The Two-Party Swindle(lesswrong.com)
lesswrong.com
The Two-Party Swindle
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mg/the_twoparty_swindle/
58 comments
that was not a cornerstone of his argument in the least. I wouldn't even say it was a part of it at all.
How would you summarize his argument? Why did the title of the article refer to two parties?
Excellent article, as expected for an Eliezer Yudkowsky article.
One place where it leaves me hungry... what can we do about this very real problem? I understand that no single person can fix this all by themselves, but is there some kind of action that we can take, when the circumstances arise, that will help resolve this problem rather than help perpetuate it?
Edit: Additional note... this is one of the many reasons I like the Swiss system. We vote on issues separately from voting on people. This has its disadvantages, but at least it's direct democracy.
One place where it leaves me hungry... what can we do about this very real problem? I understand that no single person can fix this all by themselves, but is there some kind of action that we can take, when the circumstances arise, that will help resolve this problem rather than help perpetuate it?
Edit: Additional note... this is one of the many reasons I like the Swiss system. We vote on issues separately from voting on people. This has its disadvantages, but at least it's direct democracy.
Direct democracy does not solve the problem, see California. The Swiss cantons work well because they are small. Direct democracy does not scale.
One of the best ideas for reform I've heard is the idea of unpredictable elections, a la Venice. See: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect...
One of the best ideas for reform I've heard is the idea of unpredictable elections, a la Venice. See: http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2008/03/unpredictable-elect...
California is not quite a direct democracy. They have ballot propositions, yes, but they also have a legislature almost as bad as the NY legislature, and their state workers are completely unaccountable.
Arnold: Until the budget is sorted out, all state workers get minimum wage.
State workers: You can't do that. Besides, our computer are too old to handle paying minimum wage.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1132588.htm...
Arnold: Until the budget is sorted out, all state workers get minimum wage.
State workers: You can't do that. Besides, our computer are too old to handle paying minimum wage.
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1132588.htm...
Right, but the limited direct democracy they have does not seem to make better decisions than the legislature: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/myth_of_the_rat_...
Unpredictable elections look interesting but why do you support them? Is there any evidence that they perform well in any particular fashion?
They worked quite well in Venice. The Republic lasted 1,000 years, which is pretty impressive. The half-life of the typical represenative democracy seems to be about twenty years, so that's a big difference. Since Venice, unpredictable elections have never been tried. Most governments have been clones of either the British or American systems.
Historically speaking, the corruption and degradation of the system build up until the empire collapses on itself or is defeated in a war and has a foreign power rebuild their government. This has been written about a bunch, the earliest known piece I've read notes of was by Ibn Khaldun. Some of his work is outdated, being 800 years old, but there's some pretty incredibly insightful things in it. Worth a skim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah
This view of historiography goes back about two millenia years in China. A corrupt regime loses the "mandate of Heaven" and a new regime takes its place by conquest.
The same thing happens between the armies of nations. Nation A's army attacks the civilians and army of Nation B; Nation B's army attacks the civilians and army of Nation A. Even though they're fighting each other, the civilians on both sides are very similar to each other, and the war makes them all worse off through taxation and slaughter.
The armies are also very similar to each other, in values and in training, and very different from the civilian population. In fact, they probably trained together in joint exercises or at WHISC before the war.
If you slice the identities one way, the attacks by the armies on the civilians show that the armies are dangerous to the civilians, and therefore civilians should endeavor to eliminate armies, as did the people of the United States in the American Revolution, and as did the people of Costa Rica during the previous century. But of course the more common way to look at it is that the attacks by Nation A show the great necessity for the civilians of Nation B to support the army of Nation B, in order to deter and defend against attacks from Nation A, and vice versa.
So armies, as a class, whip up support for themselves by attacking and killing the civilians whose support they depend on.
And so today in Israel and Palestine, each nation has strong popular support for organized violence against civilians on the other side.
Of course, historically the connection between armies and governments is extremely close.
Is there a way out? Are the Costa Ricans in imminent danger of invasion due to their lack of armed forces? Having armed forces didn't seem to help the Salvadorans, the Guatemalans, or the Nicaraguans when the US funded terrorist campaigns against their people, didn't help the Panamanians or the Granadans when the US decided to invade them, and didn't help Guatemala when the United Fruit Company organized a coup. In fact, in most of those cases, the army acted against its own people.
But would Honduras have avoided the Football War if they had had no army? Or would they now be a province of El Salvador? Would Cuba be a territory of the US, like Puerto Rico? (And would Cubans be better off if they were?)
The armies are also very similar to each other, in values and in training, and very different from the civilian population. In fact, they probably trained together in joint exercises or at WHISC before the war.
If you slice the identities one way, the attacks by the armies on the civilians show that the armies are dangerous to the civilians, and therefore civilians should endeavor to eliminate armies, as did the people of the United States in the American Revolution, and as did the people of Costa Rica during the previous century. But of course the more common way to look at it is that the attacks by Nation A show the great necessity for the civilians of Nation B to support the army of Nation B, in order to deter and defend against attacks from Nation A, and vice versa.
So armies, as a class, whip up support for themselves by attacking and killing the civilians whose support they depend on.
