Democracy

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It is very easy to disprove the idea of democracy. Democracy utterly fails to answer this question: who is accountable? If politicians enact disastrous legislation that causes financial ruin of millions, who is to blame? Easy example: the 'national' debt. Who owes it and who was responsible for racking it up? The politicians? Nope. The people? Perhaps, but which people? Well, we don't know because voting is anonymous. Even if we did know, each person's vote is so statistically insignificant that it would be insane to hold any one person accountable for a particular politician getting into office.

The *best* I have heard people say is that bad politicians can be voted out of office. As if that is such a *terrible* consequence. Look at Vietnam & the war in Iraq. Thousands dead and billions wasted with little accomplished. All that happens is the politicians get voted out? Sounds like a sweet deal to be a politician. If I went to work and did something to cause my company to go to bankrupt with a number of employees being killed to boot, I would not just lose my job.

I laugh at people who get up in arms about wasted taxpayer dollars. They live under some insane delusion that the politicians care about their insignificant protest. Forking over a huge sum of your income to anyone with the expectation that they will do something desirable with your money is quite crazy. That's why business works and politics is crap. In a business there are no expectations about what people spend their money on after they get it. I go to a Starbuck's, slap $5 on the counter for a cup of Coffee, walk out and couldn't give a damn about how Starbuck's spends that $5. They control the money now and not me, and for me to even worry about what that $5 will be spent on would be considered rather insane on my part. All I know though is that I don't control that $5 any more, so I go about my day. Same thing at work: I get a paycheck and my boss doesn't care if I blow every dollar on a trip to a casino.

Another test that democracy fails is the compared to what? test. Politicians in office are by definition insulated from competition in their job after they get into office. In order to get into office they only have to get enough votes to beat out a select number of other candidates, a test unrelated to actual job performance in most cases. After they are in office there is no one else to compare their job performance to (or relatively few others). If I proclaim that a politician is great, the question is he is great compared to what? Politicians in the past? Politicians in the future? Politicians that could have in theory taken his place and done worse? For instance, if I proclaim FDR is great, how can I answer the question: compared to what? Just repeat the questions above.

In theory under a condition of free market competition of competing firms, if a firm is proclaimed to be the best the question of 'compared to what?' is easy to answer: the number of firms that went out of business trying to provide a similar product within a very similar business environment.

Democracy fails a number of common sense tests, these are just a few examples. In reality, democracy is a faith based system, just like religion. It is based on a theory of Platonic ideals that are theoretically and realistically impossible to achieve.

Aren't all the people who participate in the political system accountable? I would say yes, and that provides the answer to your question. Politicians themselves are of course insulated.

 

[Greenman]

Democracy is the foolish belief that you can increase a sum by adding zeros.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Greenman
Democracy is the foolish belief that you can increase a sum by adding zeros.

Please expound on that idea/example.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Aren't all the people who participate in the political system accountable? I would say yes, and that provides the answer to your question. Politicians themselves are of course insulated.

How are they accountable? What can you do to someone who votes for a 'bad' politician? Legally speaking, you can't do a damn thing. Voters are completely insulated from the bad outcomes of the politicians they elect as well. You cannot legally beat someone up for voting for George Bush, for instance.

In economic jargon, democracy creates negative externalities for everyone under the jurisdiction of the democratic government. There is no recourse for these negative externalities. If Social Security goes completely bankrupt before I even get a single penny, after paying into it for decades, I cannot legally sue or commit any other act for restitution and or damages. Not only can I not go after any politicians/legislators, I cannot go after any bureaucrats, voters, judges or lawyers. I just have to take it up the rump roast, so to speak.

This is why I call democracy a faith based system, you have to always act as though the government is acting in good faith, even when it is clear that it is not. You have to look at FICA coming out of your pay stub every 2 weeks, even though you know for a fact that there is a high probability you will never get anything back from those deductions.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
Aren't all the people who participate in the political system accountable? I would say yes, and that provides the answer to your question. Politicians themselves are of course insulated.

