| From: | Joseph Hammer <parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date: | Tue, 1 Dec 2009 21:28:32 -0800 |
| Subject: | RE: [WDDM] Democracy and Direct Democracy |
|
Thanks for taking the time to read my post and to reply in such detail. You may be able to sway me on this point with a little proof. Perhaps a safeguard is appropriate if people are inclined to act in this way. Before I put safeguards in place, I would like to know if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly. Lata: Oh yes... but people will democratically choose a form of dictatorship.... You can't tell them "You can choose whatever you want" and then when they turn around and say "We choose Adolf Hitler" say... "well... except for that". In a situation where the people were able to choose from a selection of governing systems, there is a significant risk that the people would vote to hand supreme power to one man… like Hitler, with Hitler’esque authority over the people (or another form of government that turns out to be highly destructive to their self interest)? I’ve never actually had anyone bring up dictatorship when we are discussing preference for governing systems. I usually hear people supporting things like Socialism or Libertarianism. Could this affinity you detect for extreme forms of authoritarianism be a regional preference you have mistaken as a global? Perhaps you simply hang out with a group that is pro-dictatorship. It COULD be the media… such a skewed lens. Republicans can sometimes be frightened into supporting dictatorships. Some of them spook easily. Is letting the people decide their government dangerous? Will everyone just click the first check box on everything and destroy the place through their negligence? I do admit to some fear of this. How can I not be afraid? Our media is a constant parade of self destructing individuals. That constant stream of mediocrity and misery influences my image of society… it must. I supported the Viet Nam War and the Drug war… mostly because I thought our government didn’t make REALLY big mistakes, so these things must be good. The key, though, is that I didn’t know that at the time. So, I may be overestimating the average individual because of my bias. I understand that this might rain on my parade, but tell me why you believe this is a significant risk. I have been looking for studies I would consider closely relevant, but they never deal with this specific question… “If given a choice, how would you set up the government, if you were to have no official place in that government after you set it up?” It may be that you are basing your opinion on personal experience, but if you have any studies like this… I’m was hunting for ‘em J, but I ran out of time. I want to know… by secret ballot… “How would you set up the government? What would you focus on?” I want a study like this to test what we are talking about, and for many other uses. It’s gold, if you can find it… anyone??? J I am interested in exploring the “danger” side of allowing people FULL control over their governing system. What examples or evidence would you offer in support of the idea that the people will choose a government that will harm them? The concern is that the people may not know what’s best for them, and they may vote away their freedoms or prosperity. Is the proper course to allow the people to do this, or to have some body of men decide what choices are acceptable? In evidence that the people would not choose a destructive government, I have little to offer. The same can be said of the opposing side. The people have never actually been given the opportunity to choose, so it’s all speculation… but I am reassured. I am reassured. I get my reassurance from many places. It comes from my conversations with normal people, who often amaze me with their insight. It comes from Switzerland, where the people are moving toward a free society. It comes from initiative states, which do not implode, even when the people are given control over the constitution itself. It comes from WDDM… Ron Paul… Tea Parties… The Mises Institute… and from the understanding that eventually, truth will prevail… and I intend to be on the winning side. I am ready to trust my fellow citizens with any decision they make for their government, because I sincerely believe that the weight of evidence suggests that they will choose a government that is better than the one we now have… and deserving of support, in clear conscience (That would be a trip, huh?). Joe: The power of democracy is in the idea that the form of government that gains the support of the greatest proportion of a society will be the best form of government for that society. In other words, a form of government that is supported by 80% of the people will be more prosperous than one that is supported by 60% of the people.