And so today in Israel and Palestine, each nation has strong popular support for organized violence against civilians on the other side.
Of course, historically the connection between armies and governments is extremely close.
Is there a way out? Are the Costa Ricans in imminent danger of invasion due to their lack of armed forces? Having armed forces didn't seem to help the Salvadorans, the Guatemalans, or the Nicaraguans when the US funded terrorist campaigns against their people, didn't help the Panamanians or the Granadans when the US decided to invade them, and didn't help Guatemala when the United Fruit Company organized a coup. In fact, in most of those cases, the army acted against its own people.
But would Honduras have avoided the Football War if they had had no army? Or would they now be a province of El Salvador? Would Cuba be a territory of the US, like Puerto Rico? (And would Cubans be better off if they were?)
This was better than I expected. Everyone here is already aware of the two-party swindle (I hope), but the author describes it in a fresh way. He also explains some of the reasons it happens, for people who know the swindle exists but don't understand why.
Also, he rather subtly points out that we haven't actually dispatched of the idea of people being ruled by a separate class, contrary to what we're taught in school.
Also, he rather subtly points out that we haven't actually dispatched of the idea of people being ruled by a separate class, contrary to what we're taught in school.
Even calling it a "swindle" is an example of this phenomenon. Why does it necessarily have to be "the political elite"/"the ruling class" versus "the disenfranchised populous"?
I'm sure a huge number of politicians are very frustrated by many of the policies of their party and would like to diverge from them to a greater or lesser extent. They are constrained too.
Why can we not see this as an emergent phenomenon of a complex system, with little overall direction?
I'm sure a huge number of politicians are very frustrated by many of the policies of their party and would like to diverge from them to a greater or lesser extent. They are constrained too.
Why can we not see this as an emergent phenomenon of a complex system, with little overall direction?
That is how he presents it.
There doesn't have to be a conscious, collaborative effort by Your Politicians and Their Politicians to keep the Voters screaming at each other, so that they don't notice the increasing gap between the Voters and the Politicians. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It emerges from the interests of the individual politicians in getting you to identify with them instead of judging them.
He calls it a "swindle" because whatever reservations politicians have with their party, they all try to get you to identify with themselves.
There doesn't have to be a conscious, collaborative effort by Your Politicians and Their Politicians to keep the Voters screaming at each other, so that they don't notice the increasing gap between the Voters and the Politicians. There doesn't have to be a conspiracy. It emerges from the interests of the individual politicians in getting you to identify with them instead of judging them.
He calls it a "swindle" because whatever reservations politicians have with their party, they all try to get you to identify with themselves.
The author seems to blame the two-party system and the class divide between politicians and voters for the fact that nobody is shrinking the size of the government.
I have a much simpler explanation for this phenomenon: no substantial body of voters want smaller government.
The clique of libertarians who actually believe in "smaller government" and not simply "government taking less of my money in taxes and spending less on the things that I personally don't like" is substantial on the Web and among the intelligentsia, but not so much in the voting booth. Look at how poorly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.
I have a much simpler explanation for this phenomenon: no substantial body of voters want smaller government.
The clique of libertarians who actually believe in "smaller government" and not simply "government taking less of my money in taxes and spending less on the things that I personally don't like" is substantial on the Web and among the intelligentsia, but not so much in the voting booth. Look at how poorly Ron Paul did in the Republican primaries.
i have an even simpler explanation: most people think that increasing government size/scope will make their lives better.
These are the same people of whom 40% believe Elvis is alive!
These are the same people of whom 40% believe Elvis is alive!
I agree essentially with you but I don't think that's really why Ron Paul did so poorly. Ron Paul did poorly because he was always going to do poorly. He was kind of an older looking guy who said a lot of funny things and was kind of a curmudgeon.
Most people don't even know what libertarianism is or that he was one. Then many people who know he was a member of the Libertarian party don't really know the difference between those people and your garden variety Republican.
But you are right in that the majority of Americans aren't libertarians anyway. Most people (Republican, Democrat, "Independent," haha, whatever) actually do want the government to tell us what we can and can't put in our own bodies. Even the "Legalize Marijuana" people are somewhat hypocritical. They say "legalize pot, it's not as bad or heroin."
Oddly enough, most Republicans (the old white guys) actually want social security, which you would think they would view as anathema communist propaganda.
American politics are very strange.
Most people don't even know what libertarianism is or that he was one. Then many people who know he was a member of the Libertarian party don't really know the difference between those people and your garden variety Republican.
But you are right in that the majority of Americans aren't libertarians anyway. Most people (Republican, Democrat, "Independent," haha, whatever) actually do want the government to tell us what we can and can't put in our own bodies. Even the "Legalize Marijuana" people are somewhat hypocritical. They say "legalize pot, it's not as bad or heroin."
Oddly enough, most Republicans (the old white guys) actually want social security, which you would think they would view as anathema communist propaganda.
American politics are very strange.
Ironically, the Founders didn't expect a role for political parties and most were concerned with their rise.
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the Spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose--and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume."
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address to the people of the United States, Sep. 17, 1796
"There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the Spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true--and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favour, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose--and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume."
