Poll: Would true democracy work?

[Chilango2]

Giving every adult the vote is the only way to achieve that goal on any sort of long term basis.

Disagree. Because the vote can only work if the voter can comprehend the Truth, and a Politician's Goal is to Pervert the Truth to serve themselves. And sometimes the voter doesn't want to know or can't handle the Truth.

How many Republican/Democrat/Tory/Liberal/Labour/Green etc. broadcasts start with "Well, look what the other guy did..."?
How many voters are prepared to make sacrifices of their own ideals to protect society?

And that's way before you determine what an "adult" is.

So, there is one absolute "Truth" is there?

Maybe in the land of ponies and rainbows and mathematics, but you forget that this is *politics*. Politics is by *definition* various groups working with or against each other to serve their own interests. A government "system" is just a more or less accepted set of rules to have the "argument" occur within. You can't just magically stop interests groups clashing, to think that is possible is Utopian idealism. Man is a political (social) animal.

Making your Starship Trooper-like ubermensch geniuses with a sense of responsibility magically be the only ruling//voting class won't change that, because it doesn't solve the problem of *legitimacy*. (let's also ignore the problem that your ruling class doesn't exist, is not a natural political group or alliance, and as such has no power, so how your government could come to rule is a mystery)

It also won't solve the problem of what happens when the Magical Pony Politicians decide that since their more "responsible" and smarter than everyone else, *they* should get all the benefits and start treating the rest of us plebes like second class citizens. Put another way, any natural, genetic, or another form of aristocracy has no protection from the arbitrary use of power, something a government must have if it is to avoid massive evils and mistakes.

 

[Gedrin]

I think representative government is a good combination of allowing the people to choose how their interests are advocated, and assigning people of (supposed) merit with the responsibility of making decisions. However, I think there is a modern age problem with rapid communication and mass media that wasn't anticipated at the foundation of most of the modern representative governments.
Massmedia combine with certain issues to create emotional groundswells and genenrally poorly thought out oppinions. Combine this with representatives responding directly to polling, and you have the problems of "pure democracy" tied together with the difficulties of a supposedly meritorious poltical/ruling class. Elections in such a society become less about general character and wisdom, and more about calculations of targetted pandering.
I'm not under any delusion that it is only recently that elections have been nasty. Just ask Hamilton and Burr if you think it's rough these days. Or that politicians are only recently willing to make wild promises to win votes. I do think that the difficulties are magnified by the evolution of communications, and we have not developed an adequate solution for the problem.
Sill, the best solutions to human problems tend to be those that take into account the general weaknesses of humans and turn them toward as good an end as possible. If politicians are driven to be liked, gain power and be reelected, I'm still relatively pleased with the idea that they can best do this reliably by making the majority of their constituency happy with them.
For my money, I would be happier if there were fewer laws and fewer votes at all by my representatives. I would want each of these votes to be very limited in scope. The complexity of most bills is staggering, which prevents a clear image of what people are voting for, or against. This makes it easier for politicians to both pander to one consituency and obfuscate something that would anger another...even when they would both be concerned with the same piece of legislation.
The sheer mass and complexity of the system and its organs at this point serve to damage the people's ability to monitor it. I think that, more than anything else, causes problems.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

So, there is one absolute "Truth" is there?

Yes. See Plato's Cave for why. There are, however, many truths.

Maybe in the land of ponies and rainbows and mathematics, but you forget that this is *politics*.
(Ad Hominem argument)
Politics is by *definition* various groups working with or against each other to serve their own interests.
[Nope. By Definition they're a governer of the people from 'polis' : Latin word for people]
A government "system" is just a more or less accepted set of rules to have the "argument" occur within. You can't just magically stop interests groups clashing, to think that is possible is Utopian idealism.
[Ad Hominen argument, bordering on slander]
Man is a political (social) animal.


Making your Starship Trooper-like ubermensch geniuses with a sense of responsibility magically be the only ruling//voting class won't change that,
[So far off the scale it's unfunny, and going towards a Freudian route.]
because it doesn't solve the problem of *legitimacy*.
[Which you never define]
(let's also ignore the problem that your ruling class doesn't exist,
[What ruling class?]
is not a natural political group or alliance,
[I never said it was]
and as such has no power,
[Huh?]
so how your government could come to rule is a mystery)
[Have you been drinking?]
It also won't solve the problem of what happens when the Magical Pony Politicians
[You are talking to me, right?]
decide that since their more "responsible" and smarter than everyone else,
[What, like every other politician since year dot?]
*they* should get all the benefits and start treating the rest of us plebes like second class citizens.
[Uhuh..like any other politician]
Put another way, any natural, genetic, or another form of aristocracy has no protection from the arbitrary use of power, something a government must have if it is to avoid massive evils and mistakes.

