They are a tiny minority of protestors.
> "Humans who are vastly over-prepared for the threat they face"
> Again, these are people who want to go home to their families.
I said “or two” for a reason. Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa.
> Valid point. But the riot gear itself was a reaction to throwing stones or molotov cocktails.
Reaction or not, it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed.
> How can a protester throwing stones or shooting people engage with the institutions they are trying to change?
They are a tiny minority of protestors.
"Vastly more civilians are killed by police than vice-versa"
Sure, but their job is literally go find the most dangerous people in the country, and make them give up their freedom.
Imagine yourself outside the headquarters of a gang of meth cooks, known to be armed and high. Unfortunately, yeah, people get shot. Lets not pretend like these are kind, innocent people. I know sometimes their relatives will say that on tv[1]. Imagine what its like to deal with hardcore criminals on a regular basis.
"it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed"
I agree. The problem is, how do you know in advance? Peaceful protests can turn violent in the blink of an eye. When they do need the gear, they needed it 5 minutes ago. I would love to hear a solution that doesnt involve the police running back to their cars, right at the moment that things get out of hand.
"They are a tiny minority of protestors"
Agreed. But again, how to know which ones? Now you can see why they want to monitor social media(not taking a position here). If 99 people are saying, "grab a coat and join us for a peaceful protest", and 1 is saying "grab rocks and head the park", well, now maybe we know who to watch.
1. http://wncn.com/2016/11/03/parents-of-pizza-hut-robbery-susp...
Sure, but their job is literally go find the most dangerous people in the country, and make them give up their freedom.
Imagine yourself outside the headquarters of a gang of meth cooks, known to be armed and high. Unfortunately, yeah, people get shot. Lets not pretend like these are kind, innocent people. I know sometimes their relatives will say that on tv[1]. Imagine what its like to deal with hardcore criminals on a regular basis.
"it's not appropriate in many situations where it's deployed"
I agree. The problem is, how do you know in advance? Peaceful protests can turn violent in the blink of an eye. When they do need the gear, they needed it 5 minutes ago. I would love to hear a solution that doesnt involve the police running back to their cars, right at the moment that things get out of hand.
"They are a tiny minority of protestors"
Agreed. But again, how to know which ones? Now you can see why they want to monitor social media(not taking a position here). If 99 people are saying, "grab a coat and join us for a peaceful protest", and 1 is saying "grab rocks and head the park", well, now maybe we know who to watch.
1. http://wncn.com/2016/11/03/parents-of-pizza-hut-robbery-susp...
The police act almost as an occupying force in some communities. It does not surprise me in the few instances where they are resisted like they are an occupying force.
> even peaceful protests are met with full riot gear and ends being peaceful as soon as that first baton-swing hits someone's skull.
Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack?
> Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised.
While that has certainly happened, you are referring to Michael Brown, who did not, in fact, have his arms raised and was, in fact, beating the police officer who shot him.
> The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.
I suspect you blame Drug Prohibition (and I agree that it should end immediately), but that's not actually true: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/releasing-drug-offenders-...
Looking at what people actually go to prison for, it often seems like stuff we'd want to send people to prison for: murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud. Maybe we might look at why Americans commit so much murder, assault, theft, rape and fraud?
Is it more likely that a police baton ends the peace, or a protester's stone? Is riot gear offensive in nature, or do the police wear it to defend themselves from violent attack?
> Police murdering unarmed citizens with their arms raised.
While that has certainly happened, you are referring to Michael Brown, who did not, in fact, have his arms raised and was, in fact, beating the police officer who shot him.
> The mass imprisonment of citizens who's only committed what most people consider a minor offense.
I suspect you blame Drug Prohibition (and I agree that it should end immediately), but that's not actually true: http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/releasing-drug-offenders-...
Looking at what people actually go to prison for, it often seems like stuff we'd want to send people to prison for: murder, assault, theft, rape, fraud. Maybe we might look at why Americans commit so much murder, assault, theft, rape and fraud?
Not to mention if you are just protesting the wrong thing, you get arrested, pepper sprayed or worse. And somehow the media coverage is way less too.
Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now. No mainstream network talks about it at prime time, despite it probably being the most significant US national political event right now next to the email leaks. Which they also ignore, beyond claiming they are Russia's fault.
> Like the Dakota Access Pipeline protest right now.
The one where they were shooting at cops, you mean? True, that part didn't get a lot of coverage.
The one where they were shooting at cops, you mean? True, that part didn't get a lot of coverage.
Most people in prison are not there for victimless crimes. This is well studied, and what you just said is a canard.
Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go:
1. Violent crime
2. Property crime
3. Everything else
Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas.
The overwhelming majority of incarcerated felons victimized somebody else. It's also worth considering that the majority of those incarcerated for property crimes victimized those people in society least able to absorb the harm: rich white people live in low-crime neighborhoods with 2x the police coverage.
Ranked, reasons for incarcerations go:
1. Violent crime
2. Property crime
3. Everything else
Where "violent crime" is comprised of those crimes we all agree are violent --- particularly: domestic violence, which accounts for a plurality of all incarcerations in major metro areas.
The overwhelming majority of incarcerated felons victimized somebody else. It's also worth considering that the majority of those incarcerated for property crimes victimized those people in society least able to absorb the harm: rich white people live in low-crime neighborhoods with 2x the police coverage.
Depends on your definition of "overwhelming" 1 in 5 convicts are in prison for drug related offenses[1]. Almost four hundred thousand US citizens behind bars for plant byproduct possession or distribution is heinous. There are around 320k prisoners for property crime, by comparison, so no, nonviolent drug offenses are #2 in terms of incarceration blocks, though the numbers are close, and violent offenses are over twice drug offenses.
[1] http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html
[1] http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html
It is not my argument that because drugs account for only 15% of incarcerations, our drug policy is OK.
euh... Don't confuse Republics and democracies.
Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules.
Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies.
We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And Plato was firmly convinced that democracies were bad. After all he was sponsored by the wealthy ones that hated the people to have power.
Letting the people vote is a not an equivalent statement to let the people rules.
Condorcet has shown how voting systems can be unfair, and a quick look to every elected assembly from the G20 is showing a clear non representation of the demography of the people in the assemblies.
We do not live under democratic systems, neither was USA in 1861. These are Republics. And Plato was firmly convinced that democracies were bad. After all he was sponsored by the wealthy ones that hated the people to have power.
Thats a fairly irrelevant objection. Both the NYT, Huxley and the GP are referring to the system still in place in the US and Europe today (and so were Churchill in the "worst system, except for all the others that has been tried" quote), whether correctly identified as 'democracy' or not.
Republic and democracy are not mutually exclusive... I think you are confused if you think they are. According to Wikipedia, "It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy."
Perhaps it's less of a democracy then we think it is, but it's not wrong to call the US a democracy.
Perhaps it's less of a democracy then we think it is, but it's not wrong to call the US a democracy.
Fair point, you are of course right.
However I used the word in the way how it is used nowadays by public. I am from Europe and people here will tell you we have "democracies".
However I used the word in the way how it is used nowadays by public. I am from Europe and people here will tell you we have "democracies".
I mean, of course we don't actually have democracy. That's the problem.
I mean that's verifiably not true if you look at the statistics. A majority of prisoners are not in for drug crimes. The ones that are are overwhelmingly in for drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people).
You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.
You can argue that consent should make the act legal, but that doesn't make it non-violent.
> drug trafficking, which is violent (selling something that physically hurts people).
Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.
Only if selling sugar, rifles or skateboards is violent.
Distributors of those legal products are rarely gunning each other down over the monopoly on distribution on a particular street corner. Driving it underground and making it illegal forces people to return to older, more traditional forms of conflict resolution...
Sometimes they are driven to the internet where they use superior conflict resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration and other mechanisms that work in the absence of violence.
All of those things have non-violent uses much more important than their violent ones. Cigarettes are a better analogy--I think there is definitely a case to be made that is a violent activity.
What is the non-violent use of a rifle that is important? I sold pot in college in the 90s, and there was no violence. Perhaps it is the ilegalization of various plant materials that causes violence in the distribution process?
Hunting, pest control, etc. Pot isn't that harmful, but contrary to popular belief most people are not in prison for possessing or even distributing pot. Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent even if those products were legal (like cigarettes).
> Heroin, meth, etc. definitely are harmful and addictive, and destroy lives. Selling them would be violent...
Unless you can personally claim ownership of those people, among other things you're claiming ownership* of, there is no aggression (initiation of violence) taken upon your person or things when someone is destroying their life.
If you can personally claim ownership of those people, and society as a whole, then you are correct and the selling of the drugs would be an act of aggression towards yourself.
* The act of withholding something from others.
Unless you can personally claim ownership of those people, among other things you're claiming ownership* of, there is no aggression (initiation of violence) taken upon your person or things when someone is destroying their life.
If you can personally claim ownership of those people, and society as a whole, then you are correct and the selling of the drugs would be an act of aggression towards yourself.
* The act of withholding something from others.
And most opiate addicts (heroin) get hooked from opiates supplied by their violent doctor and local pharmacies.
Hunting and pest control are examples of non-violence? Is that your argument?
Beat me to it! ;)
> "soldiers, policemen, thought-manufacturers and mind-manipulators"
Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?
Read "soldiers, policemen, lobbyists and advertisers"?
No, read "lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats". Making you afraid of mere advertisers (demanding evermore protection from - you guessed it! - lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats, with the help of their soldiers and policemen) is a great act of mind-manipulation that harks back to the aristocratic and academic disdain for trade.
Advertisers clearly have a big influence on the actions taken by those in power, as well as within the general public.
To give some examples, consider what happens within the news media. If you don't think news outlets that rely on advertising money to function tailor their messages to present a world view that lines up with the wishes of advertisers, perhaps you'll find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y
As for the influence of advertisers on the general public, I'd argue the only reason its big business is because it works. However, I believe it works differently than just through the obvious ads we see around us, the most effective forms of advertising appear to be the ones that don't look like advertising at all, I'd put this under the category of 'cultural norms'. Advertisers have a large indirect influence on cultural norms, and (aside from the basic things we need to survive) it is often by aiming to meet those norms that we find ourselves spending money.
To give some examples, consider what happens within the news media. If you don't think news outlets that rely on advertising money to function tailor their messages to present a world view that lines up with the wishes of advertisers, perhaps you'll find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHa6NflkW3Y
As for the influence of advertisers on the general public, I'd argue the only reason its big business is because it works. However, I believe it works differently than just through the obvious ads we see around us, the most effective forms of advertising appear to be the ones that don't look like advertising at all, I'd put this under the category of 'cultural norms'. Advertisers have a large indirect influence on cultural norms, and (aside from the basic things we need to survive) it is often by aiming to meet those norms that we find ourselves spending money.
Indeed we should be afraid of modern advertisers. They exploit the nature of human mind, to manipulate us into decisions that are often not in our best interest.
Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs.
In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writing laws that suits his needs and stealing billions in "donations" from us. How is this possible? How was he elected in democracy? How is it possible that he has support of majority of people? Because he has very good PR, advertisement and propaganda team.
Anyone who hasnt seen "The Century of Self" documentary, please watch it, it will open your eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
Politicians then use advertisers to manipulate masses to ensure power for themselfs.