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address to the people of the United States, Sep. 17, 1796
At one point, I started making a list of all the decisions politicians could make and change about the way governments were run. I came up with over 100 items, very quickly. The Democrats and Republicans both didn't address and were in implicit agreement on some 95 of those 100 things, despite the fact that some of them are really ugly. For instance, the exclusive rights to the television broadcast spectrum are sold without auction for $100,000 per year to NBC, CBS, and ABC, and estimates have placed the worth of those rights over a billion dollars per year.
This made me sad.
This made me sad.
For instance, the exclusive rights to the television broadcast spectrum are sold without auction for $100,000 per year to NBC, CBS, and ABC
Source please. I don't believe you.
Source please. I don't believe you.
> For instance, the exclusive rights to the television broadcast spectrum are sold without auction for $100,000 per year to NBC, CBS, and ABC, and estimates have placed the worth of those rights over a billion dollars per year.
The "old" (VHF and UHF) broadcast frequencies were given to the various stations without any fees whatsoever, I believe. Each broadcast station has to pay a $170 (sic) license renewal fee every couple of years. Those frequency allocations are going away, being reclaimed by the government in the digital TV transition. Some of the old TV frequencies have already been auctioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_MHz_wireless_spectrum_aucti...
Many of the digital TV frequencies (which are in the same area as the old VHF and lower UHF frequencies) have been given to the existing TV stations free of charge. These would have been worth a great deal of money if sold or leased, as you can see from the 700MHz auction above.
So it's actually somewhat worse than the original poster says, in that there's no $100,000 collected.
The "old" (VHF and UHF) broadcast frequencies were given to the various stations without any fees whatsoever, I believe. Each broadcast station has to pay a $170 (sic) license renewal fee every couple of years. Those frequency allocations are going away, being reclaimed by the government in the digital TV transition. Some of the old TV frequencies have already been auctioned:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/700_MHz_wireless_spectrum_aucti...
Many of the digital TV frequencies (which are in the same area as the old VHF and lower UHF frequencies) have been given to the existing TV stations free of charge. These would have been worth a great deal of money if sold or leased, as you can see from the 700MHz auction above.
So it's actually somewhat worse than the original poster says, in that there's no $100,000 collected.
The "old" (VHF and UHF) broadcast frequencies were given to the various stations without any fees whatsoever, I believe. Each broadcast station has to pay a $170 (sic) license renewal fee every couple of years.
Look, I'm really sorry for being such a boring no-fun dude, but... please source this statement.
Look, I'm really sorry for being such a boring no-fun dude, but... please source this statement.
It's hard to find actual data on this. Here are the radio licensing fees, most seem to be in the $500 to $5000 range.
http://www.fcc.gov/fees/am_fm_2008.pdf
This page suggests TV broadcast license fees up to ~$70,000, but it's not at all clear to me whether it applies to the major networks:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284863...
http://www.fcc.gov/fees/am_fm_2008.pdf
This page suggests TV broadcast license fees up to ~$70,000, but it's not at all clear to me whether it applies to the major networks:
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284863...
This page suggests TV broadcast license fees up to ~$70,000
Yeah, for each Nielsen Designated Market Area. The US is divided into 210 of those.
Are we confused, or are "lionhearted" and "jellicle" liars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_...
Yeah, for each Nielsen Designated Market Area. The US is divided into 210 of those.
Are we confused, or are "lionhearted" and "jellicle" liars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_stations_in_...
This is good -- Eliezer? How come it took so long for this to get on the board? Great article.
I thought this at first was a politics article, but for me, at least, it's a much more practical one. Let me explain.
Working with large corporations, I've found that this is not restricted to sports or politics. It happens between divisions, between business groups -- even between cliques of programmers on the same team. Politics is the ultimate generalization of the problem, but it's a much more practical and immediate matter.
I guess that's why I've never understood the fear of talking about politics on HN. Heck -- you guys do it all the time. Every time there's an Apple vs. Microsoft thread, or a Twitter vs. Blogging thread, or a functional programming vs. imperative programming thread -- this is the same thing. It's amazing people can't see it. You identify with a product, a brand, a group of people, and then suddenly it's us versus them. We have our experts, our slogans, our information sources. They have theirs. We can argue for years and never do more than talking past each other, because we've never generalized the type of discussion we are having and worked at the meta level.
Where I think politics is more interesting is that positions change month by month. That means that political party X may support something this month and be against it the next month. In effect, it's a critical thinking test -- can you identify your own bias? Because if you were arguing for something last month and are arguing against the same thing this month, you might be identifying more with a group that ideas. It's much easier to spot this when the positions keep changing, which makes a discussion of politics useful for detecting personal bias.
BTW, it's also a quick test for thinking about other things too. If you're meeting with a new person and they seem stuck on some political party thing, you can bet they're going to be group-identifying with a lot of other things as well. Different people have different levels of the need-to-identify. We all know the worst ones: the people with bumper stickers all over their car, various flag pins or whatever on their clothes, a rabid sports fan and a sticking-to-a-political-party-no-matter-what attitude.
Solutions to the two-party swindle? Term limits (to prevent camping out in office) Expiration limits for laws (to prevent get-what-you-can-now-attitude). Some sort of push for a multi-party system.
Oddly enough, in the US at least the thought was that it would end up being a dynamic system with small groups taking various positions and coalitions changing over time. Instead that's not how it worked out.