How are they accountable? What can you do to someone who votes for a 'bad' politician? Legally speaking, you can't do a damn thing. Voters are completely insulated from the bad outcomes of the politicians they elect as well. You cannot legally beat someone up for voting for George Bush, for instance.

In economic jargon, democracy creates negative externalities for everyone under the jurisdiction of the democratic government. There is no recourse for these negative externalities. If Social Security goes completely bankrupt before I even get a single penny, after paying into it for decades, I cannot legally sue or commit any other act for restitution and or damages. Not only can I not go after any politicians/legislators, I cannot go after any bureaucrats, voters, judges or lawyers. I just have to take it up the rump roast, so to speak.

This is why I call democracy a faith based system, you have to always act as though the government is acting in good faith, even when it is clear that it is not. You have to look at FICA coming out of your pay stub every 2 weeks, even though you know for a fact that there is a high probability you will never get anything back from those deductions.

They are accountable because, by participating i.e. voting, they legitimize the system. A system which has certain properties as you have mentioned. Democracy is dependent on participation itself. Without that, it lacks the "will" to exist.

It's not just who you vote for, but that you vote in itself that makes you accountable for all actions taken by the government.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: Greenman
Democracy is the foolish belief that you can increase a sum by adding zeros.

Please expound on that idea/example.

One hundred thousand foolish people won't make a better decision than one foolish person. No matter how many people you have voting, you're always going to have a majority that simply don't understand the issue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If we ever have a democracy ill let you know.

Right now we have the right to toss a bad coin and select from two groups of self serving associations. This democracy you speak of is the new opiate of the masses. A Hobsons choice is just that.

 

[Argo]

Democracy is 51% of people taking advantage of the other 49%.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
They are accountable because, by participating i.e. voting, they legitimize the system. A system which has certain properties as you have mentioned. Democracy is dependent on participation itself. Without that, it lacks the "will" to exist.

It's not just who you vote for, but that you vote in itself that makes you accountable for all actions taken by the government.

By the standard definition of accountable, voters are not accountable. Your statement is false:

ac·count·a·ble
?adjective
1. subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.
2. capable of being explained; explicable; explainable.

Voters do not have to report, explain or justify anything. They are not answerable, and their votes are not necessarily capable of being explained.

So once again you are failing to answer the central question: who pays if the shit hits the fan? In a democracy the voters do not directly pay for their mistakes, it is whoever the legislation affects. If I am a business owner and some politicians impose a regulation or tax that puts me out of business for no good reason, who pays for that directly? Not the voters. Not the politicians. Not the bureaucrats etc. That is called a negative externality. Whether you call it 'legitimate' or not has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that some people are deciding for others and those others have 0 recourse if the 'some' totally screw up.

In private dealings the accountability lies squarely on the shoulders of those directly involved in the deal. If someone breaches their contract, they are directly liable. Whether they pay up for their breach or not is another question altogether, but we can at least have some chance of figuring out who ought to pay. In a democracy that key component of resource allocation and law making is shoved conveniently under the carpet.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Rationality is only as good as the Education of those using it. If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas, all the Rationality in the World will still conclude more wrong/stupid Ideas.

Blame the liberal policies of dumbing down schools/education in the quest for "equality".

 

[Steeplerot]

"Politics (and voting) is the opiate of the the masses in the United States." -
-Emma Goldman, reflecting on Woodrow Wilson's going back on campaign promise to Dem voters to keep us out of WW1 when he created the draft to start shipping young men to the trenches of Europe.
Funny how politics haven't really changed in 100 years. (except we have no viable 3rd party now)

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: sandorski
Rationality is only as good as the Education of those using it. If the People are taught wrong/stupid Ideas, all the Rationality in the World will still conclude more wrong/stupid Ideas.

Blame the liberal policies of dumbing down schools/education in the quest for "equality".

Yes, a good Democracy begins with education but we're still struggling with masses of first generation migrants. The basics might be surpassed more easily with second and third generations who actually have an education to pass down to the children at home as a supplemental.

