Representative or participatory democracy?

Reply to CuddlyHedgehog Monarchy is better.

Reply to Agustino Another enlightened response from you.

Well, let's see? Trump campaigned on a policy of supporting high tariffs. This is a bad idea. We know that a tariff war was one of the major causes of the Great Depression of the 1930s. We also know that the idea is overly simplistic --- so we will impose high tariffs to gain an alleged advantage, and other countries will not impose their own high-tariffs against us in retaliation? That's nuts. We also know that our exporting firms pay higher wages on average than our domestic firms that compete against foreign imports. This is because to be able to produce domestically and outsell someone selling in another country where they are located, takes a great deal of efficiency. Yet, we know other countries can only pay for our exports by acquiring US dollars, which are acquired by selling us imports. So, cutting off imports simultaneously reduces our exports, but since exports pay more than other companies, this loss leads to an overall decline in our domestic wage rates.

It's such a demonstrably bad idea it's amazing millions think it was a good idea. The fact millions cannot even grasp the most basic economics tells us that direct democracy is doomed to failure. However, representative democracy is also doomed to failure when such a large percentage of the population adopts BS from politicians. Democracy only works when two things occur: 1. The population is educated, and 2. people are concerned about public well-being and not just their own personal well-being. In the western "democracies," we see our democracies imploding in a mob of ignorant selfish people.

It doesn't matter. The top 1%, who become the top 1% by stealing or some other scam, will always find v ways to buy government and pass laws to benefit themselves (actually the top .1%). It had always been this way throughout recorded history. It is actually quite easy to buy off people.

I believe direct participatory democracy would be an unmitigated disaster. Governing is very complex and requires advice from people who are expert in each field (economics, medicine, engineering, science, law....) on which a decision is being made. That's what the public/civil service is for. In direct participatory democracy decisions would be made in ignorance of any such advice and would more often than not be catastophic.

Reply to LD Saunders

Quoting LD Saunders

It's such a demonstrably bad idea it's amazing millions think it was a good idea. The fact millions cannot even grasp the most basic economics tells us that direct democracy is doomed to failure. However, representative democracy is also doomed to failure when such a large percentage of the population adopts BS from politicians. Democracy only works when two things occur: 1. The population is educated, and 2. people are concerned about public well-being and not just their own personal well-being. In the western "democracies," we see our democracies imploding in a mob of ignorant selfish people.

Robert Michels said that all democracies, no matter how complicated, eventually become oligarchies because they eventually control the means of information in that society. This is true now, as I believe we are very very close to an oligarchy if we aren't already. But of course the population doesn't seem to care. haha It's red vs blue guys! RED VS BLUE! PAY ATTENTION! I love humanity.

As an aside: How do you educate a populace enough without a democracy in the first place? It seems self defeating. I need educated people to run a democracy properly, but I also know that education won't happen without that democracy.

Quoting CuddlyHedgehog

Another enlightened response from you.

My responses are always enlightened :cool:

Reply to CuddlyHedgehog

I think it's intrinsic to the security-ensuring function of government to maintain the well being of citizens and the society more generally (or at least provide access to avenues that allow them to secure it). When I say this I don't mean in a 'prescriptive sense'. I don't think any legislation which forces individuals or organizations to live or function a certain way is ethical; basic freedoms and autonomy are still fundamental ideals that should be given weight but I think it should be deprioritized in cases where that freedom results in collective or individual harm or gets in the way of promoting societal or individual well being (defining 'harm' in a proper way that can't be taken advantage of will admittedly be difficult to do but I don't think it's impossible and I don't think that's a proper argument against it). I do think restrictive forms (regulatory) of legislation coupled by forcible public funding for research determined determinates of well-being and social cohesion, health should be prioritized and enacted even if that legislation restricts freedom of some groups (I highly doubt any secular majority would be against this sort of process... not to name any names but I think most on a political spectrum would be okay with laying some freedoms down in the interest of collective and individual good). Democracies, in general, let the interests and desires of the entire constituency run amock and just like you can't trust a child to know what's best for them I don't really think you can do the same of most individuals, generally -- I mean, less than 50% of individuals hold a college degree. Not at all to sound condescending, I just think there are some things that are objectively recognizable as fundamental to well being and it's the job of a nation state to secure them for its citizens. A democracy is limited by its emphasis on interest-representation over rational, educated determination of fundamental social issues - socially 'unhealthy' disparities in healthcare access, education access, capital distribution; non-rehabilitative prison systems; neglect of globally relevant issues - climate change. But representing citizen interests is also important for the harmony of a society. So I think something like an informed, elected set of governing 'task forces' or committees dedicated to (among managing the typical functions of government) identifying social issues, affordable modes of well being, enacting regulatory legislation to address unhealthy social conditions (conditions that disadvantage large swaths of the population; conditions that will harm in the long term or present day a vast majority of population etc) and implementing them in the most optimal way possible might be better.

Perhaps it doesn't need to be radical like this.. maybe a representative democracy that includes a research informed legislative process that parameterizes well being (not just in terms of tangible material rewards) and seeks to maximize it could work.

