[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02310: Re: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

From: "Vijayaraghavan Padmanabhan" <vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com>
Date: 21 Sep 2009 10:30:35 -0000
Subject: Re: Re: [WDDM] Lata's Recent Comments

Hello Joseph Hammer,
I have replied to the questions raised by you on the pros and cons of Representation of people on the WDDM social network discussion forum: http://wddmsn.ning.com/forum/topics/the-immense-possibilities-of
Regards,
Vijayaraghavan P



On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 04:42:18 +0530 Joseph Hammer wrote
>
This is a topic I've been studying.

Representation... mostly good or mostly bad? This question is fundamental to how we structure our government. I embraced representation for over two decades... defended it... championed it... at all times in my mind defending it as an American principal. Yet, it is not the implementation of our democracy that is important, but democracy itself.

"of the people, by the people, for the people"

I stumbled across this the other day, and it made me think.

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill says,

"Unfortunately for the good sense of mankind, the fact of their fallibility is far from carrying the weight in their practical judgment, which is always allowed to it in theory; for while every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion, of which they feel very certain, may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable."

I think that when I state a position in public, it see it as part of my identity to those that hear it.

In speaking to people over the decades, I am more than aware of this tendency, but I doubt I possess the good sense to see it in myself most of the time. I do know this. Once I take a position in an argument, it is far less likely I will judge new evidence fairly. All evidence will be either for or against my case, and the careful task of evaluating the evidence in neutrality is compromised. This is a complex issue, and deciding on something important in haste or without reflection is inappropriate for decisions of governance.

Every once in a while, I realize that a view I held for my entire life is wrong. Once I am batterred with enough evidence to corner me into either gross and obvious explicit denial of truth or an admission of my error... I change my mind... in my better moments, at least. I feel that in every decision like this... every time, in effect, I've been wrong about something really important, it makes part of my identity up to that point a sham. I was VERY anti-drug as a teen, and I VERY much supported locking all the druggies up. I was backed into a wall by a friend that made me admit by my own arguments, that cable television should be banned. After I retrieved a new factiod from the slogan machine, he cornered me again, and made me admit the drug laws were kinda racist. Time and time again, I would come back with another argument... Then all the sudden, I realized that on the balance... I was on the wrong side. When I looked back at the rubble of my arguments, I realized I should have stopped arguing and read a book or two... I would have saved a lot of time, I think.

More than that, I am at once puzzled and humbled by the fact that, on the balance, three things kept me in ignorance, a slave to a lie... well... a willing slave...
1. I didn't research his view... A convenient oversight on my part.
2. I distorted magnitudes of importance... almost unconsciously... there is no malice here, but that excuses it a bit too much... just intellectual negligence.
3. I couldn't accept the magnitude of error that would have to be inferred in accepting that the entire drug war has been a waste.
4. I couldn't accept the magnitude of error that would have to be inferred in accepting that I had championed the wrong side of an issue... passionately.

In the back of my mind, I knew we were dealing kinda harshly with drug users, but I find that my skill in justification increases in measure with my feelings of guilt. What I did not understand at that point was the fundamental nature of government. Government is force. It is legitimated by the will of the people, and it is directed at the unjust... in theory. When we speak of law, government and voting, we are dealing with the legitimated use of force.

In a parlor, or over tea, we can gloss over this fact, but we are philosophers here. We must be. We must love truth above our egos. The truth will shatter little pieces of your identity as you embarce it. It will change you, and it will force you to accept that you have been wrong for many years. About a year ago I was narrowing down different representative systems and debating them with my colleagues. As you have discussed here at great length, the problem of finding the right people is severe.

We went over system after system, debating if we could subvert the will of the public through simple gaming. Through vote dilution and dummy candidates, we brought each one to its knees. Then we came to random representation. This involves no voting system, and cannot be greatly subverted.

Although we had to accept some minor ways the system could be tampered with, the simplicity of the system makes it pretty innocent. After debate, we found that we liked the system because it made the legislators more representative of the population in general. There would be fewer doctors and more nurses, for example.

Next question... do you want a fry cook deciding your fate? We actually came to the conclusion that a properly structured government could restrain the bad decisions to great degree. We then thought about a way for citizens to recall a bad decision, and we reinvented what Switzerland has. And then we thought... let's try to poke holes in this... it's fairly uncorruptable from the election side if you do it right. And random is representative... only random can truly be representative, because if you allow self selection, you're only going to get opinions representative of skilled politicians.