In my country people in last elections elected an Olygarch, multi billionair, who controls whole agriculture, all main media, medical and other industries and now he is writing laws that suits his needs and stealing billions in "donations" from us. How is this possible? How was he elected in democracy? How is it possible that he has support of majority of people? Because he has very good PR, advertisement and propaganda team.
Anyone who hasnt seen "The Century of Self" documentary, please watch it, it will open your eyes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s
This is why we need a participatory democracy [1], rather than a representative democracy.
Also, we need better ways to keep our leaders in check, i.e., more transparency.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
Also, we need better ways to keep our leaders in check, i.e., more transparency.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_democracy
I did a few research about voting methods and the best seems to be the Schulze method [1]. After reading its process I just saw that it is in fact widely used in Open Source projects!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#cite_note-Frenc...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method#cite_note-Frenc...
Lots of US states use ballot measures. They don't seem particularly hard to game in the same way elections can be gamed, especially when there are too many ballot measures for a typical citizen to filter through in detail.
You know, here at Brazil we are having some deep recent changes... And I just can not imagine anybody who could be interested in financing the mind-manipulating machine that would be creating this.
I'm still tending to think Huxley didn't have the full picture and populations still have some amount of free-will.
I'm still tending to think Huxley didn't have the full picture and populations still have some amount of free-will.
Another early prescient vision of thought-manufacturer and mind-manipulator culture, as well as a great read is the Frederick Pohl and Kornbluth story Gravy Planet, home of the great quote 'power ennobles, and absolute power ennobles absolutely'..
It's from the 50's but it's a shockingly accurate picture of our modern world with advanced propoganda, globalism etc .. and it's free here https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1952-08 .. enjoy :)
It's from the 50's but it's a shockingly accurate picture of our modern world with advanced propoganda, globalism etc .. and it's free here https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1952-08 .. enjoy :)
Comrade Huxley probably knew his history, and had in mind how a certain Octavian Augustus kept swearing left and right that the Republic was functioning entirely properly, and he was just the poor ass charged with too many jobs.
But republics always were the favorites of savvy aristocrats to keep their collegial rule. If one looks closely at the English state, there's a Republic there since the days of the Magna Carta, whatever way they dress it up. Many a "monarch" terminated with extreme prejudice when getting too big for his britches ;-)
But republics always were the favorites of savvy aristocrats to keep their collegial rule. If one looks closely at the English state, there's a Republic there since the days of the Magna Carta, whatever way they dress it up. Many a "monarch" terminated with extreme prejudice when getting too big for his britches ;-)
[deleted]
I really think the movie Idiocracy nailed the scary potential future of democracy. If elections continue and build on this trend of featuring reality tv show style candidates and media that lives off hyperbole, eventually we'll just start electing the most popular celebrities.
I don't think it's a trend. Besides Trump, who else would be part of this trend?
Arnold Schwarzenegger definitely owes his political success to his fame as an actor.
Ronald Reagan, Jesse Ventura, Arnold...
Al Franken, Sonny Bono, Fred Thompson, Jerry Springer (though in reverse)
Most politicians since the time of Andrew Jackson, in the US.
Sarah Palin
I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same.
I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions...
Having a majority of the population voting with the gut can lead us to disastrous results...
I'm in no way suggesting that one vote should be valued more than another one, but that people should be doing their homework and researching properly the benefits and consequences of their decisions...
Having a majority of the population voting with the gut can lead us to disastrous results...
The uneducated who cannot properly express their gut feelings in an intelligent manner have one day where they are equal to everyone and where they can escape from the tyranny of the experts and of the well researched individuals, who mistakenly think that they themselves act always within reason when that couldn't be further from the truth.
This election shows more than any other that people will bend the facts to fit their feelings. The well educated just have more tools at their disposal to lie to themselves about it. Everyone works primarily by their gut feelings and everyone rationalizes it after they've made their decisions internally and unconsciously.
If after this election you can't step back and see this then this is further proof to me that the system works and works well, because it keeps tyrannical well researched experts in check from their own irrationality. It's not an accident that an overwhelming majority of well educated experts who write the policies that drive a country support free trade and globalization, while real people who are not disconnected from the real world and who actually feel the effects of those policies do not.
This election shows more than any other that people will bend the facts to fit their feelings. The well educated just have more tools at their disposal to lie to themselves about it. Everyone works primarily by their gut feelings and everyone rationalizes it after they've made their decisions internally and unconsciously.
If after this election you can't step back and see this then this is further proof to me that the system works and works well, because it keeps tyrannical well researched experts in check from their own irrationality. It's not an accident that an overwhelming majority of well educated experts who write the policies that drive a country support free trade and globalization, while real people who are not disconnected from the real world and who actually feel the effects of those policies do not.
I think you misunderstand the point of democracy. Democracy is not a mechanism for selecting the best ruler or the wisest policies. Democracy serves as a solution for the succession problem without revolutions and civil war.
It is a mechanism that places the process, the system, above the ruler, and provides a strong and formal mechanism for replacing the old ruler with the new one.
Totalitarian states nearly always descend into chaos and violence when the dictator dies. Without clear succession rules, they rarely have an undisputed successor ready. Monarchies are historically more stable, but every so often a ruler dies without an undisputed heir, or one is such a blatantly bad ruler that civil war breaks out. Some dictatorships are able to maintain stability and prevent revolutions or civil war with more or less extreme repression.
Democracy is meant to solve all this. There is no need to take up arms against a bad king, if you know he or she will be replaced in 4 or 8 years. People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. Succession isn't disputed, because it's the system and not the ruler that chooses the successor.
Revolutions and civil wars are bad, they used to kill millions every other generation. The system we have maintains itself with minimal repression. So yes, one down side of democracy may be that people get to decide about issues they don't really understand. It's totally worth it.
It is a mechanism that places the process, the system, above the ruler, and provides a strong and formal mechanism for replacing the old ruler with the new one.
Totalitarian states nearly always descend into chaos and violence when the dictator dies. Without clear succession rules, they rarely have an undisputed successor ready. Monarchies are historically more stable, but every so often a ruler dies without an undisputed heir, or one is such a blatantly bad ruler that civil war breaks out. Some dictatorships are able to maintain stability and prevent revolutions or civil war with more or less extreme repression.
Democracy is meant to solve all this. There is no need to take up arms against a bad king, if you know he or she will be replaced in 4 or 8 years. People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy. Succession isn't disputed, because it's the system and not the ruler that chooses the successor.
Revolutions and civil wars are bad, they used to kill millions every other generation. The system we have maintains itself with minimal repression. So yes, one down side of democracy may be that people get to decide about issues they don't really understand. It's totally worth it.
> People who were at least consulted about the choice of ruler (in the form of elections) are less likely to dispute the ruler's legitimacy.
You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy!
I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Voting silences the minority, instead of integrating it. Voting is blunt. Stamping a paper every four years don't make someone involved or responsible for a country.
Another vice of the voting election system is that one candidate might have a foreign policy I like but an educational platform I hate. That would force me to pick which is more important for me, say, education or world politics. It's sad to choose between two things when both are essential. My political will is so poorly expressed such by kind of voting, it's as if I am only allowed to say part of what I wanted to say.
You say that like it's a good thing. Every 4 years we are called to legitimize the next crop of corrupt politicians sold to the financial interests. We can even choose who we like best between two corrupt candidates. Yay, democracy!
I don't think voting is the greatest thing. Voting silences the minority, instead of integrating it. Voting is blunt. Stamping a paper every four years don't make someone involved or responsible for a country.
Another vice of the voting election system is that one candidate might have a foreign policy I like but an educational platform I hate. That would force me to pick which is more important for me, say, education or world politics. It's sad to choose between two things when both are essential. My political will is so poorly expressed such by kind of voting, it's as if I am only allowed to say part of what I wanted to say.
You know what happens when a ruler's legitimacy is widely questioned. See the legitimacy question as separate from the question whether the ruler is popular or good. In the past armies have been raised against perfectly fine rulers whose legitimacy was questioned, and armies have been raised in defense of horrible tyrants whose legitimacy was not in doubt. My enthusiasm for representative democracy is that it has largely done away with these internal conflicts, without a need for repression.
The vices of voting that you mention are more an artifact of a first past the post, two party system: over time, any idea that has a plurality will get all of the influence. Any idea that never has a plurality will never have any influence.
In a system with proportional representation and a tradition of coalitions, over time, an idea that has 20% of the vote will gravitate towards about 20% of the influence. With many parties to choose from, the choice for your educational platform may not be automatically bundled with a choice for a foreign policy.
The vices of voting that you mention are more an artifact of a first past the post, two party system: over time, any idea that has a plurality will get all of the influence. Any idea that never has a plurality will never have any influence.
In a system with proportional representation and a tradition of coalitions, over time, an idea that has 20% of the vote will gravitate towards about 20% of the influence. With many parties to choose from, the choice for your educational platform may not be automatically bundled with a choice for a foreign policy.
Hm, I am not clear what you're suggesting. You don't want to value votes differently, so what do you want to do about those people who won't do their homework for some reason?
You should also note that in most democracies this is already accounted for. The people who feel they didn't do their homework simply do not vote, and leave the decision on others.
I lived in a communist country, and we had a system that was controlled by, ostensibly, the experts (the party members). It was a disaster.
In practice, democracy works; it doesn't work in theory, because you're wrongly comparing it to some fictional system which makes ideal decisions (whatever that is). It works in the U.S., it works in Switzerland. Those are some of the most developed countries in the world.
You should also note that in most democracies this is already accounted for. The people who feel they didn't do their homework simply do not vote, and leave the decision on others.
I lived in a communist country, and we had a system that was controlled by, ostensibly, the experts (the party members). It was a disaster.
In practice, democracy works; it doesn't work in theory, because you're wrongly comparing it to some fictional system which makes ideal decisions (whatever that is). It works in the U.S., it works in Switzerland. Those are some of the most developed countries in the world.
I am not an expert in decision-making processes, and I have not an idea of which process would work better, since I understand the big picture: We want to give every person the ability to express their needs with their vote.
I am just a concerned person, since most of the candidates spend too much time discrediting their opponents, rather than discussing about their proposals.
The electoral process had became a reality show rather than a mechanism to choose a representative, and it is saddening that people are picking a candidate because of a catchy slogan, rather than because of their proposals...
I am just a concerned person, since most of the candidates spend too much time discrediting their opponents, rather than discussing about their proposals.
The electoral process had became a reality show rather than a mechanism to choose a representative, and it is saddening that people are picking a candidate because of a catchy slogan, rather than because of their proposals...
The US Presidential elections are a curious thing, they're hardly about policies because presidents can't simply enact whatever laws they want. They aren't general elections as other countries have. Voters are basically selecting a figurehead who has some power, but not enough to really reshape the country as they see fit.
Given the relative pointlessness of the process is it surprising that it turns into a beauty/uglyness contest?
Given the relative pointlessness of the process is it surprising that it turns into a beauty/uglyness contest?
> I believe that democracy in theory is excellent, but in practice is a failure, not because of democracy per-se, but because a gut-feeling vote and a properly-researched vote count the same.
I don't like this line of reasoning, because I do believe the issue is much more fundamental: people want different things.
Now, there is an argument that if people do their research properly, they will have known all the consequences of their decisions. And hence everyone will have the same ordering of concerns from "most serious" to "meh". That's not true for the fact that consequences and the future are really really hard to predict. Not to mention that "what exactly are good things" is still very subjective. Look into philosophy, there are a gazillion moral frameworks, even if you just pick Utilitarianism, it's still unclear what constitutes "utility".