Lata: (No. The concept of democracy is not so much related to effectiveness as it is with fairness. It will always be possible that a Dictator makes BETTER decisions... but dictatorship is unfair. Again, prosperity has nothing to do with the concept, other than prosperity is something the majority of people seek and which should, therefore, be a democratic outcome. However should does not always make it so ) Please define fairness. I would define “Fairness” as what society on average thinks is fair. Is it fair for a 22 year old man to go to prison for having consensual sex with a 16 year old female? We can have many perspectives to judge this fairness. First, is how we individually feel about this matter. Second is how groups of individuals judge the fairness… congress… juries… society. Fairness for society cannot be determined through the subjective valuations of any individual in society. We must query the preferences of some group of people to get a broader understanding estimate of the underlying value systems. If we ask a group to define fairness, I choose the whole people determined by enumeration or random sampling. “Fair” must be defined by the society. Please define better. I would define “Better” as what the society believes is better. Perhaps you would apply one single measure of goodness to any system. GDP? SAT’s? Suicide Rates? Marriage Rates? The extent to which these things matter is personal and subjective. And finally, please define prosperity. Define these in the context of society, and I can better see where we are missing each other. I would define prosperity in terms of happiness, which is probably why I used the term. It may be that a society with fewer resources can produce happier, more fulfilling lives. All the “Better” things and “Fairness” are only desirable because people believe that more of these things will make them happier. People seek prosperity because they seek happiness. For a majority of people, prosperity means happiness. “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence” – Aristotle He also said, “Happiness seems to require a modicum of external prosperity” –Aristotle He was sometimes a pompous ass, but he explored human happiness quite satisfyingly. The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and legislation. - Jeremy Bentham Happiness… Fairness… Better… Prosperity… All subjective… all VERY tempting to our vanity… the devil on our shoulder wants us to pick a metric… and measure. But they are all subjective. The only way to determine these things for society is to ask society. If the people want a religious oligarchy, give them one. If they want a dictatorship, let them have it. If you say dictators might make “Better” decisions, are you inferring that the average person would select that as an acceptable option when given a list of governments to choose from? Would you? And what makes dictatorship unfair? Unfair to whom? Doesn’t that depend on whether the dictator himself is fair? If there are 50 dictators, how are their decisions fair? Fair to whom? If we elect those dictators, and restrict what they can do, how are their decisions fair? Fair to whom? We, in all these cases, should be thinking of fairness in terms of the judgment of society in general. All this is a red herring, anyhow… a straw man to be resoundingly flogged. I never implied that democracy wasn’t about fairness. If the people are fair, then a government of the people will be fair. But the concept of FAIRNESS doesn’t give democracy it’s pragmatic power. Fairness is a characteristic that every government says they strive for. Few governments state unfairness as a public goal. I said the POWER behind democracy is in the force that backs it up… the largest body in men able to find common cause in government. Power is in pragmatism. Power is in truth. The truth is that a government which is not the choice of the people will always have unrest. As information becomes more readily available, this preference will become very easy to detect. If the 85% of the population support the government in its current form, but 90% would support the government given some small change, it is VITAL for the change to occur. Carefully consider this scenario. A government supported by 85% could be considered a success by any measure. Well, at least through moral equivalency. In this scenario, 90% of the people would support the new government, so here is the two extreme cases for this. First, the numbers look like this. 10% would not support the new change. These ten percent are important, so let’s analyze them. We know that there were 15% that previously did not support the government, and that number would decrease by 5% (to 10%). How did it decrease? We shall analyze the two possible extremes and reason that the actual effect will be somewhere between these two poles… In the first extreme, 10% of the people that used to support the government would withdraw their support for the government. All 15% of the people that used to be against the government will become enfranchised by the change. 10% will become disenfranchised. Here, 25% of the population have opposed views on the issue. 