Solutions to the group-identification problem? Simple. Learn to talk about tough topics with each other.
I thought this at first was a politics article, but for me, at least, it's a much more practical one. Let me explain.
Working with large corporations, I've found that this is not restricted to sports or politics. It happens between divisions, between business groups -- even between cliques of programmers on the same team. Politics is the ultimate generalization of the problem, but it's a much more practical and immediate matter.
I guess that's why I've never understood the fear of talking about politics on HN. Heck -- you guys do it all the time. Every time there's an Apple vs. Microsoft thread, or a Twitter vs. Blogging thread, or a functional programming vs. imperative programming thread -- this is the same thing. It's amazing people can't see it. You identify with a product, a brand, a group of people, and then suddenly it's us versus them. We have our experts, our slogans, our information sources. They have theirs. We can argue for years and never do more than talking past each other, because we've never generalized the type of discussion we are having and worked at the meta level.
Where I think politics is more interesting is that positions change month by month. That means that political party X may support something this month and be against it the next month. In effect, it's a critical thinking test -- can you identify your own bias? Because if you were arguing for something last month and are arguing against the same thing this month, you might be identifying more with a group that ideas. It's much easier to spot this when the positions keep changing, which makes a discussion of politics useful for detecting personal bias.
BTW, it's also a quick test for thinking about other things too. If you're meeting with a new person and they seem stuck on some political party thing, you can bet they're going to be group-identifying with a lot of other things as well. Different people have different levels of the need-to-identify. We all know the worst ones: the people with bumper stickers all over their car, various flag pins or whatever on their clothes, a rabid sports fan and a sticking-to-a-political-party-no-matter-what attitude.
Solutions to the two-party swindle? Term limits (to prevent camping out in office) Expiration limits for laws (to prevent get-what-you-can-now-attitude). Some sort of push for a multi-party system.
Oddly enough, in the US at least the thought was that it would end up being a dynamic system with small groups taking various positions and coalitions changing over time. Instead that's not how it worked out.
Solutions to the group-identification problem? Simple. Learn to talk about tough topics with each other.
Ah, a thought-provoking comment.
> Solutions to the group-identification problem? Simple. Learn to talk about tough topics with each other.
A fine idea. It gets tricky, however, because there is a difference between an individual learning and a group learning.
Say you and I learn to have a reasonable discussion. That's great, as long as we are alone in a room together. But put us in a crowd with an open mic, and even if 99% of the crowd are mostly reasonable people, the remaining 1% can still wreck the discussion. Especially because there is maybe another 5% that can easily get their emotions aroused by the loony 1%. That, I think, is why there is a fear of political discussion on HN.
Then, of course, there is the question of what to do about it. HN has made a start; it's clearly one of the calmer places to have a public discussion on the net. However, I rather doubt that opening up HN to political discussion would work well. Sad ....
> Solutions to the group-identification problem? Simple. Learn to talk about tough topics with each other.
A fine idea. It gets tricky, however, because there is a difference between an individual learning and a group learning.
Say you and I learn to have a reasonable discussion. That's great, as long as we are alone in a room together. But put us in a crowd with an open mic, and even if 99% of the crowd are mostly reasonable people, the remaining 1% can still wreck the discussion. Especially because there is maybe another 5% that can easily get their emotions aroused by the loony 1%. That, I think, is why there is a fear of political discussion on HN.
Then, of course, there is the question of what to do about it. HN has made a start; it's clearly one of the calmer places to have a public discussion on the net. However, I rather doubt that opening up HN to political discussion would work well. Sad ....
Call me a believer in technology. I think this is a technical problem and not an insurmountable one.
I also think it's the most important social problem facing technologists today: how to dynamically and vigorously mix ideas on the internet without chaos.
I also think it's the most important social problem facing technologists today: how to dynamically and vigorously mix ideas on the internet without chaos.
I don't think it is that kind of a technical problem. These are like fundamental issues in human interaction. I don't think you can solve this problem by coming up with a clever online community or interesting way of visualizing data.
But isn't the entire premise of representative democracy is that you can have highly emotional factions and yet still have a productive conversation given the appropriate framework? Aren't there lots of examples of teams with highly divergent personalities and opinions that still manage to perform? In fact, aren't those some of the highest performing teams?
In Hollywood there's a concept called "creative tension". You can look at it as meaning "he's a jerk to work with" but there's a deeper meaning: from wildly divergent creative styles comes the best product. As long as you can set up the framework for productivity.
In Hollywood there's a concept called "creative tension". You can look at it as meaning "he's a jerk to work with" but there's a deeper meaning: from wildly divergent creative styles comes the best product. As long as you can set up the framework for productivity.
I'm not sure that the entire premise of "representative democracy" is that you can have highly emotional factions and yet still ahve a productive conversation ... I'm not sure where that language derives.I think it's not that complicated: a representative democracy is simply democracy less a people's majority rule.
Part of the problem is the most people aren't very smart, certainly not smart enough to run a government or think about issues in sane or at least non-simplistic terms.
As far as teams that have divergent personalities but still manage to perform, it depends on what you mean. There's a lot of factors there.