I don't like this line of reasoning, because I do believe the issue is much more fundamental: people want different things.
Now, there is an argument that if people do their research properly, they will have known all the consequences of their decisions. And hence everyone will have the same ordering of concerns from "most serious" to "meh". That's not true for the fact that consequences and the future are really really hard to predict. Not to mention that "what exactly are good things" is still very subjective. Look into philosophy, there are a gazillion moral frameworks, even if you just pick Utilitarianism, it's still unclear what constitutes "utility".
There are two perspectives on democracy. You can compare it to some ideal world that has never been, and easily see it falls short, by a lot.
Or you can look back on history, and look at countries who have done things differently, and realize it is by far the best system we have had.
If you want to live a full lifetime in peace and security and health. Be born in a democratic and capitalist country somewhere in the past 70 years, and you maximize that chance. Any other time and place and the chance of a good life drops quickly.
To other commenters in this thread, describing democracy or capitalism with words like "disastrous" or "complete failure" or "elite rule", please some perspective.
Or you can look back on history, and look at countries who have done things differently, and realize it is by far the best system we have had.
If you want to live a full lifetime in peace and security and health. Be born in a democratic and capitalist country somewhere in the past 70 years, and you maximize that chance. Any other time and place and the chance of a good life drops quickly.
To other commenters in this thread, describing democracy or capitalism with words like "disastrous" or "complete failure" or "elite rule", please some perspective.
When encountering a shortcoming of the world, there are two responses:
You can compare it to what has happened before and console yourself that of observed past histories, this situation ain't so bad.
Or you can imagine what has never been, and try to create a society better than has ever existed before.
There was once a time when democracy of modern form had never been tried, outside of some rugged mountain towns in the Alps, and yet those in the face of tyranny had the gall to try something new. Isn't that an example we should emulate?
You can compare it to what has happened before and console yourself that of observed past histories, this situation ain't so bad.
Or you can imagine what has never been, and try to create a society better than has ever existed before.
There was once a time when democracy of modern form had never been tried, outside of some rugged mountain towns in the Alps, and yet those in the face of tyranny had the gall to try something new. Isn't that an example we should emulate?
We do not have democracies because people had the "gall to try something new". We slowly grew into it because people demanded better and used opportunities to move us closer.
And this is what we should continue doing. In no way did my comment indicate we should just be quiet and think it is not so bad.
But at the same time, this is the best we ever had. Calling it a failure is like calling an olympic gold medallist the worst athlete in history. Even if this is the 1920 olympics and the times set there will be a laugh when compared to the 2020 olympics.
Someone with so little perspective will not be able to change the world for the better. "Imagine what has never been" does not do much unless it is well grounded in reality. (edit: "Someone" here was not directed at @kobeya, but to those refer to democracy/capitalism as failure)
And this is what we should continue doing. In no way did my comment indicate we should just be quiet and think it is not so bad.
But at the same time, this is the best we ever had. Calling it a failure is like calling an olympic gold medallist the worst athlete in history. Even if this is the 1920 olympics and the times set there will be a laugh when compared to the 2020 olympics.
Someone with so little perspective will not be able to change the world for the better. "Imagine what has never been" does not do much unless it is well grounded in reality. (edit: "Someone" here was not directed at @kobeya, but to those refer to democracy/capitalism as failure)
Failure does not mean "worst in history."
Failure simply means "my standards are higher than this."
There's nothing wrong with being so audacious as to have standards unmeetable by any past accomplishment. I call that a progress-oriented mindset.
Failure simply means "my standards are higher than this."
There's nothing wrong with being so audacious as to have standards unmeetable by any past accomplishment. I call that a progress-oriented mindset.
We haven't yet found a decision making process that works better than democracy, and a lot of people have tried. At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group. If it is a minority group, they are in a position of extreme moral hazard to funnel societies resources to their benefit and lock out change.
It is worth reflecting that, although a lot of people complain that people are 'voting for a slogan' or similar, there is evidence (mainly the outrageous success of democracies vs. non-democracies) that the average voter does actually have some idea what is going on.
It is also a subtle and interesting fact that if a large group of people are voting essentially randomly, then they will cancel out. In this way, a person voting with no thought for policy will probably cancel out another person voting with little thought. A 52-48 type margin can mean that 96% of the population had no idea, and the 4% that knew what was going on voted unanimously in favour. The point being that a vote can be sliced up theoretically so that ignorant voters have less influence than might be expected - and again, the practice of democracies suggests this tends to happen more often than intuition suggests.
Democracies throw out some cruel decisions, but that usually means the interests of the voters are being served rather than democracy failing.
It is worth reflecting that, although a lot of people complain that people are 'voting for a slogan' or similar, there is evidence (mainly the outrageous success of democracies vs. non-democracies) that the average voter does actually have some idea what is going on.
It is also a subtle and interesting fact that if a large group of people are voting essentially randomly, then they will cancel out. In this way, a person voting with no thought for policy will probably cancel out another person voting with little thought. A 52-48 type margin can mean that 96% of the population had no idea, and the 4% that knew what was going on voted unanimously in favour. The point being that a vote can be sliced up theoretically so that ignorant voters have less influence than might be expected - and again, the practice of democracies suggests this tends to happen more often than intuition suggests.
Democracies throw out some cruel decisions, but that usually means the interests of the voters are being served rather than democracy failing.
> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are. Either that person is the average voter, or it is a minority group.
You're quietly assuming a lot there. Let's stop after the first sentence -- "At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are." Ah! So you're proposing monarchy?
But no, you're not, because you then introduce the fictional "average voter", thereby fitting democracy into the "someone" framework.
I think this is a bad way of looking at it. Democracy isn't a "someone". Democracy is an aggregation mechanism. You contrast having everyone vote with only having a subset vote; but you don't question the assumption that the only aggregation mechanism is the standard sort of voting.
If you ask me, there's one aggregation mechanism that looks like it could actually improve upon democracy, and that's futarchy. Of course, it's untried. But the point is that there are more degrees of freedom here than you seem to realize.
You're quietly assuming a lot there. Let's stop after the first sentence -- "At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are." Ah! So you're proposing monarchy?
But no, you're not, because you then introduce the fictional "average voter", thereby fitting democracy into the "someone" framework.
I think this is a bad way of looking at it. Democracy isn't a "someone". Democracy is an aggregation mechanism. You contrast having everyone vote with only having a subset vote; but you don't question the assumption that the only aggregation mechanism is the standard sort of voting.
If you ask me, there's one aggregation mechanism that looks like it could actually improve upon democracy, and that's futarchy. Of course, it's untried. But the point is that there are more degrees of freedom here than you seem to realize.
Well, that futarchy replaces hired experts with a panel of future bets. Future bets aren't very reliable, but well, it's something that could be tried - who knows, it may work.
Anyway, on this context you are just begging the question. There's no novelty in there for the democratic process, just for the technocratical one.
Anyway, on this context you are just begging the question. There's no novelty in there for the democratic process, just for the technocratical one.
I mean, the point is that it's a different sort of aggregation mechanism. It's not one that makes sense for everything, though, so yes there is still a democratic component. Regardless, like I said, it's just an illustration -- there are other sorts of aggregation mechanisms one could use, that are more universally applicable. For instance, there's quadratic voting (not something I actually endorse, but an interesting idea). Again, this is just an illustration.
> At some point, someone has to evaluate how good or bad the decisions being made by the political apparatus are.
Technically true, but you're glossing over another way to approach this fact; we can reduce the number of "decisions being made by the political apparatus" as close to zero as practical.
Technically true, but you're glossing over another way to approach this fact; we can reduce the number of "decisions being made by the political apparatus" as close to zero as practical.
The decision as to how many decisions to make is itself a decision that must be evaluated somehow, at some point.
But yes, I tend to agree, but this entire thread is largely just a restatement of the last few hundred years of left wing/right wing thought. Minimal regulation, markets, voting, these are all traditionally right wing positions. Regulation of markets by small groups of experts, distrust of the population, the desire for elites to keep a check on the people, these are traditional left wing positions. There's not much new under the sun.
But yes, I tend to agree, but this entire thread is largely just a restatement of the last few hundred years of left wing/right wing thought. Minimal regulation, markets, voting, these are all traditionally right wing positions. Regulation of markets by small groups of experts, distrust of the population, the desire for elites to keep a check on the people, these are traditional left wing positions. There's not much new under the sun.
The part that struck me the most:
> We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege.
Some things never change.
> We have been so accustomed to hear from infancy eulogies of the wisdom which shaped our Constitution, praises of its perfection, hymns to its symmetry and strength, that to doubt its fullness of all excellence has come to sound like sacrilege.
Some things never change.
This, which is also ironic considering what happened in the late 1700's. No Government should ever program itself to be resilient to change. Such a thing is a virus, not a Government.
"Ok kids, we're going to play a game called 'I get a unique power but you can never take it away no matter what!' starting now!"
"Ok kids, we're going to play a game called 'I get a unique power but you can never take it away no matter what!' starting now!"
> Such a thing is a virus
A badly adapted one. Every virus that gives us real trouble does that because it changes.
A badly adapted one. Every virus that gives us real trouble does that because it changes.
This was published less than a month before the Civil War started.
add some more context, this NYT editorial was written a couple days before Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office (March 4th, 1861).
The states had already voted to secede (or not to) earlier in the year. The Confederates had even provisionally elected a president, Jefferson Davis, on February 18th. The secession crisis started after Abraham Lincoln was elected in November of 1860.
The nation really was falling apart, hence the lamentation of the republic being just a collection of states in the editorial.
The states had already voted to secede (or not to) earlier in the year. The Confederates had even provisionally elected a president, Jefferson Davis, on February 18th. The secession crisis started after Abraham Lincoln was elected in November of 1860.
The nation really was falling apart, hence the lamentation of the republic being just a collection of states in the editorial.
The author speaks about the "provincial" partisans that exist between states, cities, and areas of the Union as if it's the byproduct of a failing Democracy. He or she points specifically to the different ways laws are written and enforced, as one example.
This is, to me, perhaps one the strongest strengths of our Republic. Different ideas and values can be thrive in different areas at the same time, and we can test and experiment with what's true and right.
This is, to me, perhaps one the strongest strengths of our Republic. Different ideas and values can be thrive in different areas at the same time, and we can test and experiment with what's true and right.
[deleted]
The house has me concerned though. It seems too easy for a minority to overrule basic governmental functions.
Yes. Consider that attractive candidates get two and a half times as many votes as unattractive ones. Consider that most voters have very little or no knowledge of most policy and issues. Most voters can't name their representatives even. Most just blindly vote for one party or issue.
It's still better than nondemocratic systems I guess. But that's a terribly low bar to pass. That's not something to be proud of.
Everyone always says that it's the best system of government that has been tried. Well maybe we aren't trying hard enough! There are other systems, and here are a few that are my personal favorites.
My ideal system of government has no politicians. It forms a parliament or congress just like normal, but the representatives are sampled randomly from the population. Ideally they would be filtered for IQ or education, but this is optional. And then they would debate and vote on issues, without having party loyalty, and without having to pander to the general population. It's sort of like direct democracy, but the random sampling lets it scale to much larger populations.
I also really like the model of the supreme court. I have to say that every supreme court decision I've looked into, they seem remarkably rational and competent. They aren't perfect of course, but it seems so much better than congress. Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less biased by the time they retire.