Thinking about parents actually being there for their children, the single biggest effect you could have on education is to restore the tradition of single worker households. Then there might actually be a parent with extra time on their hands to actually care about, nurture, and guide their children instead of leaving them to rot in the cesspool of our educational system.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
They are accountable because, by participating i.e. voting, they legitimize the system. A system which has certain properties as you have mentioned. Democracy is dependent on participation itself. Without that, it lacks the "will" to exist.

It's not just who you vote for, but that you vote in itself that makes you accountable for all actions taken by the government.

By the standard definition of accountable, voters are not accountable. Your statement is false:

ac·count·a·ble
?adjective
1. subject to the obligation to report, explain, or justify something; responsible; answerable.
2. capable of being explained; explicable; explainable.

Voters do not have to report, explain or justify anything. They are not answerable, and their votes are not necessarily capable of being explained.

So once again you are failing to answer the central question: who pays if the shit hits the fan? In a democracy the voters do not directly pay for their mistakes, it is whoever the legislation affects. If I am a business owner and some politicians impose a regulation or tax that puts me out of business for no good reason, who pays for that directly? Not the voters. Not the politicians. Not the bureaucrats etc. That is called a negative externality. Whether you call it 'legitimate' or not has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that some people are deciding for others and those others have 0 recourse if the 'some' totally screw up.

In private dealings the accountability lies squarely on the shoulders of those directly involved in the deal. If someone breaches their contract, they are directly liable. Whether they pay up for their breach or not is another question altogether, but we can at least have some chance of figuring out who ought to pay. In a democracy that key component of resource allocation and law making is shoved conveniently under the carpet.

I never said the voters were directly responsible, and if you're simply looking for someone to say point a finger at then well you're right. I was saying however that in the general sense, voters create democracy. They are the root of democracy. It begins with the vote.
Thereby these people are responsible. No, they are not by the strict definition "accountable". I assumed the synonym responsible when you first mentioned it.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I never said the voters were directly responsible, and if you're simply looking for someone to say point a finger at then well you're right. I was saying however that in the general sense, voters create democracy. They are the root of democracy. It begins with the vote.
Thereby these people are responsible. No, they are not by the strict definition "accountable". I assumed the synonym responsible when you first mentioned it.

Ok, and you can understand how voting creates unaccountable negative externalities? Those who vote are not necessarily (and are often not) the ones who pay. And the outcome of the vote is unilaterally binding with no compensation for those negative externalities. From there massive problems emerge.

Actually, all political systems share this trait. All you have to do is substitute who is imposing the costs. In monarchy it is the king. In democracy it is 'the people'. In oligarchy it is the oligarchs. In plutocracy it is the plutocrats.

All political organizations are organizations that impose systemic negative externalities (costs) with no compensation, or allow select groups of individuals to do so by proxy. The difference between certain political organizations is simply the who, what, where, why and when aspects of those costs.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
I never said the voters were directly responsible, and if you're simply looking for someone to say point a finger at then well you're right. I was saying however that in the general sense, voters create democracy. They are the root of democracy. It begins with the vote.
Thereby these people are responsible. No, they are not by the strict definition "accountable". I assumed the synonym responsible when you first mentioned it.

Ok, and you can understand how voting creates unaccountable negative externalities? Those who vote are not necessarily (and are often not) the ones who pay. And the outcome of the vote is unilaterally binding with no compensation for those negative externalities. From there massive problems emerge.

Actually, all political systems share this trait. All you have to do is substitute who is imposing the costs. In monarchy it is the king. In democracy it is 'the people'. In oligarchy it is the oligarchs. In plutocracy it is the plutocrats.

All political organizations are organizations that impose systemic negative externalities (costs) with no compensation, or allow select groups of individuals to do so by proxy. The difference between certain political organizations is simply the who, what, where, why and when aspects of those costs.

You don't have to explain the negative affects of government to me. I wonder if your pro-capitalistic stance suggests that you are overall an an-cap, or whether you retain some moralistic sentiment and are more closely associated with objectivism. I hope you don't think I'm trying to simplify your beliefs, but I'm wondering if you have, or are currently, associated with these groups.

In simplest terms I am a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, which I would guess is your solution to the creation of negative externalities?

 

[irishScott]

Democracy sucks, it's just better than everything else.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: Painman
Is that Freedom?