What we found is that there are severe deficits in the system of representation, apart from getting the right people in place. The defects are in the system itself, rather than in any individual politician.

Legislation must be as good as we can make it, because we must feel that through it, justice is done and the wicked are punished. It must be precise, because it is an instrument of compulsion in a free society. It is danger, but a danger we accept under the condition that it serves the only values that Americans can seem to agree about... freedom, liberty and individuality.

A final judgement will rest on the magnitudes of importance that you place on the individual factors I outline. I cannot argue these magnitudes, but I can say that in my own slow revelations, I have often distorted the magnitudes of importance to find myself on the "correct" side of a debate.

Assigning magnitudes to their importance rests both on my personal values, and my ability to predict the consequences of specific implementation details. Since both are highly subjective, it is possible for me to be driven by pride to the easy task of justifying my reasoning in service to my ego, pride, and vanity. Perhaps this is what now sets me firmly against representation... or perhaps its the avalanche of evidence condemning it.

A good friend, an immigrant from Romania, told me stories of great men being perverted by the incentives in the Communist system. He made me think... is it the men that corrupt the system, or the other way around?

And so, the guts of the analysis...

To analyze whether representation is beneficial, on the whole, we of course have to list our goals for this process. Since this is a democratic country, we embrace government by the will of the people. Our representation system serves our democratic principals, and cannot replace the principals themselves... the implementation must serve those principals. We believe in liberty... not the institution or implementation, but the ideal.

Our government and our processes must serve the ideals that society wishes. Our constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Declaration of Independence, and literature of the time make it clear that our first citizens wanted freedom, liberty, and a government that would protect those prinipals, so those principals would protect the people. The framers believed in democracy not for any particular aspect of its implementation, but for the principal of popular sovereignty it was intended to serve; for the hope that this system would restrain governments better than any previous system and provide a haven of freedom and liberty to all white male landowners.

Okay, perhaps there were some contradictions in the beginning, but the goals of freedom and liberty remain valid and beneficial. Could it be, that at the beginning, it was very difficult to craft a durable government that would both embrace liberty and legitimate slavery... and the rule that only white male landowners can vote?

In all, we made an admirable attempt at constructing a government that was more dedicated to freedom than everyone else. Isn't moral equivalency grand? It wasn't a fair chance at a government of true liberty, which must arise directly from the people.

Do we really expect that the representatives at the constitutional convention ever asked, "Is it good to have representatives... should we get rid of our jobs, guys?" Do we expect that they debated it on the floor without bias?

There may be good reason for representation over direct democracy, but I doubt representatives are in the position to correctly judge its merit.

If we aim at liberty and popular sovereignty, government by the people, then the purpose of a representative must be to represent the will of the people. It's in the name, I guess.

Does representation express the will of the people better than the ex-pression that would result from directly voting on legislation? It sounds crazy, but it IS theoretically possible. If a voter is only willing to vote once in a while and votes come up every few weeks, then the voter may abstain from voting rather than go through all the trouble. In this way, if the values of a representative are very close to the values of a voter, the representative can express the voters approximate values on every vote. The alternative would be no ex-pression of preference from the voter, as he or she would abstain.

This presumes that:
1. The voters will be overwhelmed without legislators. A large number of laws will make voting for legislation more taxing than periodically choosing a representative to perform that function.
2. Legislators generally have values that correspond with those of the people that voted for them, and those values drive their legislative decisions.

Placing that aside for now, perhaps we wish our legislators to pass laws different from those that would be passed by the general public. For many people, this is the great hope of representation.

If one believes that the accurate ex-pression of the public will is the purpose, then representation should be judged from the standpoint of how accurately it would mimic the votes of those represented.

If one believes that representation is aimed at making BETTER decisions than the mass of the citizenry then representation should be compared with other alternative systems with the long term quality of decisions/rules as the litmus.

If it can be shown that either of these is false, then those that support representation for the falsified reason should pause and reflect on the intrinsic value of the system in meeting their desires for government. If a system of legislation can be found that makes better average long term decisions and if that same system is more closely an ex-pression of the actual public will. If the most popular of such alternatives contains an element of representation, then sobeit.

A system of legislation must address the manner in which the rules of society are modified. One aspect of this is whether legislation is passed directly by the people, or by their chosen representatives. I have great faith in the quality of the individuals in this country. I hold many of our representatives in high regard. If representation is broken, it cannot solely be because of these people. Many of them are dedicated, trustworthy servants of the public.

