What to do when democracy fails.

[coberst]

What to do when democracy fails.

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

Our financial system’s abrupt collapse is one manifestation of this problem. Few of our experts, if any, have the sophistication to mange this high tech economy that we have created. Certainly few if any of our (USA) citizens have the sophistication to make decisions about this matter.

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

We have tried Monarchy, Oligarchy, and now Democracy.

Where can we turn when our technology outstrips our intellectual sophistication?

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

 

[Nihilismus]

Anarchy; it's not the law, it's just a good idea.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

To me, the only direction is one in which the market is protected from the ravages of democracy.

The problem isn't that we aren't smart enough to "manage" an economy, but that we are stupid enough to try. The economy is a spontaneous order, and all we need do is provide the ground rules for its operation, not some economic engineering plan.

Technophobia isn't the answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[billwald]

The problem is scale. Every form of government fails when the numbers get large. But it is a new world out there. Prior to WW2 a country needed a large army or navy in order to exist except for some special cases like Monaco and Switzerland. Population was more important than form of government. But thanks to nukes and ACBMs size no longer matters. Israel only exists because they have nukes and Iran doesn't. On the other hand, our nukes have not protected us against small groups of dedicated nasty people around the world.

All around the world the US has fomented revolution of ethnic minorities. Good for goose is good for the gander. I propose the dissolution of the US into 50 sovereign nations. A good place to start would be to split into 4 sovereign nations, everything west of the Rockies, from the Rockies to the Mississippi, and on the Mason-Dixon line from the Mississippi to the Atlantic Ocean. The Mississippi would be treated as a sea lane.

 

[Echetus]

Technological advancment to where human comprehension, involvement, or discipline over that technological advancement has yet to create a major problem in my opinion.
The humor in your question is when has the public ever understood completely the situation of the country? People are given points by experts to which they decide the correct path for conclusion. As long as there are experts there will be understanding. People have a will continue to be lead by the research of experts. There are two economic understandings, the Democratic and Republican. To understand the political, sociological, economical and international effect of decisions is unfortunately beyond the capacity of most people. It requires research, experience, and schooling. So my retort is that Democracy will thrive as long as there are those we take time to go in depth to singular questions, there conclusions create the necessary information to combine the bigger picture, and thus create a political template for which the public can decide upon.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

When democracy fails, and all systems fall (although I would not call what we have democracy and I am not sure democracy can actually function in the real world anyway), then the things to do are the same things to do under any other system:
Pray, marry, love, raise a family, die, praise God, build homes, gather water, grow food, produce tools, converse with friends and family, give to those in need, accept when in need, cultivate virtue, admire beauty, seek truth, uphold principle, obey legitimate authority, bathe when dirty, cry when sad, laugh when happy, tremble when afraid.

All systems are flawed, those systems which leave space for people to do the above survive for a reasonable amount of time (though they always fall), those which do not either slowly become more lax until they do, or being too rigid for that they fall catastrophically and something new takes their place. What "system" rules is not really of much concern then, since if it is intolerable, it will fall, and if it is tolerable, it is as good as the others.

 

[coberst]

The point is that whether you call it a democracy or vegetable soup we live in a form of government wherein the citizens are sovereign and in most cases lack the sophistication required for that task. Furthermore they often lack the will to perform their task adequately.

 

[MorkandMindy]

... we live in a form of government wherein the citizens are sovereign and in most cases lack the sophistication required for that task. Furthermore they often lack the will to perform their task adequately.

Nobody should expect to just open the window, look out and expect to understand the United States economy and political structure without input from anyone else.


People have chosen to believe nonsense instead of sense


The US and UK have since 1982 run balance of trade deficits and have both run out of money at roughly the same time


There is nothing super complicated about it

 

[MorkandMindy]

What to do when democracy fails.

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.
...

The current confusion is because the public has some exposure to the truth. In past the multimillionaires and their media have told the public what to believe and life has been simple. The US has been effectively an oligarchy for a very long time.


What you could be seeing now is the return of democracy.

 

[MorkandMindy]

OK so the US is more or less bankrupt, but this is a philosophy forum not business and economics, so we'll skip over that

.

 

[ACougar]

1. The US system of government is relatively democratic, however it's not a true democracy or a direct democracy. Our government derives it's legitimacy from the governed, if it's not democratic it's not legitimate.

2. Technology is moving us to the point where a more direct democracy can be instituted, the constitution as it is interpreted today can continue to define basic human rights... however much of the authority of the Federal government could be decentralized and returned to the states.