My point was that there is probaby not some technology (at least non-invase/non-mind-altering) that can solve problems of "group-think" or "us vs them" or whatever kinds of problems. Even if you just look at how religion affects politics, with the fairly reasonable assumption that you aren't going to get rid of it, it seems hard to see how you would construct a technology to solve such problems. I don't know what that would mean, really.
Part of the problem is the most people aren't very smart, certainly not smart enough to run a government or think about issues in sane or at least non-simplistic terms.
As far as teams that have divergent personalities but still manage to perform, it depends on what you mean. There's a lot of factors there.
My point was that there is probaby not some technology (at least non-invase/non-mind-altering) that can solve problems of "group-think" or "us vs them" or whatever kinds of problems. Even if you just look at how religion affects politics, with the fairly reasonable assumption that you aren't going to get rid of it, it seems hard to see how you would construct a technology to solve such problems. I don't know what that would mean, really.
Fascinating comment.
Part of the problem is the most people aren't very smart, certainly not smart enough to run a government or think about issues in sane or at least non-simplistic terms.
Then why do people have the ability to vote? That's my point: from simple people complex systems form and operate. To say that people are not smart enough to run their own affairs is quite interesting. I'm not sure how to reply to that.
But switching to the technology side, with the internet we already have some examples of voting and filtering in action. For instance, there are probably a thousand bad, emotional blog entries for each one that gets upvoted on HN. It's just a matter of appropriate filtering and selection criteria.
Let's suppose instead of voting items up or down we categorize them by how they emotionally affect the reader. Over time, the system could provide an appropriate mix of interesting, insightful, and sometimes maddening material for me to consume. My "tolerance level" would be determined by how emotionally I responded to certain stimulus. The system would keep things emotional, but not so much as to not have a cohesive discussion.
That's a broad outline of one solution. There are others.
Part of the problem is the most people aren't very smart, certainly not smart enough to run a government or think about issues in sane or at least non-simplistic terms.
Then why do people have the ability to vote? That's my point: from simple people complex systems form and operate. To say that people are not smart enough to run their own affairs is quite interesting. I'm not sure how to reply to that.
But switching to the technology side, with the internet we already have some examples of voting and filtering in action. For instance, there are probably a thousand bad, emotional blog entries for each one that gets upvoted on HN. It's just a matter of appropriate filtering and selection criteria.
Let's suppose instead of voting items up or down we categorize them by how they emotionally affect the reader. Over time, the system could provide an appropriate mix of interesting, insightful, and sometimes maddening material for me to consume. My "tolerance level" would be determined by how emotionally I responded to certain stimulus. The system would keep things emotional, but not so much as to not have a cohesive discussion.
That's a broad outline of one solution. There are others.
To say that people are not smart enough to run their own affairs is quite interesting. I'm not sure how to reply to that.
Say we converted social news sites into voting platforms. Would you rather be ruled be Hacker News or Digg?
Votes are power, not freedom. I believe the average person is smart enough to run his own affairs. I do not believe the average person is smart enough to run my affairs.
Say we converted social news sites into voting platforms. Would you rather be ruled be Hacker News or Digg?
Votes are power, not freedom. I believe the average person is smart enough to run his own affairs. I do not believe the average person is smart enough to run my affairs.
"I believe the average person is smart enough to run his own affairs. I do not believe the average person is smart enough to run my affairs."
Neither do I. And I don't believe it is a matter of smarts. I don't believe anybody should run my affairs, smart or not.
But that's a structural question: the limits of voting power. Can the majority force the minority into slavery? Can the majority overtax the minority? Etc. All great structural questions.
Or to put it in a non-political venue: should database designers have final say over persistence mechanisms on a team? Should teams vote to decide what they can accomplish by a milestone or should a few decide?
Neither do I. And I don't believe it is a matter of smarts. I don't believe anybody should run my affairs, smart or not.
But that's a structural question: the limits of voting power. Can the majority force the minority into slavery? Can the majority overtax the minority? Etc. All great structural questions.
Or to put it in a non-political venue: should database designers have final say over persistence mechanisms on a team? Should teams vote to decide what they can accomplish by a milestone or should a few decide?
Within a territory, you'll always have one actor who is the ultimate arbiter - ie, the government. Ideally, that government would be a neutral judge who simply enforces common law, and not a meddlesome theocrat who tells me how to live. But what selection process is most likely to result in arbiter that pleases you? Selection by Hacker News, or selection by Digg?
People have the ability to vote because other people who formed the governments those people live under thought it would it be a good thing to let them vote. I'm not sure what you mean exactly.
I don't think you can go from "many people aren't smart but can vote therefore the complexity of government arises from simple constituents (pun intended)." Those people can vote other people into a well established government with machinery of bureacracy dating back hundreds of years.
I think that is overstating and reading too much into what is happening. It does sound nice, I agree. However, giving people choices in terms of people who are collectively able to join and continue the machinery, say, the bureacracy of the U.S. government and maintain a semblance of the status quo is not really akin to some phenomena in which simple components combine to form complex systems.
In the case of the U.S. government, there is such a long standing set of machinery that is never really seen by the voter in the capacity of voting that the government is really sort of a machine that runs regardless of the officials in office and so forth. Note, this is not the same thing as saying "there is no difference between the two parties." It's just that, for the most part, over the course of time certain things have been established thus the wheels of government continue to run without regard to voters. If the entire state of Maine decided not to go out and vote on Presidential Election day, the mail would still run.