Idk just shooting ideas out but ultimately I just don't think democracies as they are now are optimal forms of governance

If we're too ignorant to make choices in govt. then we are too ignorant to vote for others that do.

Yatagarasu: I don't think that the government is controlling all information, so people are falling in line with political ideologies that are doomed to fail. The information is readily available to everyone about economics, history, science, etc. People are basically lazy and don't want to learn. If you want to learn about a topic, one needs to spend some time reading books on the subject, from reputable authors and reputable publishers. Instead, people do quick Google searches, and often accept BS as if it were fact, or perhaps the information is factual as far as it goes, but completely out of context, so the site gives a distorted impression. People are lazy, don't like to think, and it shows. It's far too easy these days for someone to pick up a group slogan, get praised for repeating it, and then not bothering to learn anything more at that point.

Stupidity is our biggest enemy.

Quoting LD Saunders

reputable authors and reputable publishers.

But that's the entire issue, isn't it? Who counts as the reputable author on a given subject? Lots of people read lots of different authors. Some people think Jordan Peterson is good, but others do not. Some people think Noam Chomsky is good, but other do not. Some people think religion is bogus, other people do not. Some people think modern radical feminism is a force for good, while others think it is a force for bad.

To share a personal anecdote about reputable authority figures: I know someone who had an potential eye problem, and went to three doctors. He got three answers. For example, one doctor said that surgery wasn't worth the risk and the issue would probably amount to nothing, while another doctor said he should go for surgery aa soon as possible. Assuming that every doctor appeared as reputable to him as the next, which should he go with?

When Chomsky writes about economic issues for the mass public, and he has no degree in economics, admitted he gets his economic ideas from watching Star Trek, and he has never once published a paper in any economics journal that is peer-reviewed, then we know he is not a reliable source for information regarding economics. Not to mention his numerous lies, like denying the Cambodian genocide.

To find reputable authors look for people who are actually addressing topics that they have degrees in, as well as a significant amount of work experience. Richard Dawkins, as an example, may be an expert on evolutionary biology, but he is not an expert on religion, ironically enough, since that is what he spends most of his public life on. He's never had a single paper published on religion in a peer-reviewed journal. In fact, most public intellectuals talk about subjects that they are not even remotely experts in, and have spent hardly any time studying. Like Bill Nye on climate change. He sucks at discussing the issue; it's like he only knows some vague generalities. But, Bill Nye likes the attention he gets when he talks about all sorts of subjects he is not an actual expert in, so there you go --- never take someone's word for something who is not an actual expert on the topic.

Reply to LD Saunders
Just curious - what would be your alternative to a democratic system?

Aporiap: I wouldn't use another system besides a democratic one, and I do understand that in the USA we are a Constitutional Republic, but still, ultimately, we are governed by democratic policies. I would push more for education, including teaching people that one of the main ideas behind democracy is that an individual citizen needs to be able to articulate a logical argument to support their political position, which helps to build better citizens as they go through formulating arguments and using logic to address competing arguments. Democracy is also based on the idea that the citizen should not just base his political decisions on self-interest, but for the good of the country as a whole. I think those two aspects of democracy, and what the system is supposed to be about have been long forgotten. We certainly don't get rational, logical debates from most politicians and most political pundits.

Quoting LD Saunders

People are lazy, don't like to think, and it shows. It's far too easy these days for someone to pick up

Or perhaps people are overworked and busy, don’t have the time to do the research.

CuddlyHedgehog: I'm sure that is true for some people, but the vast majority of us certainly have time to learn at least some of the issues currently facing us. Far too many people are getting their information from social media sites, and that's definitely proving to be a problem. Pretty much any nonsense can be found over the net.

Aporiap: I wouldn't use another system besides a democratic one, and I do understand that in the USA we are a Constitutional Republic, but still, ultimately, we are governed by democratic policies. I would push more for education, including teaching people that one of the main ideas behind democracy is that an individual citizen needs to be able to articulate a logical argument to support their political position, which helps to build better citizens as they go through formulating arguments and using logic to address competing arguments. Democracy is also based on the idea that the citizen should not just base his political decisions on self-interest, but for the good of the country as a whole. I think those two aspects of democracy, and what the system is supposed to be about have been long forgotten. We certainly don't get rational, logical debates from most politicians and most political pundits.

Interesting. Do you feel education and advocacy are enough? I think people will still be susceptible to non-logical rhetoric, emotional factors, image and reputation of candidates. I mean take ben carson or even donald trump - both hold professional degrees, both went to prestigious schools and yet they still hold opinions and make decisions that are blatantly harmful and against the long term interests of their society. I think it would be interesting if there was a way to reform the election process and campaign process-- perhaps structure it in a way that minimizes influence of non-logical factors.. somehow make it blind? No televised debates, no revealing candidate names -- some central election committee assigns candidates a number or code letter and detail out their positions on a variety of issues; let them debate via audio or perhaps video where candidates are in a booth or somehow away from view with their voices distorted so people can just focus on the content of the argument and issues involved. Maybe that with education and strong advocacy for critical dissection of candidate positions. That alone will filter the voter pool to people that are willing to dissect the arguments or look at the content of the positions at least somewhat. That sort of strict voting process could work maybe? Idk