It's FreeDumb!

did.... you just reply to your own comment??

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You don't have to explain the negative affects of government to me. I wonder if your pro-capitalistic stance suggests that you are overall an an-cap, or whether you retain some moralistic sentiment and are more closely associated with objectivism. I hope you don't think I'm trying to simplify your beliefs, but I'm wondering if you have, or are currently, associated with these groups.

In simplest terms I am a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, which I would guess is your solution to the creation of negative externalities?

Yes, I have been associated with anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-capitalism. This is only the result of not believing in political systems (or any other act of uncompensated negative externalities) as a means of allocating resources. However, at a deeper level than anything to do with economics, I see anarcho-capitalism as simply being a default position as a part of rejecting all teleological faith based systems, including religion. What's left over from that is a certain brand of atheist existentialism.

While I consider Ayn Rand a notable philosopher I am not into Objectivism. This is mainly because Objectivists still cling to the fantasy of some minarchist state. In any event, I have not really read much on it, but the movement seems very culty to me.

As far as a moral stance, I have my own conceptions of what a moral society would look like, but the problem is that it is impossible to have a maxim based moral code that can objectively discern moral acts from immoral ones in all instances. At some point there must be someone who decides a dispute, which may require reviewing specific gory details of a particular incident. As an existentialist I have fully realized the fact that only people themselves can figure out their morals on a per incident basis. They can't come from documents, maxims or some god. That being said, I think that in the vast majority of human interactions it is possible to determine if there is a negative externality being generated and also who is creating it.

The problem today is that there are so many systemic negative externalities that it is impossible to live in a populated place without participating in it. For instance, just opening a bank account creates negative externalities by contributing to a bank, which adds to inflation. However, there are different degrees in regards to consciously contributing to them. We must live with the fact that criminals of a political nature will run wild and people will cheer for the most corrupt individuals around.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Painman

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Painman
My dad always liked to say that cops and politicians should be drawn by public lottery, and serve non-renewable 2 year terms.

I like to think of my Dad as a pretty smart guy.

No disrespect to your father, I think it's wrong on this. While he's trying to gain the 'innocence' of the random selection and term limits, he loses more than he gians.

This would result in terrible harms of at least two sorts - possibly more:

- Decrease in competence. Go stand in line at DMV, pick a randome person, and ask if you want them making decisions for your district. No. Also the lack of experience built up.

- Transfer of power to the bureacracy. A legislature of amateurs is necessarily far more reliant on the permanent bureaucrats, who wil not necessarily be good for the public.

Really, it's one of those ideas you should come to understand is horrible despite the appeal for the one fix it has. Instead, deal with the problems like money in the system.

Sorry, I missed this post.

But please, tell me, and us, how you would defeat the $ in the system.

It's easy to say, "idea x will fail".

What is Idea Y? there's the rub.

I like you Craig. But, C'mon now.

The answer is rather simple.

Hold the bastards feet to the fire and when they cross the line they get triple the criminal punishment that a "normal" person would. You throw a few of those bastards in the poky and the the vast majority of the rest will either retire or walk the straight and narrow.

We won't do that though. Instead, we defend the wrongdoers as long as they are in our club. We are perfectly willing to overlook the people writing our tax code blatantly cheating on their taxes. Legal insider trading for the elite? No problem from us. Supporting murders? If your on our team then hell yeah!

You see, neither side is willing to take out their own trash. I guess to some people the ends justify the means because not only will we not call out the scumbags that are on our own team we will actively defend them. It is way passed the point of absurdity with arguments such as "Well the OTHER team did it first" being perfectly valid arguments for some elitist breaking the law/abusing their power.

Skim through a few threads right here if you want some real examples. The ironic part of the entire thing is the elites are all bought and paid for by the same people. Just one of many example is the blatant and provable fraud in our banking system that continues to this day, how many people have you heard being prosecuted for it? Instead of calling for the heads of people responsible for FRAUD that has cost the taxpayers billions upon billions they get us all riled up over bullshit so that we are busy arguing with each instead. Its not a party issue, both sides are in on the scam and as long as we are busy fighting each other both parties will continue to get away with it. How bad does it have to get before we finally say enough is enough?