Anyway, to you're other point. It seems like you're trying to argue that humans are so malleable that you can change courses of history or foundationally change the way humans deal with eachother by changing how they consume news or other information, presentationally (i.e. not thought-control devices in their brains).
I don't think people are necessarily that malleable or that one-side they would, on the whole, choose to be mindless consumers getting information only from your Suggest-a-tron machine. What happens if they decide to actually talk to each other directly without intervention? Wouldn't that interfere with the mind training program? Also, I'm not sure about all this emotional stuff you're talking about.
I don't think you can go from "many people aren't smart but can vote therefore the complexity of government arises from simple constituents (pun intended)." Those people can vote other people into a well established government with machinery of bureacracy dating back hundreds of years.
I think that is overstating and reading too much into what is happening. It does sound nice, I agree. However, giving people choices in terms of people who are collectively able to join and continue the machinery, say, the bureacracy of the U.S. government and maintain a semblance of the status quo is not really akin to some phenomena in which simple components combine to form complex systems.
In the case of the U.S. government, there is such a long standing set of machinery that is never really seen by the voter in the capacity of voting that the government is really sort of a machine that runs regardless of the officials in office and so forth. Note, this is not the same thing as saying "there is no difference between the two parties." It's just that, for the most part, over the course of time certain things have been established thus the wheels of government continue to run without regard to voters. If the entire state of Maine decided not to go out and vote on Presidential Election day, the mail would still run.
Anyway, to you're other point. It seems like you're trying to argue that humans are so malleable that you can change courses of history or foundationally change the way humans deal with eachother by changing how they consume news or other information, presentationally (i.e. not thought-control devices in their brains).
I don't think people are necessarily that malleable or that one-side they would, on the whole, choose to be mindless consumers getting information only from your Suggest-a-tron machine. What happens if they decide to actually talk to each other directly without intervention? Wouldn't that interfere with the mind training program? Also, I'm not sure about all this emotional stuff you're talking about.
People have the ability to vote because other people who formed the governments those people live under thought it would it be a good thing to let them vote. I'm not sure what you mean exactly. That's true, but incomplete. Fact is, over the last two thousand years or so we've tried all combinations of people voting. Sometimes it was smart people, sometimes it was religious people, sometimes it was only special people trained to rule.
The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions. Perhpas there is another optimum, but I haven't seen anything so far that's better. So even though people have this tendency to view us versus them, somehow we still manage to make tough decisions. Heck, some legislators have been know to get into fist fights, and fights at early elections in the states were common. But it still worked.
My wife and my oldest son are completely opposite politically. When he lost his car, she gave him a ride to the polling booth -- human nature holds, but a good system of rules (both personal and structural) allows conflict to be productive and not destructive.
Yes -- the system is set up for indirection, and on purpose. Direct democracy has the knack of being "rule of the mob".
Over time, a simple 3-branch, 3-level government turned into a complex machine, but that has nothing to do with the two-group thing, at least not directly. That's simply the (recent) institution of the idea that government should be everywhere. Democracies run just fine and make tough emotional decisions without all of that complexity.
Note that I'm just using democracy as an example here. You run into the same problem whenever two groups meet, like for instance when you have a programming team half composed of web developers and half die-hard COBOL programmers. Democracy shows us that such divisions can be surmounted.
you're trying to argue that humans are so malleable that you can change courses of history or foundationally change the way humans deal with each other by changing how they consume news or other information This already happens. It's called mass media: TV, internet, radio, newspapers, etc. It's been going on forever.
The new thing in the mix is the ability to self-discriminate sources of information. It used to be with only one town newspaper and no radio or TV that there was a forced conversation at the town level about important events This type of forced conversation is critical, whether in government or startup teams. We have to learn to have critical conversations.
Anymore, however, we've been able to completely filter out anybody who might challenge our worldview. This prevents us from realizing how close the two groups actually are, and it additionally prevents us from developing skills at crossing the barrier to accomplish meaningful things. One group isn't right and the other wrong, rather both groups need each other. Our way of interacting has failed us by allowing us to clan to a degree that is not natural (or productive)
And I'm not talking about a Suggest-A-Tron. I'm talking about a discussion board, just like this, only with a more advanced filtering mechanism in place of up-down voting.
The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions. Perhpas there is another optimum, but I haven't seen anything so far that's better. So even though people have this tendency to view us versus them, somehow we still manage to make tough decisions. Heck, some legislators have been know to get into fist fights, and fights at early elections in the states were common. But it still worked.
My wife and my oldest son are completely opposite politically. When he lost his car, she gave him a ride to the polling booth -- human nature holds, but a good system of rules (both personal and structural) allows conflict to be productive and not destructive.
Yes -- the system is set up for indirection, and on purpose. Direct democracy has the knack of being "rule of the mob".
Over time, a simple 3-branch, 3-level government turned into a complex machine, but that has nothing to do with the two-group thing, at least not directly. That's simply the (recent) institution of the idea that government should be everywhere. Democracies run just fine and make tough emotional decisions without all of that complexity.