I'm not sure how they accomplish this. My guess is the lifetime appointments, and the structure of the court being to debate issues extensively, and for the judges to at least try to weigh them objectively. I would love to try a system of government modelled after something like the Supreme court.
There is futarchy, proposed by Robin Hanson. The idea is to use prediction markets to make predictions about the future, like whether policies will actually work. Then voters can vote on values ('I approve of Brexit, conditional on it being predicted to increase median wages.') But they bet on beliefs.
Another idea I like is the "Ideological Turing Test". In this case representatives can vote on policy just like normal. But they have to pass a test that proves they fully understand the other side's point of view. By writing arguments for the other side of the argument, and blinded reviewers not being able to tell if it's authentic or not. This would be complicated to implement without people gaming the system, but I think it's worth a try.
There is also alternative voting systems. These are just small modifications of regular democracy. They modify the voting system so you can vote for third parties without being punished for splitting the vote.
It's still better than nondemocratic systems I guess. But that's a terribly low bar to pass. That's not something to be proud of.
Everyone always says that it's the best system of government that has been tried. Well maybe we aren't trying hard enough! There are other systems, and here are a few that are my personal favorites.
My ideal system of government has no politicians. It forms a parliament or congress just like normal, but the representatives are sampled randomly from the population. Ideally they would be filtered for IQ or education, but this is optional. And then they would debate and vote on issues, without having party loyalty, and without having to pander to the general population. It's sort of like direct democracy, but the random sampling lets it scale to much larger populations.
I also really like the model of the supreme court. I have to say that every supreme court decision I've looked into, they seem remarkably rational and competent. They aren't perfect of course, but it seems so much better than congress. Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less biased by the time they retire.
I'm not sure how they accomplish this. My guess is the lifetime appointments, and the structure of the court being to debate issues extensively, and for the judges to at least try to weigh them objectively. I would love to try a system of government modelled after something like the Supreme court.
There is futarchy, proposed by Robin Hanson. The idea is to use prediction markets to make predictions about the future, like whether policies will actually work. Then voters can vote on values ('I approve of Brexit, conditional on it being predicted to increase median wages.') But they bet on beliefs.
Another idea I like is the "Ideological Turing Test". In this case representatives can vote on policy just like normal. But they have to pass a test that proves they fully understand the other side's point of view. By writing arguments for the other side of the argument, and blinded reviewers not being able to tell if it's authentic or not. This would be complicated to implement without people gaming the system, but I think it's worth a try.
There is also alternative voting systems. These are just small modifications of regular democracy. They modify the voting system so you can vote for third parties without being punished for splitting the vote.
Statistics show that even biased judges tend to become much less biased by the time they retire.
Citation needed.
If judges were so great and neutral then why does the US have a collective fit any time one needs to be replaced? It's taken for granted that the judges are all extremely biased and the decision making of the court can be (and should be) swayed by selection of appointees.
Citation needed.
If judges were so great and neutral then why does the US have a collective fit any time one needs to be replaced? It's taken for granted that the judges are all extremely biased and the decision making of the court can be (and should be) swayed by selection of appointees.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/supreme-court-justices-g...
I never said that judges were perfectly unbiased, just that they tend to the same opinions over time. Republican nominated judges tend to look indistinguishable from democrat nominated judges by the time they retire.
I never said that judges were perfectly unbiased, just that they tend to the same opinions over time. Republican nominated judges tend to look indistinguishable from democrat nominated judges by the time they retire.
[deleted]
"51% of people want spin-up, 49% of people want spin-down, therefore we are going to be a spin-up only society". That right there is the problem with Democracy. Democracy finds controversy, but it does absolutely nothing about it. Since the majority side is always favored, there's no incentive to actually get past the disagreements; there's no incentive to grow. It's just about mindlessly acquiring votes.
Democracy provides useful data: which topics society agrees on, which topics they disagree on. For the ~51/49 (controversial) cases, instead of enlightening ourselves, we just blindly take the majority choice. This is not the way a scientific society should be approaching government.
Democracy provides useful data: which topics society agrees on, which topics they disagree on. For the ~51/49 (controversial) cases, instead of enlightening ourselves, we just blindly take the majority choice. This is not the way a scientific society should be approaching government.
couldn't up vote enough. Also almost all decisions are voted into without proper deliberations. If you don't like to deliberate, you are incompetent to be elected in the first place. Governments have been turning into for profit entities. And checks and balances being systematically side stepped.
Yes it is a failure, but everything else is even more of a failure. So we settled for a lesser failure.
Also "democracy as a failure" is a common trope that is used by those who perceive the election isn't going according to how they planned. "They are not voting the way I like, therefore democracy has failed" or if the election or polls go the expected way then "democracy and clear minds prevailed again!".
One interesting thing I found about the current election is the role the media plays. To control people in a dictatorship is easier, you just make criticism and dissent punishable, nationalize all the media and it is all simple and easy. In a Democracy controlling is a bit harder, but is still done over the media using sophisticated and not-so-sophisticated methods. Related to that my favorite quote so far comes from CNN's Chris Cuomo talking about the emails: "it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." It is as if, there was a tiny crack in the matrix and the underlying code was exposed for a moment.
Also "democracy as a failure" is a common trope that is used by those who perceive the election isn't going according to how they planned. "They are not voting the way I like, therefore democracy has failed" or if the election or polls go the expected way then "democracy and clear minds prevailed again!".
One interesting thing I found about the current election is the role the media plays. To control people in a dictatorship is easier, you just make criticism and dissent punishable, nationalize all the media and it is all simple and easy. In a Democracy controlling is a bit harder, but is still done over the media using sophisticated and not-so-sophisticated methods. Related to that my favorite quote so far comes from CNN's Chris Cuomo talking about the emails: "it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." It is as if, there was a tiny crack in the matrix and the underlying code was exposed for a moment.
About controlling people in a democracy, there's a great documentary, "Manufacturing consent" featuring Noam Chomsky.
See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_...
Seems to be available full-length on YouTube: [http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y](http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y)
See [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_Noam_...
Seems to be available full-length on YouTube: [http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y](http://youtu.be/YHa6NflkW3Y)
Good reference. I have the book as well!
The other book I like is "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion" by Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis
The other book I like is "Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion" by Elliot Aronson and Anthony Pratkanis
Democracy isn't a failure. Capitalism is. Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies, however liberal democracies are run by money. Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion. How can we claim to live in a democracy if the people we trust with developing legislation must filter everything they develop through the approval filter of an undemocratic, and unfairly powerful minority?
Fortunately we have options that aren't the failed states of the 20th century, we need a democratic economy and a democratic workforce. Those are the only solutions to this problem, and if you spend enough time looking at the problems and their causes, it becomes readily apparent why this is so.
Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. The problem is the structure on which modern democracy has been built.
Fortunately we have options that aren't the failed states of the 20th century, we need a democratic economy and a democratic workforce. Those are the only solutions to this problem, and if you spend enough time looking at the problems and their causes, it becomes readily apparent why this is so.
Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure. The problem is the structure on which modern democracy has been built.
They're complementary. A sibling thread on this article says that the problem with democracy is that votes based on a gut feeling that doesn't reflect reality count for the same as well-researched votes by experts with a full understanding of the consequences:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457
Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well. Conversely, capitalism introduces problems with inequality and forced servitude that democracy solves. Democratic government serves as a check on the ability of the economic winners to pull the ladder up after them and use their economic power to impose their will on the people.
This is behind much of the tension between big business vs. big government. You have two power structures (five, actually - the press, the military, and the academy form the other pillars) that work in opposition to each other, each according to different rules. I'd argue that the biggest problem facing America today is that business and government have gotten too cozy with each other while the press and the academy are getting eviscerated, which is letting them manipulate the voter through control of information.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878457
Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well. Conversely, capitalism introduces problems with inequality and forced servitude that democracy solves. Democratic government serves as a check on the ability of the economic winners to pull the ladder up after them and use their economic power to impose their will on the people.
This is behind much of the tension between big business vs. big government. You have two power structures (five, actually - the press, the military, and the academy form the other pillars) that work in opposition to each other, each according to different rules. I'd argue that the biggest problem facing America today is that business and government have gotten too cozy with each other while the press and the academy are getting eviscerated, which is letting them manipulate the voter through control of information.
>Capitalism solves this problem with bankruptcy & business failure. People whose beliefs are shown to be false lose their businesses and are forced to work for other people whose decisions turned out well.
And how often does this work in real life?
And how often does this work in real life?
Too often.
I think it's rather that big business swallowed everything else.
>Democracy is not a failure, if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.
Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life; the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
>I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life
Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected. Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others.
>The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time before progressivism was dominant.
Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say. Democracy allows us to make decisions that influence our own life, however we must obviously respect the fact that we live in a society with other people, and they must be respected. Beyond living in a vacuum, we have no real way to ensure absolute individual freedom, however a completely democratic society is one way of reconciling the thirst for individual freedom with the necessity of cooperation with others.
>The ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
This is absolutely a valid concern, which is why I believe in a rigid groundset of rules on which all laws and rules must comply (consitutions/bill of rights) which respect the rights and liberties of individuals to ensure they have maximum freedom with respect to other individuals in society. This isn't a groundbreaking idea, but I do believe we need to re-evaluate these approaches in a modern context, as most countries were established in a time before progressivism was dominant.
I've really become more and more for states' rights as time goes on. It's very clear that most states (especially rural states) fundamentally disagree with California, New York, and the other blue strongholds.
I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.
Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
In my mind, it would be an absolute travesty to allow the distant majority to vote for the destruction of the culture I grew up in.
I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.
Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
In my mind, it would be an absolute travesty to allow the distant majority to vote for the destruction of the culture I grew up in.
>> I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.
Yet you have moved to California? Can you hear the irony?
>> It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
You don't have. You just have to accept other people think differently and want different things to you.
Yet you have moved to California? Can you hear the irony?
>> It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
You don't have. You just have to accept other people think differently and want different things to you.
Yes, I accept that other people think differently than me. But that should not give the right for Californians to overthrow my community and my culture which exists thousands of miles away from California.
> "Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other."
How is diversity diametrically opposed to equal opportunity and hard work? From what I can see you can have all of the above without any issues.
How is diversity diametrically opposed to equal opportunity and hard work? From what I can see you can have all of the above without any issues.
>I want to preserve the culture I grew up in. I want everyone to contribute to society. I want a culture where what you get is what you worked for. I don't want "diversity" or a bunch of people from other countries to move to the town I grew up in.
>Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
Can you phrase your political philosophy in terms of real proposals rather than thought-terminating cliches? When I hear the term "value" or "values", I reach for my gun.
>Having moved to California from Iowa, I can totally understand how Californians value diversity and equality (not necessarily equal opportunity) above all else. But where I'm from, people value equal opportunity and hard work. It's very hard to see the merit in one culture, being from the other.
Can you phrase your political philosophy in terms of real proposals rather than thought-terminating cliches? When I hear the term "value" or "values", I reach for my gun.
Significant relaxation of federal power is the only way USA and Europe can be politically stable over the long run, but good luck getting people to let go of the idea of federalism.
How so? The general public in the USA and Europe seem fairly docile, we've had massive political scandals on both side of the Atlantic over the past couple of decades, and the general public barely reacts at all (in any meaningful way at least, in terms of organising resistance).
You don't think the political events of 2016 count?