75% of the population would support the change, but they also support the current government. In this first extreme, we change something that disenfranchises two people for every three that become supporters of the system through this modification. It is unfortunate for that 10% of society, but in a democracy, the will of the people must prevail on these decisions. In the opposite extreme, 15% of the people used to be disenfranchised. One third of those (5% of the population) become supporters of the system through this change. The other 10% that used to hate the government continue to do so. The 85% that supported the old system are glad to have the support of the newly enfranchised citizens. The first case is likely for really IMPORTANT issues, like abortion, which could be an overriding determinant for a person. If a change of policy on a highly touchy topic like this causes more people in support of our democracy, then the following is true. This issue is important enough for a person to reject or accept a government on its basis alone. This is an extreme position, and is very characteristic of those who attach a VERY high value to the issue. We must work to minimize the number of people who are capable of turning their preferences into a violent crusade. The second extreme is likely when some perversion or injustice must be cured before a certain number of people will give their support to the system. The 85% have said that they are okay with the change, and the 5% have said it will satisfy their desires for government. The other 10% say it doesn’t matter, or it isn’t enough to change their vote. If this is not the goal of democracy, the enfranchisement of the maximum number of people, then we must start concretely defining the criteria for measuring “Better” and “Fair”. We say that society’s “Better” or “Fair” may be defective, so we will substitute some other gauge. The people want “Better” and “Fair” in their terms, and that is their right, as citizens of a democratic government. A government should seek the maximum support of the governed. This could be defended on many ethical grounds, but I turn now to pragmatism. Disenfranchised people are expensive. They bitch about the injustices of the system, and the last thing we want to do is ever let them be right. If they are disenfranchised, and they have a valid point, then we’ve just set a horrible precedent. - We know there is a problem, and we aren’t going to fix it… Or… It doesn’t affect us, so we can’t be bothered… buy some commercial time and some web banners, and then maybe we’ll eventually address the injustice. If we allow the people to define their government by their preferences, then the disenfranchised among us have far less street cred. There’s another killer boon to letting the people choose and contribute to their basic rules of government. There’s a guy, somewhere in Iowa right now… he’s eating cheese, and he’s contemplating a new system of justice. It is brilliant, but unseen. I want a forum for him to tell his story… to share his idea. I want to open the formation of government to the market of ideas, to see if there is any treasure. And in all this, I must say I treasure our time together… this is such a relaxing activity, fixing the world, with friends. I really enjoyed your reply, Lata, as always. I screwed up the word ‘decendants’… that made me giggle. I’m predicting the future, here =P. Look at reality. Look at the free choices people make, as consumers, as parents, etc. How far down their list of priorities is something like "Constitutional reform"? How many adults with serious careers, children, the whole nine yards have I met who told me to my face that they don't have any interest in politics, don't know the first thing about it, don't want to know and can we change the subject please... although the last month of last year's Presidential campaign was quite exciting... seeing all those people in Chicago was almost as good as watching Pop Idol. I'm not making any of this up. This is the average Western citizen, not some trailer park example. This apathy is the biggest obstacle to any of the ideas put forward in this forum. This could be depressing, Lata… but I am undepressable. I have a great deal of respect for the differences in people from region to region, from culture to culture and I can only comment on what I have observed. I am around town a LOT in Seattle, and I get this ENERGY from people… real excitement, laced with fear. This is the perfect storm. This is the perfect time. A majority of the people I talk to actually join my 8 hour list. They do it enthusiastically. Bah… my list is… a little notebook and Excel spreadsheet. I keep a list of names and phone numbers. I get people to commit me future time, if the dream came true. I get them to object to something they find unjust… there’s ALWAYS several to choose from. I then let them know that I believe that actions speak louder than words, and I believe it would be reasonable to make a commitment. I ask people something like the Godfather might say on the day of his daughter’s wedding. “Some day in the future, I will ask a favor of you.” I ask them to commit to 2, 8, or 40 hours when the time comes. The time comes when one million people make the commitment. They usually say 8. I’ve only got about thirty names, but I’m just testing the idea right now, to see how many people say yes J. The bright spot is that people USUALLY commit time to me. These are just random people around Seattle Center, and it’s a pretty diverse group. I try not to dart towards the first person that looks like me, but I tend to talk to more men =P. I suck at talking to women. I always feel like I’m in middle school. Tangent, tangent, tangent… apologies. Over