Put it another way...climb down off your high horse and read what I wrote next time. Not what you want to argue about. I suggested no soloution, just pointed out two inherent problems with voting, the latter of which you never touched. And the former of which, you insulted my ability to form cohesive arguments whilst making up your own ideas about what I had said.

 

[BlueMage]

Communism, for example, (and not just to get a rise out of the Americans) would eliminate this problem, as would Feudalism and quite a few Republics.

Mate, don't believe what anyone tells you - Communism is alive and well, and is the lynchpin of every great manufacturer in the world that seeks to use manufacturing best practice. Don't believe me? Check out lean manufacturing, drum-buffer-rope manufacturing and other Theory of Constraints related manufacturing techniques.

 

[Larenxis]

Blue Mage, can you tell me more? I wasn't aware of communism working outside of communes.

 

[BlueMage]

Blue Mage, can you tell me more? I wasn't aware of communism working outside of communes.

Think of it this way - traditional manufacturing is about pushing as much throughput as you can at your machine, even if the next guy can't run his machine as fast for whatever reason. You end up with a huge WIP inventory, and the storage and accounting costs associated.

Now, communism follows the idea that the needs of the state (in manufacturing, the process or the constraint, which is the part of the process which operates the slowest and therefore bottlenecks the entire thing) outweighs the needs of the individual (the individual machine operators). But if your throughput slows down, the bosses normally stomp you for it - you're not being productive! What they frequently fail to understand (without a well-paid team of consultants coming in and telling them) is that it ultimately costs more to have to keep a large and ever-increasingly-growing WIP inventory, which the constraint will never be able to reduce. Therefore, and this is where the communism part comes in, it is financially viable to actually take operators OFF their machines when the constraint is running at full capacity and a backlog exists, and have them do other tasks - housekeeping, maintenance, all these little things that usually get pushed aside in the drive to pump as much product through.

Like I said, this is what most companies attempting to implement manufacturing best practice do - have a look at Lean Manufacturing or Drum-Buffer-Rope manufacturing (they're very similar, differing mostly in how much WIP stock is kept on hand - DBR shields the manufacturing process from the interference of Murphy a little bit more, but Lean has lower inventory costs).

I apologise if that doesn't make a lot of sense - it's not something immediately obvious unless you think of it in fairly specific terms. However, if you've an interest in quality systems in manufacturing, you'll be able to find a fair whack of information here and there.

Note also, that it could also be argued as enlightened self-interest - if the company does well by way of reducing costs without laying anyone off, then the employess benefit also. But that goes to the idea that a well-run and productive state necessarily has productive people - states are made up of people, after all.

 

[Chilango2]

Blue Mage, can you tell me more? I wasn't aware of communism working outside of communes.

Think of it this way - traditional manufacturing is about pushing as much throughput as you can at your machine, even if the next guy can't run his machine as fast for whatever reason. You end up with a huge WIP inventory, and the storage and accounting costs associated.

Now, communism follows the idea that the needs of the state (in manufacturing, the process or the constraint, which is the part of the process which operates the slowest and therefore bottlenecks the entire thing) outweighs the needs of the individual (the individual machine operators). But if your throughput slows down, the bosses normally stomp you for it - you're not being productive! What they frequently fail to understand (without a well-paid team of consultants coming in and telling them) is that it ultimately costs more to have to keep a large and ever-increasingly-growing WIP inventory, which the constraint will never be able to reduce. Therefore, and this is where the communism part comes in, it is financially viable to actually take operators OFF their machines when the constraint is running at full capacity and a backlog exists, and have them do other tasks - housekeeping, maintenance, all these little things that usually get pushed aside in the drive to pump as much product through.

Like I said, this is what most companies attempting to implement manufacturing best practice do - have a look at Lean Manufacturing or Drum-Buffer-Rope manufacturing (they're very similar, differing mostly in how much WIP stock is kept on hand - DBR shields the manufacturing process from the interference of Murphy a little bit more, but Lean has lower inventory costs).