Consider what might happen if Clinton win and more corruption scandals appear about her, or if Brexit is halted somehow. Things are getting less stable over time.
Consider what might happen if Clinton win and more corruption scandals appear about her, or if Brexit is halted somehow. Things are getting less stable over time.
Bills of rights don't address the problem of the majority voting to define crimes that suit themselves and punish the people who commit them, even if they're not very bad. For example, various drug and sex related laws that keep changing and we can never agree if something should be an important right to be supported or a crime to be punished.
Very true, but if you dig down at the root causes of drug dealing and sex trafficking, you'll see a definite profit motive which drives these systems, that is capitalists which monopolize these trades and continue them for profit. Drug cartels are a perfect example, and basically all organized crime. People who voluntarily participate in these systems (i.e. drug dealers and prostitutes) do so usually out of desperation and the necessity of a capitalist society where poverty means participate in shady pursuits (especially when you're alienated from the work force due to blacklisting like having gone to prison) or go hungry.
I am however not saying that a purely democratic society would eliminate all of societies ills, I'm saying it would make many of the constructs which perpetuate these sorts of problems would become non-viable.
I am however not saying that a purely democratic society would eliminate all of societies ills, I'm saying it would make many of the constructs which perpetuate these sorts of problems would become non-viable.
> Interesting, I'd disagree though. Say you live in a fascist society or a feudalist society, you get absolutely no say.
These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism).
Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the idea of futarchy, though it's untried. But that's not the point; the point is, there's a lot of degrees of freeom here.
These are hardly the only alternatives. In case you haven't noticed, the other people here aren't implicitly contrasting democracy with e.g. monarchy; they're implicitly contrasting it with anarchy (probably anarcho-capitalism).
Again, there's lots of possibilities out there. Personally I like the idea of futarchy, though it's untried. But that's not the point; the point is, there's a lot of degrees of freeom here.
Anarchy (and some of its branches) value very much the values of democracy, with the added benefits of stressing the search of compromise.
In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.
In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.
Isn't anarchocapitalism a contradiction in terms? Capitalism is perhaps the most statist of all forms of society. It's development coincided with the birth of the nation state. Markets have been a part of human societies since the birth of agriculturalism, but it was the state that created the large scale market systems required for capitalism to flourish. Historically markets were established in conquered areas to support standing armies. The same story for currency, which is introduced alongside the market as a means of tax payment levied upon the population by the conqueror; the army comes with the currency and the population has to acquire it through market transactions with them.
Schooling is another big one, the Karolingian expansion first instated it in Europe and around the time of the industrial revolution there was a clear need of schooling the peasantry into the new market driven systems, unifying disparate dialects, teaching basic arithmetics, making sure they can read instructions and do basic record keeping. It's around that time you see the establishment of new public institutions such as prisons and police for enforcing private property law, expansion of courts for arbitrage, the list goes on. Almost all of the foundations of capitalism were created by state power and coercion.
You're reasoning based on a name. Names are not necessarily accurate descriptions. From what I've read of theirs, it doesn't seem that anarcho-capitalism would support capitalism in the sense you describe.
Remember, "capitalism" is an overloaded term. Sometimes it means what you describe, and sometimes it means the free market. Make sure you know what sense it's being used in in a given context, or you can't have a meaningful discussion! In the case of anarcho-capitalism, it refers to the free market. (But even though that works out in this case, you really should be wary of reasoning based on names.)
Remember, "capitalism" is an overloaded term. Sometimes it means what you describe, and sometimes it means the free market. Make sure you know what sense it's being used in in a given context, or you can't have a meaningful discussion! In the case of anarcho-capitalism, it refers to the free market. (But even though that works out in this case, you really should be wary of reasoning based on names.)
>In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is merely feudalism, with some brainwashing for people to accept their fate. There's a reason some prominent anar-capitalists want to be differenciated from anarchists.
There's also a reason all anarchists want to be differentiated from ancaps ;)
There's also a reason all anarchists want to be differentiated from ancaps ;)
> Interesting, I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life;
Yep, but you have exact same right to control life of others, so things are balanced.
> the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
Constitution and court protects us from abuse, so don't worry about minorities in Constitutional Democracy.
Yep, but you have exact same right to control life of others, so things are balanced.
> the ability for the majority to gang up on a smaller group and impose laws which benefit the majority in lieu of the minority.
Constitution and court protects us from abuse, so don't worry about minorities in Constitutional Democracy.
I would interpret the predominant style of capitalism we have in the same way.
Centralisation of power is the issue, it doesn't matter if that centralised power is held by governments or by large corporations, the end result is a tilting of the playing field in favour of those with the most power.
Centralisation of power is the issue, it doesn't matter if that centralised power is held by governments or by large corporations, the end result is a tilting of the playing field in favour of those with the most power.
> I would interpret democracy as the ability for others to control my life
That's probably because you're thinking in terms of how things actually are, rather than in terms of vague emotions tacked onto political buzzwords. A classic mistake.
That's probably because you're thinking in terms of how things actually are, rather than in terms of vague emotions tacked onto political buzzwords. A classic mistake.
As a friend recently put it: "Late capitalism depends upon the endless differentiation of desire and the mediation of social recognition (upon which men depend, being social animals) through commodified signs, in order for consumption to continue at a rate which will maintain profit. This means, in principle, a bad infinity of 'lifestyles'. 'No two people identify in exactly the same way', to quote a recent trans propaganda piece. And note that I'm talking about actually existing capitalism, not an abstract or even real free market. I'm talking about the system as it actually exists."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/ber...
Why stubbornly claim capitalism is a failure when America is not capitalist? It is not laissez faire capitalism, like Chomsky says, it is a nanny state, where government bails out failed business. That is not capitalism.
Why stubbornly claim capitalism is a failure when America is not capitalist? It is not laissez faire capitalism, like Chomsky says, it is a nanny state, where government bails out failed business. That is not capitalism.
Au contraire it's just a matter of what definitions you are working with, and to many of us the US is the penultimate expression of the rule of capital over society -- capital-ism. The rule of capital. The rule of the interests of those who own capital.
Classical liberals and libertarians of course run with a different -- IMHO utopian -- definition of capitalism which puts the emphasis on the act of individuals trading goods with each other. From my perspective it's an ideological smoke screen which papers over the reality of the asymmetrical distribution of power that arises naturally out of the particular 'natural rights' of property that classical liberalism embraces. And they were embraced historically precisely because of that distribution of power -- during an era of expanding colonialism, imperialism, and enclosure.
To put it another way -- the US may not look like a textbook laissez-faire capitalist society that a Friedman, Hayek or Randian would advocate -- but the unjust power structure of the US and societies like it are what actual-existing capitalism _creates_. It is capitalists who rule, and capitalists who made it that way.
Classical liberals and libertarians of course run with a different -- IMHO utopian -- definition of capitalism which puts the emphasis on the act of individuals trading goods with each other. From my perspective it's an ideological smoke screen which papers over the reality of the asymmetrical distribution of power that arises naturally out of the particular 'natural rights' of property that classical liberalism embraces. And they were embraced historically precisely because of that distribution of power -- during an era of expanding colonialism, imperialism, and enclosure.
To put it another way -- the US may not look like a textbook laissez-faire capitalist society that a Friedman, Hayek or Randian would advocate -- but the unjust power structure of the US and societies like it are what actual-existing capitalism _creates_. It is capitalists who rule, and capitalists who made it that way.
Spot on! I believe the other term is 'crony capitalism' and this is too often confused with the natural desire of most of us to be able to freely trade goods and services (including our labor) with other people within an evolving independent legal system (national law & international agreements otherwise known as international law) that disallows criminal and unfair practices.
Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life.
What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.
What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.
> Democracy is not about having control of your own life. It is about a large group of other people having control over your life.
Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society).
>What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.
I fail to see how you could have an undemocratic voluntary society. I'd argue democracy is the backbone of a voluntary society.
Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society. There is no other system of decision making which even attempts to reconcile these two adversarial relationships (individual vs. society).
>What you are thinking about would be volunteerism/Non-aggressionism.
I fail to see how you could have an undemocratic voluntary society. I'd argue democracy is the backbone of a voluntary society.
> Democracy is about balancing individual freedom with the demands of living in society.
No it's not. Democracy does not inherently balance individual liberty with societal necessity. In fact, democracy says absolutely nothing about individual liberty or societal necessity at all. Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections. It is not anything else. It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
No it's not. Democracy does not inherently balance individual liberty with societal necessity. In fact, democracy says absolutely nothing about individual liberty or societal necessity at all. Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections. It is not anything else. It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
>Democracy is a form of government that holds regular public elections
Democracy is a group of people co-operating in a system through equal representation. This does not require a state apparatus or government.
>It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
Solely sufficient? Absolutely not, that's what I'm saying, but yes it is a necessary condition. It's is the sustinence on which liberty grows.
Democracy is a group of people co-operating in a system through equal representation. This does not require a state apparatus or government.
>It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
Solely sufficient? Absolutely not, that's what I'm saying, but yes it is a necessary condition. It's is the sustinence on which liberty grows.
>It might be argued that democracy is a necessary condition for liberty, but it is certainly not a sufficient one.
I think that's too strong. Some dictatorships have more liberty than some democracies. Democracy increases the odds of liberty immensely, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.
I think that's too strong. Some dictatorships have more liberty than some democracies. Democracy increases the odds of liberty immensely, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Democracy is voting. It is majority rules.
A voluntary system is basically the opposite. Every who wants to participate in something, can choose to do so. Or choose not too. You don't vote on what should be done, and then force everyone to go along with it.
Majority rules is force. You go along with the decision of the group or else. Whereas voluntaryism is zero force. No matter what the group decides, how many people vote for it, you never ever use force on anyone to make them go along with the group.
Thats fine if you think that using force is necessary for the greater good of making society better.
There are lots of good arguments for why the government threatening people with guns, in order to get them to pay taxes, for example, is needed in order to get anything done at all in society.
But don't dress it up in pretty words and call it "voluntary". Voluntary is the absence of force. It is the idea that no matter what I do, as long as I don't directly harm another people, noone should use force against me.
A voluntary system is basically the opposite. Every who wants to participate in something, can choose to do so. Or choose not too. You don't vote on what should be done, and then force everyone to go along with it.
Majority rules is force. You go along with the decision of the group or else. Whereas voluntaryism is zero force. No matter what the group decides, how many people vote for it, you never ever use force on anyone to make them go along with the group.
Thats fine if you think that using force is necessary for the greater good of making society better.
There are lots of good arguments for why the government threatening people with guns, in order to get them to pay taxes, for example, is needed in order to get anything done at all in society.
But don't dress it up in pretty words and call it "voluntary". Voluntary is the absence of force. It is the idea that no matter what I do, as long as I don't directly harm another people, noone should use force against me.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> we need a democratic economy
Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?
> a democratic workforce
"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"
> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.
That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.
Based on the fact that you're using a very new account, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some sort of incoherent troll bait. If not, this is a strong contender for the dumbest comment I've ever seen on HN; just slap the word "democratic" on random topics and pitch it as an alternative economic system, no further details required.
Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?
> a democratic workforce
"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"
> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.
That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.
Based on the fact that you're using a very new account, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is some sort of incoherent troll bait. If not, this is a strong contender for the dumbest comment I've ever seen on HN; just slap the word "democratic" on random topics and pitch it as an alternative economic system, no further details required.