Note that I'm just using democracy as an example here. You run into the same problem whenever two groups meet, like for instance when you have a programming team half composed of web developers and half die-hard COBOL programmers. Democracy shows us that such divisions can be surmounted.
you're trying to argue that humans are so malleable that you can change courses of history or foundationally change the way humans deal with each other by changing how they consume news or other information This already happens. It's called mass media: TV, internet, radio, newspapers, etc. It's been going on forever.
The new thing in the mix is the ability to self-discriminate sources of information. It used to be with only one town newspaper and no radio or TV that there was a forced conversation at the town level about important events This type of forced conversation is critical, whether in government or startup teams. We have to learn to have critical conversations.
Anymore, however, we've been able to completely filter out anybody who might challenge our worldview. This prevents us from realizing how close the two groups actually are, and it additionally prevents us from developing skills at crossing the barrier to accomplish meaningful things. One group isn't right and the other wrong, rather both groups need each other. Our way of interacting has failed us by allowing us to clan to a degree that is not natural (or productive)
And I'm not talking about a Suggest-A-Tron. I'm talking about a discussion board, just like this, only with a more advanced filtering mechanism in place of up-down voting.
The best answer so far is so let everybody vote once in a while and to use representatives to make the day-to-day decisions.
Have you ever considered whether or not this is actually true? Sure we have a government run school system that tells us that our government is the best ever. But you know, that's what government run school systems do.
When you look at specific transitions from monarchy or aristocracies to democracy, do you see an improvement in the quality of government?
Did the transition from Louis the XVI to Robersspierre improve government?
The transition from the Bourbon Kings of Naples to a unified democratic government?
From Czar Nicholas the II to the Russian Provincial Government?
Did the reform act of 1887 improve governance in Britain? Did it usher in a golden age - or destroy one?
Did the transition from aristocracy to Jacksonian democracy in 1820's America improve the level of governance?
Did the universal suffrage Act of 1870 improve goverance in Germany? How about eliminating the emperor and creating the Weimar Republic?
How about going from Ian Smith to Mugabe in Zimbabwe?
To me the lessons from history are pretty clear. Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy.
Have you ever considered whether or not this is actually true? Sure we have a government run school system that tells us that our government is the best ever. But you know, that's what government run school systems do.
When you look at specific transitions from monarchy or aristocracies to democracy, do you see an improvement in the quality of government?
Did the transition from Louis the XVI to Robersspierre improve government?
The transition from the Bourbon Kings of Naples to a unified democratic government?
From Czar Nicholas the II to the Russian Provincial Government?
Did the reform act of 1887 improve governance in Britain? Did it usher in a golden age - or destroy one?
Did the transition from aristocracy to Jacksonian democracy in 1820's America improve the level of governance?
Did the universal suffrage Act of 1870 improve goverance in Germany? How about eliminating the emperor and creating the Weimar Republic?
How about going from Ian Smith to Mugabe in Zimbabwe?
To me the lessons from history are pretty clear. Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy.
Burke? Is that you?
"Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy."
If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies?
We're veering off into historicism versus reductionism here. I don't think there has to be as much of a conflict as some do, but it's best to leave that for another day.
"Aristocracy and monarchy are historically superior to universal suffrage representative democracy."
If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies?
We're veering off into historicism versus reductionism here. I don't think there has to be as much of a conflict as some do, but it's best to leave that for another day.
If this were true, then where are all of the great monarchies?
They were superior in terms of quality of governance. They were inferior at war. The monarchies were defeated militarily by democracies.
They were superior in terms of quality of governance. They were inferior at war. The monarchies were defeated militarily by democracies.
But it's not worth the trouble to get to the bottom of these debates (at least based on the values of the typical person).
As shown in "The Myth of the Rational Voter", the amount that it costs a person to understand the issues exceeds the amount of benefit that his vote is likely to make. So people just aren't motivated to learn what's going on, and vote based on their feelings.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for more information.
As shown in "The Myth of the Rational Voter", the amount that it costs a person to understand the issues exceeds the amount of benefit that his vote is likely to make. So people just aren't motivated to learn what's going on, and vote based on their feelings.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter for more information.
something PG was grasping at when he spoke of keeping your identity small. we make ego boundary errors and this in turn leads to these larger errors.
Interesting tie-in, but I don't know what you're referencing. Source?
A basic but essential point. You want to post about this to Less Wrong? (I can bless the account if you don't have enough karma.)
It's amazing people can't see it.
Even when you see it, you still have to pay close attention not to fall into the trap. If you are arguing against a certain position, people tend to regard you as holding the opposite position and brandish you as 'on of them'. When you identify somewhat more with 'them', it is easy to forget you were holding middle ground and let yourself be pushed into that corner, causing you to actually take up a more extremist position than you were defending in the first place. Even after discovering the power this effect, it took me years to be constantly aware of it and resist it.
Even when you see it, you still have to pay close attention not to fall into the trap. If you are arguing against a certain position, people tend to regard you as holding the opposite position and brandish you as 'on of them'. When you identify somewhat more with 'them', it is easy to forget you were holding middle ground and let yourself be pushed into that corner, causing you to actually take up a more extremist position than you were defending in the first place. Even after discovering the power this effect, it took me years to be constantly aware of it and resist it.