half gave me commitments of eight hours or more. There is something incredibly bright about that. I’m not a skilled orator by any means. I think… if I can get people to commit … anyone can, and if a decent percentage follow through… yay. And look at Ron Paul’s crew!!! If you have an idea that is TRULY FABULOUS, I believe you can convince them of it, if it is well supported. Wow… a million peeps, right there… Young, motivated, informed. The Fed is about to be audited due in large part to their donated effort. People are waking up. How about all the tea parties around the United States. Good or bad, it is unexpected. We will look back later and say, “Those were the days when everything changed. Truth won out, and the dogmas of the past were shattered. For centuries, people were ignorant of their histories… of the lessons taught with blood and misery… but one day, the people wondered about their past… and they Google’d it… and the world was reborn.” And we shall have cocoa with little marshmallows and laugh heartily… and dance. This is the time to act. I am doing everything I can with my tiny resources, but I’m a bit lazy… light a thousand tiny fires, right? Be wild? Embarrass myself constantly? You bet. People are listening and the looming threat of REALLY BAD THINGS is making people pay attention in self interest. If something REALLY BAD happens, we will not get a progressive, enlightened government from the ashes. Joe: I have gotten a lot more positive response from, “Would you like to choose for yourself?” than “Would you like to switch to [Insert form of government here]?” Lata: Well, of course you have!!! Did you expect people to SAY "No, I prefer not to choose for myself, I am a sheep and I know it." ? How can you draw any conclusions from that? How many of the people who SAID they would prefer to choose for themselves would even cross the street, IN ORDER to make those choices? Just like anything in life, talk is cheap. They won't lift a finger to make it happen. I truncated what I actually ask people. I always ask if people will commit time to the endeavor. In each case, I would explain what I was planning for government, and ask for a phone number and a commitment, because that’s a better measure than asking if they “support” a change. When I was asking people to donate time to Direct Democracy + 80% Majority (which, coincidentally, is the model adopted by Sudbury schools. Very fun group. ) I got 3 people out of 12 to commit time. I abandoned specific endorsement, retooled my schtick and started asking people if they would put time towards supporting the more generic principal, that the people should have their preferences enumerated, and that information should be used to form the basic framework of government. Out of the next 20, over two-thirds gave me digits and at least 8 hours. Yes, the sample size is staggeringly low, but it’s all I’ve got. As a message, a “Design your own government” has had broader appeal than my best invention. I think, when I talk about direct democracy and the legitimacy of majorities, I run up against tremendous bias. When I focus on Democracy as a formula for the creation of a government, I am allowed to stand solely on principle, without pricking any thumbs. In the back of my mind, I know that this contest of governing methodologies can be rigged to favor the truth if I am in on its design. It is all in the rules of the debate. If you design a debate one way, you have a forum for demagogues to pontificate in turns… if you design it differently, however, you have a court room. You have cross examination. These presidential debates… this parliamentary procedure… congressional debates… these are not forums of truth, but echo chambers for men with massive lungs, belching insult to virtue in every utterance. And then Joe realizes that he is typing while sleepy… and while maintaining a perfect third person reference, Joe slowly begins to nod off. He apologizes for sleepy typing, the ugly cousin of drunk dialing, and hopes that these words find you in good humor, just in case I typed something embarrassing. Random book recommendation… “Economics in one lesson” – Henry Hazlitt
Dance. Parrhesia. (Very long and not proofread… I hope it makes a little sense =P) From: Lata Gouveia
[latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk] my comments below From: Joseph Hammer
<parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com> It is good to define terms precisely, and I believe it is required for an intelligent debate on a topic. I have seen a lot of time spent on the definition of “Direct Democracy” and it gives me pause. While direct popular consent is the manner of law formation that I would personally elect, that is only half of the term… DIRECT. The other half is the choice… the democracy portion. The power of democracy is in the idea that the form of government that gains the support of the greatest proportion of a society will be the best form of government for that society. In other words, a form of government that is supported by 80% of the people will be more prosperous than one that is supported by 60% of the people. (No. The concept of democracy is not so much related to effectiveness as it is with fairness. It will always be possible that a Dictator makes BETTER decisions... but dictatorship is unfair. Again, prosperity has nothing to do with the concept, other than prosperity is something the majority of people