>Ah, excellent idea. Put the same people who elected Clinton and Trump in charge of the most complicated emergent system in the world. What could go wrong?
The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system.
>"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"
You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.
>That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.
I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.
The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it? If you think the people decided on these two I'd say you misunderstand the process by which these two reached the forefront. A very small minority selected Clinton and stacked the odds in her favor for selection, as to the rise of Trump, I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system. Remember the individuals Trump was running against? Trumps a protest vote, and a terribly dangerous one at that. Choosing between three different people put on your plate by people you don't trust isn't a failing of democracy, it's a failing of the underlying system.
>"We voted for you to work on this cotton plantation, so get to it! We also have a democratic economy, so you don't need to worry about getting payed anymore!"
You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.
>That's interesting, because last time I checked I didn't control my life via a democracy.
I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.
> You fundamentally misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not proposing elected slavery, and truly fail to see how you reached that conclusion. I don't know what part of my pro-democracy comment implied I believe in forced labor, but I'm interested in hearing what process you went through in your mind to reach that point.
This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain.
(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)
This is an unproductive comment. If you say something and you aren't understood, the better response would be to explain.
(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)
A democratic economy is one where the workers control it through cooperation across industries, the form this takes is up to the workers in this theoretical system. An anarcho-syndicalist approach may work, a participatory economic approach may work, a socialist market system is possible (mutualism). Unfortunately I can't really explain more without getting into the nitty gritty which requires an understanding of socialism.
>(I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".)
One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".
One in which we workers are rid of all absentee bosses and run enterprises ourselves, democratically. Hence "democratic economy".
You understand that you are allowed to create such companies now, and they do exist? They don't appear to work much better, if at all better, than a traditional company. But you're free to join or start one if you think you'll like it better.
So... cooperatives?
Among other things, yes.
Would you care to elaborate on that?
Commons trusts would be another major pillar, and democratic confederations of localities. There are many non-capitalist types of institutions ready to use.
> non-capitalist types of institutions
Common trusts and co-ops are both "capitalist institutions". They both rely on private ownership and voluntary transactions. Not sure what you mean by "democratic confederations of localities".
Common trusts and co-ops are both "capitalist institutions". They both rely on private ownership and voluntary transactions. Not sure what you mean by "democratic confederations of localities".
To be fair, he means "capitalist" in a different sense than you do. If you take what he said but use a different interpretation of the words, of course nonsense will result.
But I do think that despite the above your underlying point is fundamentally correct here; both commons trusts and co-ops work perfectly well under existing rules. It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)
But I do think that despite the above your underlying point is fundamentally correct here; both commons trusts and co-ops work perfectly well under existing rules. It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)
> It sounds like, aside from the democratic confederations thing, what eli_gottlieb wants is not a different system of rules, but rather to kick the existing system into a different equlibrium. (It really seems like these socialist types tend not to distinguish between these...)
Well, I'd love to know where you draw the conceptual boundaries between systems. Lemme guess: it's only not-capitalism when the state controls everything?
Well, I'd love to know where you draw the conceptual boundaries between systems. Lemme guess: it's only not-capitalism when the state controls everything?
So, I'm a little confused here. You're listing individual points of what would be different, and what the overall intended effect would be (democratic control by workers), but I'm not seeing how this all fits together into a coherent system.
> I, for one, also have no idea what you might mean by a "democratic economy".
Co-ops, probably.
Co-ops, probably.
> The people that placed them on the frontstage already are in charge of it?
First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.
Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.
> I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system
You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!
> I'm not proposing elected slavery,
Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".
> I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.
Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that
> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.
There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.
First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.
Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton and rallied extremely hard against Trump. I don't blame them; Trump's policies are bad for trade. But let's not pretend that they're both some sort of globalist illuminati puppets or something.
> I'd say that's perfectly representative of the type of misdirected anger that rises out of repeated failings of the system
You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!
> I'm not proposing elected slavery,
Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".
> I'd say your ability to vote, and decide mutually with other people the form society takes is your life being controlled by democracy.
Besides this statement being more or less incoherent, it also doesn't have anything to do with your earlier statement that
> if you believe democracy is a failure, you're saying that your ability to control your own life is a failure.
There is no connection between the decisions I make for myself and the decisions imposed on me by the whims of a political majority.
>First off, there's no secret cabal of billionaires that's "in charge" of the economy. Let's dispense with the conspiracy theories.
Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence:
I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election?
>You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!
I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system.
>Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".
Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.
Not at all what I'm trying to say, I don't think there's a shady room where rich people come to smoke cigars and plan out the election, in fact you actually agree with what I'm saying in the very next sentence:
"Second, the group of people that has a disproportionate amount of economic influence (i.e. bankers and the extremely wealthy) generally supported Clinton"
I agree, which is why I said Trump was a protest vote, a naive attempt at hitting back at the system whilst still completely supporting it. I don't know how you think I'm sitting here talking about illumaniti when you demonstrably agree with me about capitalist influence on the election?
>You mean the sort of misdirected anger and other irrational motivations that would completely dictate the behavior of a "democratic economy"? Don't put your money where your mouth is; put someone else's money where your mouth is, and vote!
I don't think you know enough about a democratic economy to be attacking the idea, evidently since you're still believing that I think a democratic economy can exist in a capitalist system.
>Interesting, because that's the only meaningful interpretation of "democratic economy".
Then I think you're very poor at reasoning, can I suggest "The Conquest of Bread" it's a great book that might help you on your journey to understand what I'm saying.
Can you not type so much. Just define "democratic economy" in 1-2 sentences without using more undefined words (buzzwords).
A worker controlled economy. I don't really know what you consider buzzwords and not.
Undefined: A worker controlled economy.
It's really not definable in 2 sentences, there are so many different forms this can take. In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market, it's the workers directing the production based off of mutual cooperation across industries (note this doesn't mean no market, there are market socialist economies e.g. mutualism). That's it in very broad strokes but by no means an all encompassing definition, especially as the form this co-operation takes is left out of this discussion, and that is a very big part of it.
> In essence it's where rather than a capitalist system of a small minority directing the production based off the market
False premise. This is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. The bottom 90% of people have drastically more control over production than the top 10%. That's why the single richest company in the world, Apple, is a consumer products company.
> it's the workers directing the production
There's a very obvious conflict of interest there, because the workers aren't the only ones who have things that need to be produced. "You know, Ivan, making bread is really tedious; let's go back to making AK-47s instead." This is why if you go on Ebay and type "soviet surplus", you can still buy crates of Mosin Nagants and Nixie Tubes to this very day.
Planned economies are terrible at producing what needs to be produced, and excellent at overproducing things that don't. Whether you think market economies are impersonal or not, they are undoubtedly extremely efficient at meeting people's needs; no more, no less. Deviating from optimum production levels costs companies money.
False premise. This is simply not true in any way, shape, or form. The bottom 90% of people have drastically more control over production than the top 10%. That's why the single richest company in the world, Apple, is a consumer products company.
> it's the workers directing the production
There's a very obvious conflict of interest there, because the workers aren't the only ones who have things that need to be produced. "You know, Ivan, making bread is really tedious; let's go back to making AK-47s instead." This is why if you go on Ebay and type "soviet surplus", you can still buy crates of Mosin Nagants and Nixie Tubes to this very day.
Planned economies are terrible at producing what needs to be produced, and excellent at overproducing things that don't. Whether you think market economies are impersonal or not, they are undoubtedly extremely efficient at meeting people's needs; no more, no less. Deviating from optimum production levels costs companies money.
Why does anyone (minority/majority) have to control anyone ? Do you any problem with live and let live.
> Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion.
The problem is not minority. The problem is overreaching government. Keep government specific and small.
But your vindictive like attitude is what makes government overly powerful. Your "union-infested economy" solution is worse than what we are facing.
> Politicians are bought and sold, and we see an undemocratic group of very powerful individuals influencing legislation and pushing around politicians and manipulating public opinion.
The problem is not minority. The problem is overreaching government. Keep government specific and small.
But your vindictive like attitude is what makes government overly powerful. Your "union-infested economy" solution is worse than what we are facing.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by " a democratic economy"?
A worker controlled economy. Many different forms this could take, perhaps a syndicalist approach. Not state controlled, no central control.
Sounds like a lot of buzz words. Is there any papers or research you can provide links to to flush out the concept. Or maybe provide some insight yourself. There are millions of workers. How do they control the economy and coordinate? And syndicalist push in Europe and even the US is a proven failure of the idea.
Sure, Anarcho-Sydnicalism is a book by Rudolph Rocker the founder of anarcho syndicalism. For other approaches there's mutualism a market based approach, for that I'd see the works of Proudhon, Participatory Economics. There's also anarcho-communism. Here's some books that flesh out the ideas:
Participatory Economics: https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Alterna...
What is Mutualism? : https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/what-is-mutualis...
Anarcho-Syndicalism https://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20...
The Conquest of Bread (Anarcho-Communism): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c...
Participatory Economics: https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/Alterna...
What is Mutualism? : https://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/what-is-mutualis...
Anarcho-Syndicalism https://libcom.org/files/Rocker%20-%20Anarcho-Syndicalism%20...
The Conquest of Bread (Anarcho-Communism): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-c...
Capitalism vs socialist states. Could you define both ? In my experience it's just a sliding scale, either extreme is bad/non-optimal.
A socialist state is one which claims to be a transitional state between capitalism and socialism, i.e. the USSR. They're states which have nationalized most industries in order to prevent capitalists from seizing control until such time the state is no longer necessary and withers away into the establishment of a socialist society (some obvious flaws in this though). A capitalist state is essentially every other modern state, parliamentary democracies,republics etc. all with capitalism as the underlying economic system. Socialism is not state control.
capitalism is a failure because it destroyed earth.
> Now before you dismiss me, I'm not defending socialist states, they are far far worse than liberal democracies
The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US.
It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.
The countries with the highest quality of life are Social Democracies. Places like the nordic countries and the 'new world' anglo countries excluding the US.
It's bizarre just how much the US has demonised the concept of socialism in its political dialogue.
Social democracies are not socialist states, and I 100% agree, there is no way I'd be able to argue against capitalism without prefacing with that statement because everyone would immediately think I propose something like the USSR.
My point is more that it's not an either/or proposition. Social democracies have significant components each of democracy, socialism, and capitalism.
It actually is. Capitalism is defined by the ownership of private property and individuals selling their labor to these owners in the form of a wage/salary, whereas socialism is where private property has been abolished for some form of common ownership. They are mutually exclusive. Social democracies aren't socialist, they're strong welfare in a capitalist system.
So why did the Soviet Union have private housing (and the ability to inherit it)? Why does the modern USA have public lands, managed by the government for the free use of all? How do you classify Chinese communism?
It really isn't an either/or proposition; you're only taking the absolute extremes of the concepts. If it was such a proposition, where does the switch take place? At what point would a nation 'flip' from being 'socialist' to being 'capitalist'?
It really isn't an either/or proposition; you're only taking the absolute extremes of the concepts. If it was such a proposition, where does the switch take place? At what point would a nation 'flip' from being 'socialist' to being 'capitalist'?
Respectfully, I must point out that the countries you mention are also among the most homogenous societies on Earth, both ethnically and politically.