3. Why do you say humans are incapable of guiding or controling the technology we've created? It's a popular hollywood theme, however when has technology become uncontrolable? Human greed, lust for power and control have caused countless wars... how many have been started because we couldn't control our technology?

4. The Financial System has caught a cold, perhaps even pnumonia... however rumors of it's death are greatly exagerated. When we see 25% or higher unemployment and hyper-inflation... then the economy will be in critical condition. When you can't buy goods or food with dollars, the economy will have collapsed.

5. No one in power has the "sophistication" to make decisions that everyone agrees with... comprimise is often ugly and counterproductive, however it's the only reasonable solution.

6. Exactly what technologies do you want to put back in the bag?

What to do when democracy fails.

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

Our financial system’s abrupt collapse is one manifestation of this problem. Few of our experts, if any, have the sophistication to mange this high tech economy that we have created. Certainly few if any of our (USA) citizens have the sophistication to make decisions about this matter.

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

We have tried Monarchy, Oligarchy, and now Democracy.

Where can we turn when our technology outstrips our intellectual sophistication?

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

How would more democracy actually benefit society?
I have to say I remain hugely skeptical about this democracy stuff. Don't get me wrong, when C.S. Lewis wrote that "I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. . . . I find that they're not true without looking further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters. ("Equality," in C. S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, ed. by Lesley Walmsley [London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000,] p. 666)" I think he makes a very good point. Power must be checked.

Now there are various things that can be said about to what extent democracy is more effective at checking power than other systems (although I totally oppose both absolutism and various forms of dictatorship/colonelocracy and absolutism etc. because they most obviously go too far in reducing checks on power to the point only some kind of coup or the death of the one in power can serve as checks and balances) - but one thing that is surely clear is that "direct democracy" would not check power more effectively. It would make it more diffuse and unaccountable which goes against the concept of checking it because it will be too diffuse to be taken to task for what is done.

 

[ACougar]

It's democracy that grants a governemnt legitimacy, the more democratic a government the more legitimate.

Government exists to serve the people, if the people are not in control of government then the government is in control of the people. Personally, I don't believe in a fallen man or that man is wise and good. Man is just man, good and bad, wise and foolish, and every man deserves to be free until he has proven that he doesn't respect the freedom of his fellow man.

How would more democracy actually benefit society?
I have to say I remain hugely skeptical about this democracy stuff. Don't get me wrong, when C.S. Lewis wrote that "I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they're not true. . . . I find that they're not true without looking further than myself. I don't deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters. ("Equality," in C. S. Lewis: Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces, ed. by Lesley Walmsley [London: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000,] p. 666)" I think he makes a very good point. Power must be checked.

Now there are various things that can be said about to what extent democracy is more effective at checking power than other systems (although I totally oppose both absolutism and various forms of dictatorship/colonelocracy and absolutism etc. because they most obviously go too far in reducing checks on power to the point only some kind of coup or the death of the one in power can serve as checks and balances) - but one thing that is surely clear is that "direct democracy" would not check power more effectively. It would make it more diffuse and unaccountable which goes against the concept of checking it because it will be too diffuse to be taken to task for what is done.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

It's democracy that grants a governemnt legitimacy, the more democratic a government the more legitimate.

On what authority do you make this statement?

Government exists to serve the people, if the people are not in control of government then the government is in control of the people.

I agree the government exists to serve the people, I do not agree this means they need to be in direct control. The government exists to serve me, but I should never be allowed any power over it because I am a reactionary of the worst kind Parents serve their children, but children do not have a vote over whether they brush their teeth or go to school etc

Personally, I don't believe in a fallen man or that man is wise and good. Man is just man, good and bad, wise and foolish, and every man deserves to be free until he would steal that freedom from his fellow man.

democracy has nothing much to do with freedom one way or the other. A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

 

[billwald]

Economies are not republican or democratic because both parties are owned by the same people.

There are two parallel economies: One for (generally) people who loan money and one for (generally working class) people who borrow money. One economy can grow while the other shrinks. The real rich people came out of the Great Depression even richer. It was the wannabe new rich people and the working class people who lost big time.

A controlled inflation helps the borrowers because they pay off with cheaper dollars. A controlled deflation helps the loaners because the interest payments they receive buy more stuff.