Representation's core defect is not in the quality of the participants, but the nature of representation. We hold a popular election for a post of extreme influence. We ask a representative to compete with others for our support in the coming election. In so doing, we start a popularity game. One way to become popular is to invent grand new projects. Another way is to promise favors. Still another way is to resolve a crisis, real or imagined.

To get elected, you must differentiate yourself. You must make plans and promises and live up to those promises. Do we believe that we should pass laws forever? Is there no set of laws, consistent enough in its guiding philosophy to resist the fickle intellectual fads of imperfect men?

If we create a position for 535 people dedicated to passing laws, then we should expect them to do their jobs. If the public were responsible for passing legislation, it would be similar to the referendum process in some states. Public awareness about an issue would arise and only then would the law be changed, to meet a particular grievance of the public.

Surely, this is idealistic. The public will request laws that are harmful to the public good, even when they are not needed... and inevitably, some will pass. The states with initiatives have no shortage of bad laws on the books proposed and passed by referendum/initiative, but when the public makes these mistakes, they are not mistakes in the communication of the public will.

In browsing the referendums in Washington State, I find a mix of well intended paternalism (No Smoking, Give Schools More Money, Prohibition) and government limiting measures. The bulk of the proposals are very clear, a paragraph or two in many instances.

Now, I turn to recent federal laws passed by our congress. In a vast majority of those laws, the reach and scope of government are increased. Every law that wasn't a dedication of a post office was cryptic and peppered with filler like, "Change term 'group' to 'organization' on Paragraph II Section 1". The bills are HUGE and confusing and always address a multitude of laws that have nothing to do with each other. This should hardly be surprising considerring the incentives involved in each case.

Some of the mistakes that our representatives make can be ameliorated through careful design of the system. We can choose better candidates, hypothetically. I have seen ideas for many election systems that would undoubtedly perform a better job at selection. However, many of the drawbacks of representative democracy have nothing to do with the quality of the applicant.

First, there is the corrupting aspect of power. Every generation pays lip service to the maxim that power corrupts, and every generation falls victim to the folly of treating it only as a maxim. Power is abused to the extent it is granted. Designing a system that can work organically with society requires us to fully appreciate our nature and how we react to the temptation of fame and fortune. We are not corrupt, but corruptible.

Our system should not tempt our best and brightest leaders to compromise their principals for personal or political gain.

And I cast off the idea, seeded in my vanity that I can accurately judge a man by reading a few paragraphs in a pamphlet. Were I to devote hours to the study of every individual, I still do not think I could be confident in my task. On a personal level, I have been lied to on the grandest scale, and I believed the lie, and I know that men are capable of manipulating me, or lying to me with a straight face. I am capable of believing in ignorance, deceptions of the grandest magnitude, because I lacked the courage or energy to face the truth. I have faced the betrayal of ones I loved... I have faced the death of ones I loved. I am human, and I am ready to admit my own fallibility. The more I talk to people, the more I understand that every person suffers the unbearable betrayals I suffered, in one form or another. When a great betrayal is realized, we cry, condemn, suffer and try to forget... but we must at the end of the day face the world. We long to trust, and it leaves us exposed. We overrate our ability to judge others for very human reasons. We want the uncorruptable man to exist because we want to believe in absolutes.

I have enough trouble figuring out where I stand on the issues I care about. I don't also need the additional task of judging the honor of a candidate I've never even broken bread with. The best thing I could hope, as an informed citizen, is that the candidate that I vote for expresses my opinion on how government and society should interact. In the best case scenario, this representative has saved me no time. I must still educate myself on the issues of the day to select this candidate.

Next is the issue of a secret ballot. To prevent coercion of voters, we keep ballots secret. To ensure the privacy of the individual, we keep ballots secret. Since history shows ample evidence of public votes being subverted through intimidation and other nasty tactics, we need secret ballots. No one can ensure you vote a certain way, even if they are willing to threaten or bribe. There would simply be no way for them to know if you have complied. If they had the sophistication to check your ballot, then they could have more easily tampered with the ballot after you cast it. It keeps you safe from manipulation of the worst sort.

Our representatives are not afforded this safety from ill influences. If we are to have any accountability at all in this system, we MUST know how our representatives vote. This causes them to be vulnerable to the things we are safe from... bribery, blackmail. Congress routinely deals with legislation that is worth billions to interested parties. I don't want to paint a target on our Senators. I don't want to see another American representative paraded across the television embroiled in scandal because I lacked the ability to choose someone better.