So, Australia, despite it's reputation, as of a few years ago, had 28% of it's population born overseas. Remove the brits (6%) and the kiwis (1%), and the figure becomes 21%. Compare to 14% for the US, and 12% for the UK (without any groups removed). The last few years, the #1 source of migrants was China. Australia also has only around the replacement birthrate, and yet has increased it's population from 19M in 1999 to 24M today - a figure mostly risen on the back of migration. I'm 43 years old; the White Australia Policy finished it's 20-year dismantling the year I was born, and so has been dead as a dodo for a while now.
Canada (20% foreign-born) and New Zealand (25% foreign-born) are in similar boats. However, your statement is also pretty offensive to kiwis, of whom 15% are of Maori stock - indeed, the relatively harmonious relations are rightfully a source of pride to the kiwis. Both of these countries also deal in bilingual politics (Australia does not).
I'm less knowledgable on the makeup of the Nordic countries, but it's worth pointing out that only two western democracies have a higher rate of immigration than Australia (excluding the year of Syria crisis migration). These countries are Spain and Norway. As for Sweden (usually the go-to country for these discussions), looking now, and excluding the Syria crisis, 14% of Swedes were of foreign birth, equivalent to the US, and two-thirds of these were born outside the EU. While, yes, Sweden doesn't have the latino or black analogues in their national background like the US does, they're not as culturally homogenous as most people think.
In short, I think you're talking about the stereotypes in your head rather than the actual nations. Handwaving it away with "meh, they're all the same in those countries" is an egregious error - after all, if what you're suggesting was true, then Portugal and Ireland (95%+ local-born, single culture) would be powerhouses.
Canada (20% foreign-born) and New Zealand (25% foreign-born) are in similar boats. However, your statement is also pretty offensive to kiwis, of whom 15% are of Maori stock - indeed, the relatively harmonious relations are rightfully a source of pride to the kiwis. Both of these countries also deal in bilingual politics (Australia does not).
I'm less knowledgable on the makeup of the Nordic countries, but it's worth pointing out that only two western democracies have a higher rate of immigration than Australia (excluding the year of Syria crisis migration). These countries are Spain and Norway. As for Sweden (usually the go-to country for these discussions), looking now, and excluding the Syria crisis, 14% of Swedes were of foreign birth, equivalent to the US, and two-thirds of these were born outside the EU. While, yes, Sweden doesn't have the latino or black analogues in their national background like the US does, they're not as culturally homogenous as most people think.
In short, I think you're talking about the stereotypes in your head rather than the actual nations. Handwaving it away with "meh, they're all the same in those countries" is an egregious error - after all, if what you're suggesting was true, then Portugal and Ireland (95%+ local-born, single culture) would be powerhouses.
They were homogeneous for centuries, then non-homogeneous for a few decades. Maybe it takes a few decades for the adverse effects of the non-homogeneity to become apparent.
(For clarity: I'm against Trump and voted against Brexit)
I'm so tired of this kind of thinking. It seems to come from people who don't have much contact with a good cross-section of society, such that they can maintain the illusion that things are fine, that (for example) Brexit or Trump was a stupid decision.
These decisions are actually democracy at work, in a positive sense. A large raft of society in the UK and the USA have been neglected, trod upon, bullied, and exploited for decades. And they have finally had the opportunity to kick back and they have taken that opportunity. It's destructive in one sense, but you have to consider that without precisely this kind of upset, no-one would pause to think about these people for a moment, and things would continue to get worse for them.
These people aren't racist (well, no more than those who voted the other way), they're not idiots, they're not some sort of cesspool of poorly educated fools, they are making an informed rational decision to kick back. They're furious. They want to be heard.
I think so many of my friends don't get it, because they don't realise that the vote for Brexit turned out that way precisely because it was designed to annoy them. If you don't get Trump, you don't get Brexit, chances are you are exactly the beneficiary of decades of globalisation and free trade, widening inequality, that have crushed the people below you. Try trading places with them and see how you feel then.
If you're not grasped this by now, you should definitely make an effort to broaden your social circles.
If you watch this video and think "wow, Michael Moore's lost it", then you have a long way to go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c
I'm so tired of this kind of thinking. It seems to come from people who don't have much contact with a good cross-section of society, such that they can maintain the illusion that things are fine, that (for example) Brexit or Trump was a stupid decision.
These decisions are actually democracy at work, in a positive sense. A large raft of society in the UK and the USA have been neglected, trod upon, bullied, and exploited for decades. And they have finally had the opportunity to kick back and they have taken that opportunity. It's destructive in one sense, but you have to consider that without precisely this kind of upset, no-one would pause to think about these people for a moment, and things would continue to get worse for them.
These people aren't racist (well, no more than those who voted the other way), they're not idiots, they're not some sort of cesspool of poorly educated fools, they are making an informed rational decision to kick back. They're furious. They want to be heard.
I think so many of my friends don't get it, because they don't realise that the vote for Brexit turned out that way precisely because it was designed to annoy them. If you don't get Trump, you don't get Brexit, chances are you are exactly the beneficiary of decades of globalisation and free trade, widening inequality, that have crushed the people below you. Try trading places with them and see how you feel then.
If you're not grasped this by now, you should definitely make an effort to broaden your social circles.
If you watch this video and think "wow, Michael Moore's lost it", then you have a long way to go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c
In democracy it's your vote that counts; In feudalism it's your count that votes.
http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/democracy/
Democracy isn't a failure, you just need a better voting system.
If people could rank their preferences then people like Bernie and Bloomberg would actually run without fear that they might "take away votes from Hillary" and therefore help Trump. In fact, the two-party syste would give way to something better. Only the party elites would NOT want this... but after this election, even they probably do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
If people could rank their preferences then people like Bernie and Bloomberg would actually run without fear that they might "take away votes from Hillary" and therefore help Trump. In fact, the two-party syste would give way to something better. Only the party elites would NOT want this... but after this election, even they probably do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
It's not a failure but democracy is about to be tested like no time before. With the ability for everyone to have a voice via social media single minded groups are easier than ever to create. As we have seen many of these groups are unwilling to compromise their ideas which makes it likely for chaos to erupt over any hot issues. We saw an example with the Arab spring and Occupy Wall Street. They erupted but yet have had no real results. Primarily because there was no real leadership behind it to move it forward. In many ways you can say that the revolution made matters worse.
When everyone is upset and there are many points of view there is no common way to move forward but there are many hot heads that are willing to shoot first and ask questions later. Imagine a million hot heads without a common goal but the willingness to fight and we can see chaos with out results.
People get upset at the "do nothing congress" because they can't get X done but people aren't willing to admit that the reason is that voters have sent individuals with very diverse ideas to try to get things done. Voters are the ones that are pushing them to not compromise any idea or be punished by being voted out. I can see a future where one person that can use social media very well can push people to vote in ways that we consider distasteful now. What will happen then? Groups will erupt with opposing view and many will be ready to fight.
We've heard allegations that the voting system is rigged but that's very unlikely. We have laws and watch dogs that prevent that in any significant way. We don't have the same for social media but we know that it's possible to manipulate it, even by foreign powers, and that's not illegal worse yet it's hard to impossible to prevent. It's hard to even contemplate how that effects a democratic system.
The founding father created a representative government because they knew that rule by majority can be as distasteful as government by a monarchy or emperor. They thought a functioning government needs representatives that can sort out what's needed. With everyone having a voice that's going to get extremely difficult. Social media is about to let the US test out its governmental system, lets hope it can pass the trouble ahead. Can the US stay together as a nation?
When everyone is upset and there are many points of view there is no common way to move forward but there are many hot heads that are willing to shoot first and ask questions later. Imagine a million hot heads without a common goal but the willingness to fight and we can see chaos with out results.
People get upset at the "do nothing congress" because they can't get X done but people aren't willing to admit that the reason is that voters have sent individuals with very diverse ideas to try to get things done. Voters are the ones that are pushing them to not compromise any idea or be punished by being voted out. I can see a future where one person that can use social media very well can push people to vote in ways that we consider distasteful now. What will happen then? Groups will erupt with opposing view and many will be ready to fight.
We've heard allegations that the voting system is rigged but that's very unlikely. We have laws and watch dogs that prevent that in any significant way. We don't have the same for social media but we know that it's possible to manipulate it, even by foreign powers, and that's not illegal worse yet it's hard to impossible to prevent. It's hard to even contemplate how that effects a democratic system.
The founding father created a representative government because they knew that rule by majority can be as distasteful as government by a monarchy or emperor. They thought a functioning government needs representatives that can sort out what's needed. With everyone having a voice that's going to get extremely difficult. Social media is about to let the US test out its governmental system, lets hope it can pass the trouble ahead. Can the US stay together as a nation?
Centralized democracy is indeed a complete failure.
I really hate an idea that minorities must live as majority wants. The assumption that majority is always smart and able to make wise decisions is completely wrong.
Unlike others, I actually think that some form of democracy exist even in authoritarian countries. I lived 22 years in Uzbekistan, then 9 years in Russia. I can say for sure that almost every dictator appeals to masses. Mediocre people (masses) is always their primary audience. For example, in Russia, tzar Putin perfectly represents mentality of majority of people in Russia. People actually love the style he speaks and acts. Dictator won't last long if he looses support from majority. I wrote about this here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-living-in-totalitarian-s...
(I was surprised this answer got a lot of upvotes)
Also, I noted that even when masses don't like their current government's ideology, they jump to another mediocre idea.
For example, the mob in Uzbekistan is attracted to radical islam as opposition to current secular dictatorship. So if current secular regime in Uzbekistan will fall, then masses choose to go back to 15th century as an alternative. The mob in Uzbekistan certainly won't choose liberal market economy with highly developed technology sector attracting international capital. The backward silly ideas of islamic clerics are much, much, much closer to the mob.
Another example, next after Putin'ism in the priority queue of ideologies in Russia are: communism, and right next after communism is national-socialism. So there are a lot of people who oppose Putin because he is not true communist or do not fully support national-socialism. Again, there is no "liberal market economy with highly developed technology sector attracting international capital" in their queue of ideas.
I can't even imagine the masses go to the streets demanding relaxing regulations for businesses, reducing government spending, attracting international capital.
I guess in US republican party is relatively popular because of religion. Remove strong support of religion in the GOP and after that their popularity will probably drop 10 times.
In Europe, masses a bit smarter than in Uzbekistan and Russia but still they are demanding nanny state, taking money from high earners.
I spent a lot of time and effort to escape poor government policies supported by masses. I born and lived in Uzbekistan, then moved to Russia, then to Sweden, then to the Netherlands. So I'm not afraid to say to entire society - "fk off, you are all wrong, I'm leaving!". I already did it 3 times!
For example, I left Sweden because of ridiculously high taxes and really big nanny state.
I see decentralized democracy as a solution. For example, I would support an idea of small federal government and pretty independent states. So that voters can vote for laws only in their states (with rare but inevitable exceptions). It would be competition between states and eventually people with certain ideas would concentrate in particular states. Some states would be more socialist, some more capitalist. Head of federal government should not be a single person but rather a group of persons from each party.
I think Switzerland is closest example to this.
In such country, you can easily move between states with different laws, taxes, ideologies. It's far easier than moving between countries if you are disagree with prevailing political sentiment (what I'm doing right now).
I really hate an idea that minorities must live as majority wants. The assumption that majority is always smart and able to make wise decisions is completely wrong.