I apologise if that doesn't make a lot of sense - it's not something immediately obvious unless you think of it in fairly specific terms. However, if you've an interest in quality systems in manufacturing, you'll be able to find a fair whack of information here and there.

Note also, that it could also be argued as enlightened self-interest - if the company does well by way of reducing costs without laying anyone off, then the employees benefit also. But that goes to the idea that a well-run and productive state necessarily has productive people - states are made up of people, after all.

UH. Not quite. Communism is the belief that the workers deserve the fruits of their labor, as a basic starting premise. So, a employee owned company could be said to be somewhat communist. Of course, the logical leap that occurred was the the state was the representative of the people (the workers) and as such, if the state owned everything, the people owned everything, and as such would receive the benefits of their labor. In practical terms, communism was something asking to state capitalism.

Of course, the the state taking all private property requires the use of force against some portion of society, an act of violence that tends to poison the well of any communist state and turns it into an exercise in power by a ruling elite without a means for a stable transition in power.

When a previous reply asked about the definition of legitimacy, this is the core of the response, a government is legitimate so long as no significant portion of the population does not resist its exercise of authority within the territory it calls its own with force. Representative Democracy with universal suffrage has the historically best record for this.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

When a previous reply asked about the definition of legitimacy, this is the core of the response, a government is legitimate so long as no significant portion of the population does not resist its exercise of authority within the territory it calls its own with force. Representative Democracy with universal suffrage has the historically best record for this.

No...because Representative Democracy with universal sufferage has never existed. And there will always be people who think "Two legs bad, four legs good".
Historically the best record for this is a Dictatorship because dissidents aren't alive for long enough to rebel.
Second would be the Oligarchy, because Religion has stood without rebellion for at least a thousand years.

R.D.U.S. cannot work because there are certain jobs that need to be done, that historically infer a lower status on the worker. Now you either employ a slave or a tertiary industry, or spread that load between all. The latter is the least efficient and will be resisted. The two former ones will cause rebellion when their status is lowered.

 

[Chilango2]

No...because Representative Democracy with universal sufferage has never existed. And there will always be people who think "Two legs bad, four legs good".
Historically the best record for this is a Dictatorship because dissidents aren't alive for long enough to rebel.
Second would be the Oligarchy, because Religion has stood without rebellion for at least a thousand years.

R.D.U.S. cannot work because there are certain jobs that need to be done, that historically infer a lower status on the worker. Now you either employ a slave or a tertiary industry, or spread that load between all. The latter is the least efficient and will be resisted. The two former ones will cause rebellion when their status is lowered.

Wait, so universal sufferage has not existed according to you but a dictatorship according to you, has the best record because it killed all dissidents? What dictatorship is this?

Did you also miss the part where democracies can *exchange* power without violence?

Also, how do the western democracies and Japan not qualify, according to you?

Also, a government based on religion would be theocracy, not oligarchy. And religion *has* caused rebellion, and your claim that it hasn't leaves me to conclude you and I are living in different interpretations of reality. What does the protestant reformation constitute, in your book? Or any religious schism (most of which led to wars, rebellion, etc) ever?

Or how about the many, many civil wars fueled over religious differences? Explain the English Civil War (the one with Cromwell) and how it fits into your vision of religion as the rebellion preventer?

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Second would be the Oligarchy, because Religion has stood without rebellion for at least a thousand years.quote]

Loath as I am to appear rude, this has to be the single stupidest statement known to man. You discount:

The foundation of the Protestant Church and Marin Luther, and the thirty years war, AND half a dozen other wars I don't care to emtion.
The Arian suppression (Arius argued the Christ was but a man rather than part of god, circa 300 AD)
The French revolution (supression of the catholic Church 1790-1795)


Going back to my original statement: Democeactic goverment works. Yes, certain groups like the workers/farmers/etc are oppressed, but quite frankly that is their function in society is to be oppressed and see to it that society functions with clean toilets and consumer goods. Attempting to free the workers is rather like attempting to free mould- pointless, because they don't really like it and you'l end up oppressing them anyway.

Democracy works, because it allows freedom. Freedom to say, be or believe what you damn well like. Freedom from harm. And thus it allows for the creation of a balance of power between the various social factions so there is not anarchy, bloodshed and riot in the streets- the workers agitate for what they want, as do the capitalists, the churches, the enviromentalists, the liberals and the rightists ALL fight amongst each other WITHIN the democratic framework. Yes, it sometimes fails and yes, sometimes people become too powerful. but by the large it works, and has created the largest number of wealthy, powerful nations on the globe.