The secret ballot is also crucial for another valuable reason. If you ask people in an auditorium to raise their hands if they've taken drugs, many drug takers will fail to raise their hands because of the social circumstances. They do not want to be labeled, or to suffer the scorn of society. There is a significant, even major difference in how individuals vote in public versus how they really feel about an issue. If we seek the objective will of an individual, we must not require that individual pronounce it in front of his mother.

Also, representation is always a periodic affair. To limit the ex-pression of the public will to imperfect elections every couple of years is dangerous. If not dangerous, then at least imprecise.

And to what term are we to elect these individuals. If the term is short, then we invalidate much of representatives' benefits, because the wisdom of senior members is said to be important to the system. New members of congress don't usually get anything done the first couple of years. They are said to be learning the ropes. What ARE they learning... it certainly cannot be economics.

So is a longer term the best choice? Should we allow our leaders to be re-elected over long periods. Do we want entrenched interests... to suffer the sluggish, good ol' boy, business as usual attitude in Washington. Once you get a seat in congress, you will benefit from another aspect of the system. A 90%+ re-election rate. It seems baffling when Congress has had such low approval for so long... the explanations offerred are, "The public is stupid" and "The system is broken". We feel partially responsible when Congress makes bad decisions, so many of us pretend that things aren't that bad and suspend critical thought. We do not want to feel stupid. We do not want to believe the system is broken. Many choose neither doltish self conception or resignation to flawed design. Many just stop thinking about it, in subconscious fear of the inevitable conclusions.

Further, representation introduces a celebrity element to the process of government. The celebrity element can influence reporters, since even sporadic access to a politician can bring great financial benefit. Consequently, the media doesn't closely scrutinize government on SUPER SENSITIVE ISSUES... Like the felony purge list tamperring in Florida, circa 2000. We are idealistic when we view the media as more than it is. We, the public, have our intentions for media... but they have their own. They will not sacrifice access to political officials for ONE STORY. Since representatives will be limited in number, and they will wield great power, it is hard to avoid the accompanying celebrity.

As to the necessity of expertise in Congress, are there many scientists among its members, or do they come from particular classes of men... say doctors and lawyers? The environmental expertise, financial expertise, and regulatory wisdom they rely on largely comes from the industries they are supposed to regulate. I do not want businesses writing their own regulations. They drool at the opportunity to create large fixed costs in the industry that will damage smaller competitors, who cannot as easily take the regulatory pressure. There are many other ways that this relationship is abused. Many. The representatives simply do not have an effective incentive to completely understand the issues involved... which may take days or weeks of dedicated research.

Whatever the system of election, those who are best at getting elected will be the ones in power. Should we assume there is an overlap between political skill and scientific rigor? They don't seem like good bedfellows.

And a "class of men" describes Congress nicely. Law is consistently more lenient on them and their friends. I need point no further than Ted Kennedy, rest his soul. If you do not already know, read about his watery, drunken mistake and how it was handled. This leniency extends not only to the political class, but through our government it also extends to some of the wealthy. Equality?

Furthermore, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance because our system provides incentives for politicians to be ever active in the formation of new rules, regulations and pledges of allegiance. If you live your life in peace, and ignore the system, it will change, and it will be in the interest of others, who asked for and received presents from the protectors of liberty we call Congress. Members in an election must promote change to differentiate themselves. These will be the representatives we elect. We will elect the person with the plans and vision, and... change for the sake of change begins to drive the system ever onward.

For all the bridges and broadband networks, why would a free society choose to employ the government, the compulsive arm of our society, in their construction. If these things be built by chain gangs or slaves, then let men of authority direct them. For all other monuments that society chooses to build, let cooperation be the tool. If we are really choosing socialism as a preference here, then representation becomes much, much more dangerous. In a free society, the people build the bridges, and the government defends them from aggressors.

Even if Congress decides to tax and build these things, that doesn't imply any particular expertise about bridges. It only implies skill in passing laws. Once Congress decides to build a bridge, it has to be built. This function is performed by the executive branch, who will hire the architects, planners, and builders. Whether the public says, "We need a bridge" or the legislature says, "We need a bridge", the bridge is ultimately built by a company like, "Puget Sound Quality Construction Co.", and this is directed by the executive. Legislators only get to cut the ribbon at the ceremony.