The problem is worse than that: I've become convinced that everybody does this to one degree or another. In other words, we're all in the trap. It's not like you have the ability to somehow "snap yourself out of it" or something. When cornered, most of us just rationalize. [Insert long discussion on the limits of predicate logic when applied to anything involving human language here]
There are those in denial, sure. But based on my observations of myself and hundreds of others and dozens of groups (and a bit of reading about sales and social dynamics) it's just part of human nature. This is why good teams are so much stronger than the sum of their parts: since each person has a different cognitive blind spot, team members can look out for each other.
There are those in denial, sure. But based on my observations of myself and hundreds of others and dozens of groups (and a bit of reading about sales and social dynamics) it's just part of human nature. This is why good teams are so much stronger than the sum of their parts: since each person has a different cognitive blind spot, team members can look out for each other.
Insert long discussion on the limits of predicate logic when applied to anything involving human language here
This seems to be embedded in English, at least. If I say "I don't like chocolate", that's universally interpreted as "I dislike chocolate". But I only meant what I said: I do not possess an active enjoyment of chocolate. The listener just assumes "if yer not with us, yer agin us".
It seems that taking sides is baked pretty deeply into our thought process.
This seems to be embedded in English, at least. If I say "I don't like chocolate", that's universally interpreted as "I dislike chocolate". But I only meant what I said: I do not possess an active enjoyment of chocolate. The listener just assumes "if yer not with us, yer agin us".
It seems that taking sides is baked pretty deeply into our thought process.
In English, I would submit that "I don't like X" really does mean "I dislike X"; the usage is pervasive and nearly without exception. If you mean "I have no active enjoyment or dislike", you need to go more for a word like "ambivalent".
I'm not convinced this is an English problem, or even a human problem, though. The problem is the low resolution being used; no matter how fine your stated opinion, if it is being viewed through a low resolution sensing device, it'll get aliased to one of the things the sensing device can actually perceive. (This is also the correct definition of "bias", though that would take a bit longer to describe.) It takes cognitive energy to increase resolution, so a lot of times we'll use "love/hate" as the only two options pretty casually, because it's easy and we don't have an infinite supply of cognitive energy.
(A number of terms in that paragraph are sort of ill-defined but it would take a lot of time to really nail them down.)
I'm not convinced this is an English problem, or even a human problem, though. The problem is the low resolution being used; no matter how fine your stated opinion, if it is being viewed through a low resolution sensing device, it'll get aliased to one of the things the sensing device can actually perceive. (This is also the correct definition of "bias", though that would take a bit longer to describe.) It takes cognitive energy to increase resolution, so a lot of times we'll use "love/hate" as the only two options pretty casually, because it's easy and we don't have an infinite supply of cognitive energy.
(A number of terms in that paragraph are sort of ill-defined but it would take a lot of time to really nail them down.)
I don't think your explanation is correct. There's only a small subset of English verbs that exhibit this behavior.
For counter examples: if I were to say "I don't drive fast", you would likely not interpret that as "I drive slowly"; if I say "I'm not rich", you wouldn't hear "I'm poor".
Yet in all these classes, we must be using some resolution. So your explanation only begs the question of "why, then, do some kinds of statements get treated to higher resolution than others?".
For counter examples: if I were to say "I don't drive fast", you would likely not interpret that as "I drive slowly"; if I say "I'm not rich", you wouldn't hear "I'm poor".
Yet in all these classes, we must be using some resolution. So your explanation only begs the question of "why, then, do some kinds of statements get treated to higher resolution than others?".
the missing piece of the essay is the question of whether "political entrepreneurs" should be considered legitimate.
Using group dynamics to achieve power is just a reality of human nature, as Elezier points out.
But Elezier jumps from this fat to assume that we should then be concerned about the unequal distribution of power between most people and the few political entrepreneurs (aka "power seekers").
It's hard to argue that all power seekers are bad, even if all do use group dynamics to gain and keep power.
So how to we determine which power seekers we consider legitimate?
Using group dynamics to achieve power is just a reality of human nature, as Elezier points out.
But Elezier jumps from this fat to assume that we should then be concerned about the unequal distribution of power between most people and the few political entrepreneurs (aka "power seekers").
It's hard to argue that all power seekers are bad, even if all do use group dynamics to gain and keep power.
So how to we determine which power seekers we consider legitimate?
Seems the author carefully and intentinally avoid talking about religions.
Why?
Party Politics and Partisanship are evil. Less interested in what is good for the country and more interested in what will get them elected to POWER!
It's not just party politics though. It's the predilection of people to form up into groups and to identify with those groups even at the expense of logic and reason. Party politics is just what you get when you do it at a national level. It happens all the time all around you.
The American two-party system is remarkable in how much the two parties do NOT insist on long-term ideological consistency. Each party shifts its positions and adds and subtracts party platform planks as new third parties introduce net points of view into political discourse. The parties are stable because their positions on issues are very unstable. If you compare the party platforms of the Republican Party and the Democratic Party to those of a century ago, you will see on many issues a complete role reversal of the parties. Similarly, which party is more favored by southern voters or which party is more favored by black voters is far less stable than the general tendency that black voters and southern voters only occasionally favor the same party.