And communism is a joke. The actual theorey hadn't even been finished before Marx's demise.

 

[Professor Ardwulf]

Plato described democracy as "mobocracy", remembering the example of the trial of Socrates, a guy who was voted out of his society (during a time Athens was an experiment in democracy) and wouldn't go, ended up being put to death (because he was stubborn, and they kept upping the ante). Sure, I would personally research every issue and try to vote in an informed way. But, though Plato and I have grown apart over the years, I can't shake his shadow. I think direct democracy would eventually be ruinous, even in the unlikely event it worked for a while now and again. Politicians aren't great, but we have mechanisms to hold them accountable to an extent. We can't fail to re-elect ourselves, can't recall ourselves, can't impeach ourselves, and we're likely to make all the same mistakes our representatives do.

 

[BlueMage]

Blue Mage, can you tell me more? I wasn't aware of communism working outside of communes.

Think of it this way - traditional manufacturing is about pushing as much throughput as you can at your machine, even if the next guy can't run his machine as fast for whatever reason. You end up with a huge WIP inventory, and the storage and accounting costs associated.

Now, communism follows the idea that the needs of the state (in manufacturing, the process or the constraint, which is the part of the process which operates the slowest and therefore bottlenecks the entire thing) outweighs the needs of the individual (the individual machine operators). But if your throughput slows down, the bosses normally stomp you for it - you're not being productive! What they frequently fail to understand (without a well-paid team of consultants coming in and telling them) is that it ultimately costs more to have to keep a large and ever-increasingly-growing WIP inventory, which the constraint will never be able to reduce. Therefore, and this is where the communism part comes in, it is financially viable to actually take operators OFF their machines when the constraint is running at full capacity and a backlog exists, and have them do other tasks - housekeeping, maintenance, all these little things that usually get pushed aside in the drive to pump as much product through.

Like I said, this is what most companies attempting to implement manufacturing best practice do - have a look at Lean Manufacturing or Drum-Buffer-Rope manufacturing (they're very similar, differing mostly in how much WIP stock is kept on hand - DBR shields the manufacturing process from the interference of Murphy a little bit more, but Lean has lower inventory costs).

I apologise if that doesn't make a lot of sense - it's not something immediately obvious unless you think of it in fairly specific terms. However, if you've an interest in quality systems in manufacturing, you'll be able to find a fair whack of information here and there.

Note also, that it could also be argued as enlightened self-interest - if the company does well by way of reducing costs without laying anyone off, then the employees benefit also. But that goes to the idea that a well-run and productive state necessarily has productive people - states are made up of people, after all.

UH. Not quite. Communism is the belief that the workers deserve the fruits of their labor, as a basic starting premise. So, a employee owned company could be said to be somewhat communist. Of course, the logical leap that occurred was the the state was the representative of the people (the workers) and as such, if the state owned everything, the people owned everything, and as such would receive the benefits of their labor. In practical terms, communism was something asking to state capitalism.

Of course, the the state taking all private property requires the use of force against some portion of society, an act of violence that tends to poison the well of any communist state and turns it into an exercise in power by a ruling elite without a means for a stable transition in power.

When a previous reply asked about the definition of legitimacy, this is the core of the response, a government is legitimate so long as no significant portion of the population does not resist its exercise of authority within the territory it calls its own with force. Representative Democracy with universal suffrage has the historically best record for this.

My point still stands then friend - in most quality systems, operators are given "ownership" of their part of the process, and are expected to troubleshoot and help re-engineer the process to eliminate waste. It becomes less of managers pointing and operators doing, and more of everyone actually working on a common goal. I know that sounds idealistic, but when realised, the increases in non-faulty throughput have been as high as 500%

 

[GrowlersAtSea]

I voted "other" because there's no way option to vote for establishing a representative government.

The average person isn't very well informed (any random poll asking people questions they should know but don't will show you that), but even informed people don't know everything. I think most people here would fancy themselves as being at least semi-informed.