seek and which should, therefore, be a democratic outcome. However should does not always make it so ) Democracy is the key here… not direct democracy or representative democracy or socialist democracy. If the people choose it, it will be the best government for them. If you do not believe this, then you are using the word, “Democracy” to claim that if the people like your system better, it is somehow worthy of the word. It is NOT. Oh yes... but people will democratically choose a form of dictatorship.... You can't tell them "You can choose whatever you want" and then when they turn around and say "We choose Adolf Hitler" say... "well... except for that". Designing a true democracy requires that these decisions be made by those subject to the jurisdiction of the new government… the people themselves. ...and they will decide whichever option demands the lowest level of personal commitment... like... humm... representation.... (whilst maintaining that they want to have a say all along) Democracy… choice… must be the centerpiece of any new government that we hope to form. If we do not let the people CHOOSE whether they prefer representation, partial representation, random representation or NO representation, then we are not being true to our principals… if we claim democracy to be among them. Democracy is not the same as choice so I hope you meant "Democracy AND choice". I though you said it was good to "to define terms precisely". I agree with the rest of the argument. This is like saying that a Constitution should be drafted by the people, democratically. Good idea...but do you realize how hard it is to get people to participate in the political process? I'm sure you do. This is what I run into again and again... and again. Almost like a law of nature, the vast majority of people DON'T WANT to participate in the political process, they want someone to govern them. They want to spend their time doing whatever else it is they do. The fact that most of them would not admit to this (to being sheep) does not change their behaviour. Of couse if you ask them they'll say they want democracy and they want to have a say, etc, etc. But their behaviour is mostly passive and subordinate to the cults of personality and partisanship, peer pressure and keeping up with the Jones'. That's why we're still just a handfull of geeks discussing this in a "World Wide" forum that could fit in my flat. Nobody in mainstream society, mainstream media or even specialised media knows about the "World Wide Movement for Direct Democracy". This is the evidence of what our REAL obstacle is. If you had a picture of a naked woman on the home page, the membership would be 10 times what it is today. Like our descendants, we are blinded by our vanity in thinking that we can design a government as a whole and demand a vote on this imperfect beast. The ideal democracy must be designed by the people… not voted on as a single entity, but elected, piece by piece, according to the preferences of the individuals. I think you meant "ancestors" and... yes, perhaps it is vanity that drives us to design alternative models which are, inevitably, imperfect, but I don't think so. I don't believe it was vanity that drove Charles Darwin or any scientist working towards finding solutions. Politics is, in a way, a science and democracy (the real kind) is like a solution but we don't even have lab mice to try it on. Still. again, I like the concept of what you are proposing, but, who's going to organize the very 1st action? Is there a deadline for the process of initiative that would, supposedly, kick start this Constitutional drafting procedure? What do you do about the vast majority which will choose to abstain from participating? If you ignore them (like we do in the current systems) will it not be a Constitution drafted by a minority of geeks like us? Or do you make participation compulsory? Who makes it compulsory? You see? It's a chicken and egg thing. A leaderless and equal society is something I would literally die for. But every single day life shows me that we have leaders because we want to have them, not because they impose themselves upon us and we are anything but equal. The process seems irreversible to me. Like Antonio often explains, people would have to prepare for democracy before democracy can be. Our indocrination systems (we call them education systems) would have to totally change and we would have to wait for that generation to grow up and take the reigns of a democratic government. In the past, full employment was the golden concept. In the future we will realise that, without full PARTICIPATION, true democracy is impossible. Our current legal system shows that big sets of rules that get passed as one unit are polluted with a myriad of riders designed to gain the support of special interests. A constitution is no different. If it is designed as one big chunk, we will have to make “compromises” to enlist the support of certain groups, and it will taint our new government. If we define direct democracy as having no representatives, then we have a solid new term to use in our debate (what other definition could there be?). This is great, but if we are championing the form of government as the “best” without consulting the people who must be subject to it, then the term democracy is not appropriate to it. Again, I don't think most of us are saying it is "the best". We have no proof of that. I think what frustrates