Most working class spend 90% of their annual income and pay income and payroll tax on most of it. A rich person has annual capital gains. If he spends 10% of his capital gains he pays 15% tax on it. The rest multiples tax free. He doesn't pay any payroll tax. If he has interest income, he pays income tax but no payroll tax. If he has taxable interest, he puts half of it into a family charity and it is deductible. He controls the family charity. The control is more important than the money.

 

[coberst]

Evolution moves very slowly. We adapt to our environment very slowly. We survive because we do adapt. When we change more quickly than we can adapt we face problems that we have not had the time to make the kind of adjustments necessary.

The habits we acquire determine our state of mind. Our changing habits are part of this process of adaptation to our environment. Do not think of environment as being just the quality of our air or water but it is a broad term signifying the world we live in.

Consider the Credit Card as a technology that has had a disastrous affect upon our society. It is the Credit Card frame of mind that has created the financial environment that has made the present financial fiasco possible.

 

[MorkandMindy]

1. The US system of government is relatively democratic, however it's not a true democracy or a direct democracy. Our government derives it's legitimacy from the governed, if it's not democratic it's not legitimate.

2. Technology is moving us to the point where a more direct democracy can be instituted, the constitution as it is interpreted today can continue to define basic human rights... however much of the authority of the Federal government could be decentralized and returned to the states.

3. Why do you say humans are incapable of guiding or controling the technology we've created? It's a popular hollywood theme, however when has technology become uncontrolable? Human greed, lust for power and control have caused countless wars... how many have been started because we couldn't control our technology?

4. The Financial System has caught a cold, perhaps even pnumonia... however rumors of it's death are greatly exagerated. When we see 25% or higher unemployment and hyper-inflation... then the economy will be in critical condition. When you can't buy goods or food with dollars, the economy will have collapsed.

5. No one in power has the "sophistication" to make decisions that everyone agrees with... comprimise is often ugly and counterproductive, however it's the only reasonable solution.

6. Exactly what technologies do you want to put back in the bag?

Arts types see censorship as the lack of freedom of expression; humanities are produced by humans so humans are the source of whatever you want to find out.


I'm a science type and information comes from outside. Questions arise because a comet is seen in the 'perfect unchangeable heavens'.


To many 'freedom of speech' is the ability to get something published in a newspaper, or to speak to others on the telephone or an internet site like this. But to me that is futile if there if the input is corrupted.


The real truth about pretty much everything is secret, not to keep it from 'the enemy' because 'the enemy' is usually on the other end of the communication or because the information came from 'the enemy'.


The US is effectively an oligarchy because the public are fed incorrect information and think and vote on the basis of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

one thing that is surely clear is that "direct democracy" would not check power more effectively. It would make it more diffuse and unaccountable which goes against the concept of checking it because it will be too diffuse to be taken to task for what is done.

This is a good point, though I wonder if this power would need to be "accountable" if it was only used to repeal laws rather than to vote any into existence. While unfortunately good laws might occasionally be repealed, the prize of power for the electorate would be much less, and so one may expect such repeals to be done for principle rather than out of corruption.

This is not such a theoretical issue, since the repeal of gay marriage rights in California may be an example of the repeal of a good law. Direct democracy must always face up to this possibility, and not treat direct democracy as an unqualified good.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ACougar]

On what authority do you make this statement?

The Constitution of the United States...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I agree the government exists to serve the people, I do not agree this means they need to be in direct control. The government exists to serve me, but I should never be allowed any power over it because I am a reactionary of the worst kind Parents serve their children, but children do not have a vote over whether they brush their teeth or go to school etc democracy has nothing much to do with freedom one way or the other. A tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

That's why a solid constitution is so important, one that protects minorities from the tyrany of the majority. I don't like the parent/child anology between citizen and government... people who work in government are public servents. Government doesn't exist to make sure we brush our teeth or wipe our behinds. It exists to provide for the common defense, establish justice, insure the the public tranquility... at the local level to help coordinate fire and police services, ect...

 

[ACougar]

The real truth about pretty much everything is secret, not to keep it from 'the enemy' because 'the enemy' is usually on the other end of the communication or because the information came from 'the enemy'.

I don't really buy that, information is "spun" however most information out there is available. When you turn on the news, you need to understand it's going through a corperate filter... when you read a newspaper, you need to understand that it has been edited and that it probably reflects the bias of the papers owners, ect...

The US is effectively an oligarchy because the public are fed incorrect information and think and vote on the basis of it.

Were it not for the internet, that statement might be true today. It is only partially true though...