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Praxis1452
You don't have to explain the negative affects of government to me. I wonder if your pro-capitalistic stance suggests that you are overall an an-cap, or whether you retain some moralistic sentiment and are more closely associated with objectivism. I hope you don't think I'm trying to simplify your beliefs, but I'm wondering if you have, or are currently, associated with these groups.

In simplest terms I am a proponent of anarcho-capitalism, which I would guess is your solution to the creation of negative externalities?

Yes, I have been associated with anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-capitalism. This is only the result of not believing in political systems (or any other act of uncompensated negative externalities) as a means of allocating resources. However, at a deeper level than anything to do with economics, I see anarcho-capitalism as simply being a default position as a part of rejecting all teleological faith based systems, including religion. What's left over from that is a certain brand of atheist existentialism.

While I consider Ayn Rand a notable philosopher I am not into Objectivism. This is mainly because Objectivists still cling to the fantasy of some minarchist state. In any event, I have not really read much on it, but the movement seems very culty to me.

As far as a moral stance, I have my own conceptions of what a moral society would look like, but the problem is that it is impossible to have a maxim based moral code that can objectively discern moral acts from immoral ones in all instances. At some point there must be someone who decides a dispute, which may require reviewing specific gory details of a particular incident. As an existentialist I have fully realized the fact that only people themselves can figure out their morals on a per incident basis. They can't come from documents, maxims or some god. That being said, I think that in the vast majority of human interactions it is possible to determine if there is a negative externality being generated and also who is creating it.

The problem today is that there are so many systemic negative externalities that it is impossible to live in a populated place without participating in it. For instance, just opening a bank account creates negative externalities by contributing to a bank, which adds to inflation. However, there are different degrees in regards to consciously contributing to them. We must live with the fact that criminals of a political nature will run wild and people will cheer for the most corrupt individuals around.

Great post. It was very interesting to read.

I believe that the foundation of our knowledge and understanding of our world depends entirely on those axioms which we consider self evident, and know a priori. Based on one or many of these axioms, we are able to formulate or take this axiom and apply it, creating a logical conclusion. The contradictions that arise in our view world-view is the conflict of the products of these axioms. Personally I think the statement "people work to increase his/her own satisfaction" is a self evident axiom. In other words I believe in psychological egoism.

Believing this, I construct my world, taking as much as I can to its logical end. This also creates my main disagreements with others. I have rejected the morality I was brought up with because I view it as simply wrong. That the axiomatic claim that morality makes is flawed because it is not self evident, nor is it even consistent, across time, geography, culture, and many more. Your criticism of an objective moral code, I would agree with.

Because of the subjectivity inherent with my original axiom, I don't feel that objectivity is all that important. That's not to say that I don't feel some objective reality exists. My friend put it this way: "I think therefore I am, I am therefore there is." That some objective piece of reality exists, however small. The previous paragraph was slightly off topic, but I thought I should clarify my view of subjectivity and objectivity.

Another note of importance is the idea of natural rights. I don't believe that rights exist, that they are distortion of reality that people wished would exist, and so they act like it does. The right to speech, to life, property, needs people, to enforce it. The law of gravity does not require police, it does not require the consent of anyone, nor is it affected by human fickleness. So far as I can tell, gravity fits my definition of a "natural right".

My support of anarcho-capitalism is based on the belief that anarcho-capitalism is the main means by which organization would occur, if nothing was outlawed, if people rejected all morality. At the same time that I am a proponent of anarcho-capitalism I believe in the use of force, unlike many. I believe in the use of force because it is an option, because it exists. This does not mean that I suggest the use of force in every scenario, but that it is a, valid option, and that it can be the optimal choice in certain situations. This puts me in disagreement with most anarcho-capitalists and libertarians. Rothbard, Rand, and many others have all attempted to create moralities which do not support coercion, most of them relying on the idea of natural rights that I reject.

Overall, I think Max Stirner had it right, he however did not suggest a method of organization, and I believe it to be anarcho-capitalism.