most of us is that it never was, we don't know if it's the best or even good. It was never given a chance. It seems to me like it would be the fairest, the most evolved system of government, sure, but Direct democracy has to be tested in many different incarnations (with and without weighted voting, with and without compulsory participation, with and without universal initiative provisions, etc) before we can assess its effectiveness.... But what percentage of the population is interested in such experiments? As long as people have reasonable standards of living they will (the majority) choose to spend their time doing anything else, it doesn't matter what, just NOT this. The only situation that can reverse that is if people are in a desperate and immediate struggle to survive. We spend Billions supposedly bringing "democracy" to former dictatorships and we can't even be bothered to participate in our own. I'd like to think it's because it's NOT really a democracy and our desillusinment with it is what causes the low turnouts. But this is not the truth. Look at reality. Look at the free choices people make, as consumers, as parents, etc. How far down their list of priorities is something like "Constitutional reform"? How many adults with serious careers, children, the whole nine yards have I met who told me to my face that they don't have any interest in politics, don't know the first thing about it, don't want to know and can we change the subject please... although the last month of last year's Presidential campaign was quite exciting... seeing all those people in Chicago was almost as good as watching Pop Idol. I'm not making any of this up. This is the average Western citizen, not some trailer park example. This apathy is the biggest obstacle to any of the ideas put forward in this forum. To be a direct DEMOCRACY, it must be both DIRECT and CHOSEN by the people. The best use of all the research that is being done here is to inform the public when they decide for themselves what course they wish to pursue. No one can predict what that will be, and the assumption that the best government can be guessed is pure hubris. I can predict that if you phone people and ask them, the majority will tell you they are not interested in taking part in your "survey" or whatever you're selling. I have gotten a lot more positive response from, “Would you like to choose for yourself?” than “Would you like to switch to [Insert form of government here]?” Well, of course you have!!! Did you expect people to SAY "No, I prefer not to choose for myself, I am a sheep and I know it." ? How can you draw any conclusions from that? How many of the people who SAID they would prefer to choose for themselves would even cross the street, IN ORDER to make those choices? Just like anything in life, talk is cheap. They won't lift a finger to make it happen. Democracy must be the goal. It has never been tried. Not really. Fully agree. Please forgive my negativity. I have faith in the concept of democracy. It's Western people I'm not so sure about. I think that an alternative democratic experiment would be very popular in North Korea, China or Cuba... but it would not be allowed. Think BIG, Parrhesia PS… something to think on. What a fine example of leadership you're giving us below. Don't worry, I've been accused of the same myself. My point is that it will always take instigators, leaders, motivators...like you. Welcome to Democracy In each step, you will be choosing what role you wish government to play in your everyday life. Vote according to your preferences. In each step, there will be content and guidance provided by the organizations you have selected. You have selected: WDDM and The Mises Instituteas your scholars. (Choose more here if you wish) If these organizations provide video, text or other media for each decision, they will be made available at the appropriate times. You will also see the recommended choices of these scholars next to the options themselves. Would you support (choose all that apply) X _ _ Anarchy, the complete absence of a compelling body of government. XX X A system of government.
You chose a system of government. In proceeding, you may elect to make each decision How XX X Cooperate to design a democratic government from the ground up according to the preferences of society. _ _ _ A new government designed by random representatives _ _ _ The current government, in its existing form _ _ _The current government, with some changes. (This will preset all of the choices to the values currently established by our government, which you can change) Would you support (choose all that apply) Completely Representative Government XX X Non-representative government XX X Mixed government
For representation, do you prefer your representatives to (choose all that apply) _ _ X Pass binding laws (on areas you select) _ _ X Make non-binding suggestions (on areas you select) X _ X A Mix of the two You said you would supported a government with mixed representation. What areas and what powers would you assign None Suggestion (NSB) NN N Military NNS N Banking NSBNS S Trade … Etcetera… you get the idea. From the decisions of the governed emerges real democracy… as socialist or free as the people wish. Do not attach freedom to democracy… do not attach capitalism or socialism or any other ism to it… make it the pure _expression_ of the public will and it will be beautiful. Beautiful. Accept no less. |