In the last election, did you know every name you were voting for, particularly your local elections? Every judge, every constable, every administrator? I know I didn't, in some areas I wasn't even familiar with any of the names. But in the end, whoever I voted for would likely be at least a semi-sane individual who is running for their particular position and is likely capable of at least making the decisions that their position would require of them

Imagine that same thing now, but with issues, and issues that matter. Most people don't know the details of many issues, and many of those with actual opinions aren't informed ones. The bottom line could very well be that the majority of issues are decided much like that election for local judge number 6, by whoever's name came first or sounded the best.

I personally wouldn't want issues decided like that. I don't trust most public officials, and I don't even like them. But they're generally more informed and better able to decide thing than the random person on the street.

A true democracy could be wonderful and work so long as everyone is informed, educated, and is able to have their say. If not (as is the reality of the world) then it would likely be just disastrous. I don't trust my elected officials, but I trust a mob no more.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Oooh fun.

Wait, so universal sufferage has not existed according to you
(Or any other history book)
but a dictatorship according to you, has the best record because it killed all dissidents?
(Well, Pol Pot, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Mugabe..quite a few)

Did you also miss the part where democracies can *exchange* power without violence?
(Did you miss the relevance?)
Also, how do the western democracies and Japan not qualify, according to you?
(Well, women, criminals, immigrants, ex-pats, mentally disturbed for a start)
Also, a government based on religion would be theocracy, not oligarchy. And religion *has* caused rebellion, and your claim that it hasn't leaves me to conclude you and I are living in different interpretations of reality.
(Not half as much as certain democracies)
What does the protestant reformation constitute, in your book? Or any religious schism (most of which led to wars, rebellion, etc) ever?
(Well...Wars lead under a Religious banner aren't always Religious Wars for example; I think the Protestant was more about Class and Governmental types)
Or how about the many, many civil wars fueled over religious differences? Explain the English Civil War (the one with Cromwell) and how it fits into your vision of religion as the rebellion preventer?
(How about the many many wars fueled in democracies? Just because you've some goit at the front yelling "For God's Name!" does NOT make it a religious war.)

Second would be the Oligarchy, because Religion has stood without rebellion for at least a thousand years.

Loath as I am to appear rude, this has to be the single stupidest statement known to man.

Second at least. You seem to forget that 0-1000 AD had very few. There were wars between Religions but rarely within them.

When you can give me a demonstration of how Universal Sufferage can work, without Mankind making it tiered, then you can use that as a starting point for your new Utopian idealism.

And here's the first

Democracy works, because it allows freedom. Freedom to say, be or believe what you damn well like. Freedom from harm. And thus it allows for the creation of a balance of power between the various social factions so there is not anarchy, bloodshed and riot in the streets- the workers agitate for what they want, as do the capitalists, the churches, the enviromentalists, the liberals and the rightists ALL fight amongst each other WITHIN the democratic framework. Yes, it sometimes fails and yes, sometimes people become too powerful. but by the large it works, and has created the largest number of wealthy, powerful nations on the globe.

Freedom from harm? You've just talked about Wars within Democracy, that surely makes it less legitimate than any other Government. Have you been to L.A., or Manchester???

and has created the largest number of wealthy, powerful nations on the globe.

And also created some of the poorest, downtrodden nations of the world.
Democracy only works when you've some other sucker to shift the crippling debts onto. Ask the Mexicans.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Oh dear god, I hadn't read this properly.

Yes, certain groups like the workers/farmers/etc are oppressed, but quite frankly that is their function in society is to be oppressed and see to it that society functions with clean toilets and consumer goods.

You're actually defending Slavery???

 

[bluemarsman]

What does an Oligarchy have to do with religion?

 

[werepossum]

You're actually defending Slavery???

Well to be fair, it is one of the more useful civics...

Not true. Slavery is an excellent means of concentrating wealth, but a terrible means of creating it. In the USA slavery existed until the "Unpleasantries Between The States" and was highly prevalent in the south, but comparitively rare in the north. Consequently the south became increasingly less well off than the north, although a few individuals were extremely wealthy. It's simple human nature - why would you work any harder (or smarter) than absolutely necessary for the master who takes the lion's share of your labor? Slaves are very unproductive, thus requiring numbers of them to create significant wealth, thus reducing the output per capita. Communism had the same problem; people will not work as hard for some "common good" as they will for themselves and their own. (To be clear, communism is a system of government in which the state owns the means of production as well as all real wealth; it is NOT a system of running a business. If you think you own your part of the production process, I suggest you try selling it.)