All that said, let us look at our hopes for representation, to try to achieve its goals in some other way. There are many ways to better inform the public in their voting. We can even require voters to demonstrate knowledge of the topic to vote. We can require them to watch a 5 minute video from each side of the issue. Or, my preference... require nothing.

Make the knowledge accessible and trust your society. At 15, I thought everyone underestimated me. At 25, I saw that everyone else thought they were underestimated, as well. And now, after many years, after talking to thousands from every part of this nation, I realize that I have underestimated everyone.

We must not fear the responsibility to be the government. Liberty demands it of us. I do not believe that some men are naturally more comfortable in bondage. They are the cat that has never been outdoors. They are content because they do not know what they should long for. This house cat has peeked out the window, and has seen things to long for. Freedom. Liberty. Justice. Peace.

Representation must be considerred very carefully, because we have a bias towards its favor. Our representative system is part of our identity in America. I watched the animated short film, "How a bill becomes a law", and I was enthralled. The government to me had always been a safeguard of freedom and liberty around the globe. Anything to do with the government for me in those days was top shelf.

I first crafted this response with many examples of poor representation in America and around the world, such as the corn laws in Britain and the Federal Reserve in America. But the argument is not that representatives will not from time to time make bad decisions... it is that a majority of them, when long term effects are considered, are destructive to the human condition. I cannot convince anyone of this by analyzing what would surely be a minute proportion of the legislation passed. I must hope, that from the information here, one would be prompted to dig up any random set of five laws passed by congress, and to ask honestly... "Is this better than what the people would have passed themselves?" or "Should this law have even been passed?". Compare these laws with any set of five initiatives and referendums from any state.

In general, in all my studies... the people legislate better. If direct democracy was not effective, would we have even heard of Athens? If it was the cause of poverty, then Switzerland would not be wealthy... peaceful.

Direct democracy is far from perfect. The defects cannot be in democracy itself, because democracy is an idea... the will of the people shall determine their government. The plain truth is that the people were offerred no alternative governments to choose from. Before our representatives may act in the name of the people, the people must consent to the sacrifice of direct control over that government. The sacrifice of direct control must have been a clear communication from the public, or these men had no right to call themselves representatives. First at the state level, and then at the federal level, representatives of a system that was never chosen by the direct will of the people proclaimed their legitimacy. They proclaimed to have a new government that would ensure a free, peaceful nation. They said that the majority should rule everything, and the majority agreed. Tacked onto their prescious document, a bill of rights. The bill of rights was from the people. It was all about what the government could not do to a free individual.

Read through the US Constitution and the Bill of RIghts. It is always a rewarding read, so take the time to do it once more. As you read, recognize that the Constitution itself was written by politicians... representatives of the people and defenders of their precious liberty.

Note the structure of the Constitution.

Everywhere, it preaches about the power it is allowed to wield, how control must be exercised, how funds were to be withdrawn for its expenses, what they may regulate, how they appoint each other, and how their pay raises work. And then begin to read the real product of democracy. Straight from the will of the people, the Bill of Rights. Many famous statesmen advised against the Bill of Rights, saying that this government was different, and needed no such blanket declarations.

"bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous." - Alexander Hamilton

The most glorious part of the constitution appears after they get through with all the legal speak that the politicians were so proud of. The shining star of the constitution is the Bill of Rights. Without its protections, it is hard to imagine how our past would have evolved. How has the Constitution's careful planning fared? The separation of powers doctrine has failed, due to parties posting candidates for both the legislative and executive branch... which in turn apoints the judicial. They took upon themselves the responsibility for coinage and money and have been dicing it up ever since... several national banks later, we may pause and look back. Were these wise decisions? Did they not enjoy the good counsel of many before that warned of the dangers of government/bank flirtation? Leviticus and Proverbs? They had no bibles, perhaps. Every time that Patrick Henry or Andrew Jackson spoke with passion on the subject, they must have been napping. Just a few years after the turmoil of the Continental dollar, the government was back in banking. The fiat currency they created, the continental dollar, destroyed lives. The First National Bank was designed to end the ravages of fiat currency that had destroyed so many fortunes. The Federal Reserve Bank, our third attempt at a national bank has brought back exactly the type of fiat currency that the First National Bank was designed to end. The First National Bank was another grand ex-pression of political compromise. To gain enough votes for it's passage (because it lacked the votes to pass on it's merit) the "We should build a big bank" crowd made a deal with the "We should move the nation's capital" gang so both minority plans would slide through. And so, we relocated the nations capital so we could build her a bank. You can't make this stuff up.