Unlike others, I actually think that some form of democracy exist even in authoritarian countries. I lived 22 years in Uzbekistan, then 9 years in Russia. I can say for sure that almost every dictator appeals to masses. Mediocre people (masses) is always their primary audience. For example, in Russia, tzar Putin perfectly represents mentality of majority of people in Russia. People actually love the style he speaks and acts. Dictator won't last long if he looses support from majority. I wrote about this here:
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-living-in-totalitarian-s...
(I was surprised this answer got a lot of upvotes)
Also, I noted that even when masses don't like their current government's ideology, they jump to another mediocre idea.
For example, the mob in Uzbekistan is attracted to radical islam as opposition to current secular dictatorship. So if current secular regime in Uzbekistan will fall, then masses choose to go back to 15th century as an alternative. The mob in Uzbekistan certainly won't choose liberal market economy with highly developed technology sector attracting international capital. The backward silly ideas of islamic clerics are much, much, much closer to the mob.
Another example, next after Putin'ism in the priority queue of ideologies in Russia are: communism, and right next after communism is national-socialism. So there are a lot of people who oppose Putin because he is not true communist or do not fully support national-socialism. Again, there is no "liberal market economy with highly developed technology sector attracting international capital" in their queue of ideas.
I can't even imagine the masses go to the streets demanding relaxing regulations for businesses, reducing government spending, attracting international capital.
I guess in US republican party is relatively popular because of religion. Remove strong support of religion in the GOP and after that their popularity will probably drop 10 times.
In Europe, masses a bit smarter than in Uzbekistan and Russia but still they are demanding nanny state, taking money from high earners.
I spent a lot of time and effort to escape poor government policies supported by masses. I born and lived in Uzbekistan, then moved to Russia, then to Sweden, then to the Netherlands. So I'm not afraid to say to entire society - "fk off, you are all wrong, I'm leaving!". I already did it 3 times!
For example, I left Sweden because of ridiculously high taxes and really big nanny state.
I see decentralized democracy as a solution. For example, I would support an idea of small federal government and pretty independent states. So that voters can vote for laws only in their states (with rare but inevitable exceptions). It would be competition between states and eventually people with certain ideas would concentrate in particular states. Some states would be more socialist, some more capitalist. Head of federal government should not be a single person but rather a group of persons from each party.
I think Switzerland is closest example to this.
In such country, you can easily move between states with different laws, taxes, ideologies. It's far easier than moving between countries if you are disagree with prevailing political sentiment (what I'm doing right now).
+1 for decentralization
Switzerland is a working example https://fee.org/articles/the-secret-of-swiss-success-is-dece...
What I hope will take of is Seasteading http://www.seasteading.org/
Switzerland is a working example https://fee.org/articles/the-secret-of-swiss-success-is-dece...
What I hope will take of is Seasteading http://www.seasteading.org/
I think many people like the idea of decentralized in principle, but when the centralized power shares consequences for the decentralized mismanagement, people tend to get pissy (see EU financial crisis woes with Greece and friends, or USA state/municipal budget problems of past few years..).
Perhaps these are problems solved with policy though?
Maybe we should ask,
- is representative democracy a failure (in contrast with direct democracy[1])
- is a two-party system a failure (in contrast with a multiparty system[2])
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system
- is representative democracy a failure (in contrast with direct democracy[1])
- is a two-party system a failure (in contrast with a multiparty system[2])
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system
The success of democracy and its creations have stabilized dictatorships- a constant even small surplus in a economy where the human individual matters near nothing, keeps societys with a frozzen over public relatively stable for a long time.
Dictatorship is what came most natural to our animal ancestors, so we tend to rationalize it while condemning the "Zumutung der Komplexität".
But are they stable? Dictatorships tend to embrace the conservative point of view, which produces usually overpopulation, raging nationalists (the bottled up anger redirected against the guys next door) and religious fanatics. So if this economic surplus, aka innovation is not imported (or even more dangerous constantly produced)theey unravel rather fast, usually by the forces they called upon to stabilize.
There is no inbuilt re-juvenation without weapons. So every new App - any new product or production methode, disturbing the equilibrium, can blow up such a social powder keg.
The seperate problem usually associated with democracys, is that the fullfillment of all wishes in the wests way of life, is rather self-destructive on society. <Anecdata Begin> I have several couples i know who really looked forward to having grandkids, after raising (quite large) familys. And in the west this just doesent happen any more. Nothing more depressing then seeing those baby-boomers and there bottles all in tears about "What went wrong with there kids?" <Anecdata End> It doesent make the situation better, that democracys have a tendency to import large swaths of people from dictatorships - mostly for economic and sociological reasons.
Dictatorship is what came most natural to our animal ancestors, so we tend to rationalize it while condemning the "Zumutung der Komplexität".
But are they stable? Dictatorships tend to embrace the conservative point of view, which produces usually overpopulation, raging nationalists (the bottled up anger redirected against the guys next door) and religious fanatics. So if this economic surplus, aka innovation is not imported (or even more dangerous constantly produced)theey unravel rather fast, usually by the forces they called upon to stabilize.
There is no inbuilt re-juvenation without weapons. So every new App - any new product or production methode, disturbing the equilibrium, can blow up such a social powder keg.
The seperate problem usually associated with democracys, is that the fullfillment of all wishes in the wests way of life, is rather self-destructive on society. <Anecdata Begin> I have several couples i know who really looked forward to having grandkids, after raising (quite large) familys. And in the west this just doesent happen any more. Nothing more depressing then seeing those baby-boomers and there bottles all in tears about "What went wrong with there kids?" <Anecdata End> It doesent make the situation better, that democracys have a tendency to import large swaths of people from dictatorships - mostly for economic and sociological reasons.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
It's interesting to see that back then (I now checked that even before the Civil War period) the term United States of North America was used. To the history aficionados, was USNA more commonplace than USA? If so, when did USA become prevalent?
This may have been due to the brief existence of the Federal Republic of Central America[1] in the antebellum period, which was often called the United States of Central America[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_Am...
[2] If you play the Paradox Interactive video games Victoria or Victoria II, it is named the United States of Central America there as well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Republic_of_Central_Am...
[2] If you play the Paradox Interactive video games Victoria or Victoria II, it is named the United States of Central America there as well.
USA since at 1776, no contest:
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=United+States+...
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=United+States+...
Thanks, that's what I always thought, having found it always puzzling as "an American from Argentina" :) That's why I always surprised this usage in a NYT piece, and before: https://books.google.es/books?id=pVdDAQAAIAAJ .
[deleted]
The problem isn't democracy, it is the republic.
We have the technology to make congress obsolete.
We have the technology to make congress obsolete.
According "Democracy, god that failed" from Hans Herman Hoppe, it is failed miserably. He sees it even inferior to aristocratic monarchies with good reasons.
It never fails logging into a Hacker News thread near election season but to find commenters yearning for literacy tests.
Democracy and Capitalism are not a failure because they don't have better alternatives.
Is there a system of government that enjoys the most success? Just curious.
The bureaucratic dynasties under the Mandate of Heaven ruled for ~3,000 years in China, ~2100 BCE until 1912. Individual dynasties lasted for 100s of years, the longest, the Zhou, for 790 years from 1046 BC to 256 BC.
The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years.
Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to consider what those might be.
The English royal system has persisted with relatively little discontinuity from 1066 AD to present, some 950 years.
Unless you've other criteria for "success", in which case you might care to consider what those might be.
I'm not sure it is really accurate to lump 3000 years of Chinese history under a single political system. That would be roughly analogous to saying the the Egyptian political system was continuous from Thutmose to Cleopatra, because the ruler still called themselves Pharaoh. Or perhaps saying that the Western Roman Empire was continuous with the Franko-German Holy Roman Empire that followed it.
There are extensive periods of discontinuity intermixed there, whether it be fracture and civil war, invasion and synthesis with various steppe peoples, the taking on of Buddhist Chakravartin mantles, etc.
There are extensive periods of discontinuity intermixed there, whether it be fracture and civil war, invasion and synthesis with various steppe peoples, the taking on of Buddhist Chakravartin mantles, etc.
Actually, Egypt did come up when I was researching that question as another instance.
The Ship of Theseus is a profound question.
The Ship of Theseus is a profound question.
That's helpful. I'm curious to know of a system (like democracy) that is/was enjoyed by its people and if so, it's a success IMO. I incline to the view that democracy is the best form of government, although I cannot corroborate my own statement because my knowledge of politics is poor.
I have a similar inclination, though I strongly suspect a cultural and familiarity bias. I've been trying to go through the literature of political philosophy and dynamics, which is ... complicated. As with economics, a key point to remember is that virtually everyone writing on the topic (and most especially those who've been promoted to cultural consciousness) are promoting a model that benefits ... someone.
I've found William Ophuls to be an interesting point of entry. His topic is politics within a context of ecological limits, but he has classic training (he's strongly influenced by Plato), direct experience (positions in the US foreign service), and an excellent grasp on modern (mostly 20th & 21st century) thought on ecology, limits, and the interactions of these with polity. His bibliographies are excellent, and worth publishing on their own right. I'd recommend his 1977 Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity and his more recent Plato's Revenge. The former focuses more on the ecological case, the latter more on the questions (with very few answers suggested -- he's really exploring the problem space) of how you'd construct a polity, given environmental, psychological, and social limits.
I'm also starting to form some new thoughts on the role of religion as something of a social glue in vast empires over which communications might take weeks, months, or years, but in which a plausibly predictable level of trust would be found. Religion-as-trust-glue strikes me as a fundamental aspect. Curiously, instantaneous communications (and the monitoring and management that entails) allows for a near-total breakdown in such trust.
I've found William Ophuls to be an interesting point of entry. His topic is politics within a context of ecological limits, but he has classic training (he's strongly influenced by Plato), direct experience (positions in the US foreign service), and an excellent grasp on modern (mostly 20th & 21st century) thought on ecology, limits, and the interactions of these with polity. His bibliographies are excellent, and worth publishing on their own right. I'd recommend his 1977 Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity and his more recent Plato's Revenge. The former focuses more on the ecological case, the latter more on the questions (with very few answers suggested -- he's really exploring the problem space) of how you'd construct a polity, given environmental, psychological, and social limits.
I'm also starting to form some new thoughts on the role of religion as something of a social glue in vast empires over which communications might take weeks, months, or years, but in which a plausibly predictable level of trust would be found. Religion-as-trust-glue strikes me as a fundamental aspect. Curiously, instantaneous communications (and the monitoring and management that entails) allows for a near-total breakdown in such trust.
In a direct democracy, its citizens are the government and they've officials as their servants. My two cents :)
You have to define success.
If success is defined as social stability and wealth then there seems to be a direct correlation between localism+direct democracy and success, with Switzerland being the canonical example.
If success is defined as social stability and wealth then there seems to be a direct correlation between localism+direct democracy and success, with Switzerland being the canonical example.
Wow! Yes it's social stability and wealth. I know my wording was poor and/or ambiguous. I'm working and at the same time sneaking a glance at this discussion, so it shows that I can't multitask.
The bond holders seem to like it, so it'll probably stick around.
At least not in creating the illusion of choice for the individual.
does anyone know who the author of this is? I couldn't seem to find it on the article?
[deleted]
So article asks if the fundamental idea of democracy and republics are flawed, and concludes that we must impose a singular republic, without addressing those initial concerns. Good to know that the mentality of the North Eastern liberal hasn't changed since the civil war.
But I'd much rather have it than any system of forced social roles, where there is one person or small cabal of people who make the decisions and everyone else knows their job is simply to obey.