And I would accept all these mistakes as the price of the game, if the public was given the chance to choose from alternatives.

This was never done. If the people were be given two flavors of our constitution, one representative and one direct, what would they have chosen. Would they have chosen to be the government themselves or to elect a king, or two kings, or 535 kings in place of the one they despised? Having two kings that rule you isn't necessarily better than one, and now they're both going to argue about who gets to tell you what to do. Even the least sophisticated cobbler could have predicted that no matter how many rulers we elected, we would always end up paying for their little castles... by hook or crook. Those who crafted the Constitution were not fit judges of whether representation itself is valid. They cannot legitimate themselves. It was a liberty taken, not given, long ago as politicians exhibited their natural tendency to rate their judgement over that of mere farmers and brewers.

Passionate? Want to fix everything? If you have 5 hours a week to dedicate and you want to change the world, please email.
Parrhesia Joe
Phase 2 - Day 3 of the plan


On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 8:45 AM, <Fred Gohlke> wrote:
>
Good Morning, Lata
>
>re: "People are so used to representative systems that, when
>    confronted with having to make decisions, they come back
>    saying that it's wrong to impose our will on anyone else.
>    Very interesting indeed. It makes me think that the horrific
>    democratic deficit that we can identify in every
>    representative system is not, for most people, the problem,
>    it is a virtue.  It gives them escape goats and deflects
>    personal responsibility. I am beginning to think that, deep
>    down that is what people want, even if they are ashamed to
>    admit it."
>
>In spite of my earlier comment that "you are uncommonly thoughtful", the disparaging remarks in your letter do not seem well thought out.
>
>Specifically,
>
>re: "... they come back saying that it's wrong to impose our will
>    on anyone else."
>
>However much it may offend you, I lack the arrogance to believe I have a right to "impose (my) will on anyone else."  Indeed, in my 80 years, I've seen enough to know I oppose anyone who feels they have that right.  It is not our place to impose our will; all we can do is seek a way to find the will of the people and enable them to implement it.
>
>
>re: "... even if they are ashamed to admit it."
>
>I am not ashamed of the fact that I believe representative democracy is the only rational form of government.  I need representatives with the intellect and integrity to address the problems of society as they arise.  I have neither the knowledge, nor access to the hard data that would inform me, to make a judgment as to whether a bridge on the highway is structurally sound, or whether bank capitalizations are adequate, or whether the ice cap is growing or shrinking at an unusual rate, or whether a foreign nation has Weapons of Mass Destruction (even though the amount of hyperbole that surrounded the latter suggested it was an engineered issue.)  To imagine that lay citizens can, or should, render judgments on such topics is the height of folly.
>
>We elect people to investigate these matters and we provide them with the resources necessary to do so.  The fact that they have proven inadequate to the task does not invalidate the system.  It just shows that we have elected incompetent people.
>
>There is no question but that, as you once said, "... we have a problem with being 'represented' by somebody who does not know us, does not care, somebody who has their own agenda ...".  When I first read that assertion, I thought you recognized the fallacy of electoral processes, dominated by vested interests, that take away our natural right to select our own representatives.  Now, it appears you had the words right, but drew the wrong conclusion.
>
>
>re: "It makes me think that the horrific democratic deficit that
>    we can identify in every representative system is not, for
>    most people, the problem, it is a virtue."
>
>If by 'horrific democratic deficit' you mean that our so-called representative democracies are in no way representative of the people, your characterization is fine.  But, to suggest the people think that circumstance a virtue is shallow.  There is no shortage of dissatisfaction with such systems, there is only an inability, so far, to understand why the present implementations are undemocratic.
>
>Since you apparently reject the concept of representative democracy, you implicitly deny that there are, among us, people we can trust to represent us, people capable of conducting our government in a manner that allows us to live our ordinary lives in peace and security.  That is, from my perspective, an inaccurate and slanderous view of our species.
>
>We have no lack of capable, public-spirited people with integrity.  What we lack is the means of finding them and raising them to seats as our representatives in our government. People of real talent often find great rewards in the free market of goods and ideas, and have no interest in government, apart from minimizing the effect of it on their free enterprise.

>Fred Gohlke
>

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]