Democracy And Government

[Thomas Knierim]

zewc: ITs a shame, but is down to the politicians to make the differences...

Unfortunately that is true. Only leaders can lead. But if I have a look at the current world leaders, I doubt these people will bring about change for the better. It's rather more of the same. America has Bush, who is -in the eyes of Europe and Asia- a big money holy roller power politician. Here in Thailand, things are even worse. The country is governed by a corrupt power elite who doesn't give a damn about the environment. Yet, the Americans voted for Bush. The Thai people voted for Thaksin. The Italians voted for Berlusconi.

I begin to doubt democracy. - No, that's too weak. - I do actually believe that democracy has failed in its current form. It has produced bad leaders, humongous administrative machineries, enormous economic disparity, widespread environmental degradation, and it has not brought peace.

Thomas

[zewc]

I do actually believe that democracy has failed in its current form

I know, its absolutley disguisting, and unfortunately there isnt a way out that I can see....or anyone can see. Without going into a long chat about which form of gov't is better or worse, the fact of the matter is that one person, no matter how loud they shout (i.e. someone like Michael Moore), they are essentially powerless, even if they have convinced the masses that something dodgy/shady is going on. Hell, even politicians are powerless a lot of the time, and for me its all due to money-and corruption.

Unless we eliminate every leader we deem unfit (which opens another morale debate...) and replace them, there isnt a hope.

But, I beleive that life is cyclical, and that there is a chance that one day mankind will learn from their mistakes, even if they arent presently. But it does feel like false hope...and it does feel like we are heading towards disaster, in one form or another.

I guess that best that we can do is to live out our morals and beliefs to our best and hope that others will follow....

[MidnightSun]

Yes, unfotunatelt theres nothing we can do at the moment.

[zewc]

you say "at the moment", implying that something can be done in the future?

[Thomas Knierim]

Zewc: Unless we eliminate every leader we deem unfit (which opens another morale debate...) and replace them, there isnt a hope.

Hm, the idea has some appeal. Perhaps it is necessary to make positions of power and influence so uncomfortable that nobody seeks them for their own benefit. How this can be achieved is debatable.

I think we have other options, though. There is not only capitalistic democracy, there is also participatory democracy, various forms of oligarchies -meritocracy being the most promising candidate in my view-, and last but not least, various forms of anarchy.

The world doesn't suffer from democracy itself, but from democracy not being able to deal effectively with human weaknesses. The key to deal with human weakness is -in my view- limitation of damage, and that is realised through fragmentation of power. Democracy doesn't go far enough.

In recent history, governments have unfortunately drifted into the opposite direction, namely towards power concentration. None of the kings and emperors of old was as powerful as today's leaders, the US being second to none, in terms of military and economic might.

Zewc: I guess that best that we can do is to live out our morals and beliefs to our best and hope that others will follow...

Yes, that is definitely preferrable to becoming part of the problem.

Cheers, Thomas

[zewc]

You are very insightful Thomas, I would love to have a chat one to one some time with you! B) Just need to find the bus from Brighton station to thailand...hum..... :think:

There was an idea that Frank Herbert had in his Dune books, (at least i hope it was him!) that only people who dont want the responsibility of power should occupy positions of power.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We should be wary of those who seek and desire power, for surely there are selfish motives behind the eyes of those seeking it.

Man had been seeking the answers to the "best" form of state power since before the greeks, and today we are acting out the best form of gov't we know, democracy. I agree that participatory democracy is a better form of democracy, and I do think that the US in particular is moving towards an authoratative state. Its amuses and saddens me to think that Bush is ruling a lot through fear when there are countless examples in our history that show that you can only control the masses for so long with fear before it explodes, like a pressure cooker kept on for too long. And the US is to be feared greatly, mainly because they are so ignorant.

Its all about money. Thats the source of the problem in my view. It has given man the means to achieve great things, but its also draws evil and corruption.

cheers, zach

[Thomas Knierim]

Zwec: just need to find the bus from Brighton station to Thailand…

Is that Brighton, Colorado or Brighton, Sussex?

Zwec: There was an idea that Frank Herbert had in his Dune books, (at least i hope it was him!) that only people who dont want the responsibility of power should occupy positions of power.

This is one of those ideas which are brilliant in theory, but which almost certainly fail in practice. The reason being, people who don’t want to assume responsibility usually make lousy leaders. Perhaps you remember the trilogy ‘Lord Of The Ring’. The main character of that movie is ‘Frodo’, a hobbit (halfling). Although Frodo is content with his humble life in the Shire, destiny has carved out a bigger role for him. In the movie, Frodo becomes the ring bearer. As the ring bearer he must lead the fight against evil and thus he becomes the proverbial leader by accident. Now the question is: are there any Frodos in real life? Indeed, it would be marvellous to see leaders not holding on to power as long as they could, but pass on the sceptre to the most able man, alas this rarely ever happens. Unassuming, uncorrupted, and wise leaders are as rarer than the rarest element in space.

Zewc: Man had been seeking the answers to the "best" form of state power since before the greeks, and today we are acting out the best form of gov't we know, democracy.

Your phrasing is careful enough. It’s the best form of government we know. In fact, we know not very many. What we are familiar with are monarchies, dictatorships, confederations, and democracies. The latter is extolled as the most desirable form of government, not least because we are quite ignorant of most other forms. For example, anarchy has never been tested on a large scale. Most people consider it unviable, because they confuse it with a state of lawlessness and absence of government, whereas “classical” anarchism is actually government of all by all.

Zewc: Its all about money. Thats the source of the problem in my view. It has given man the means to achieve great things, but its also draws evil and corruption.

I think that the real problem is greed (again a human weakness!), however, the bad thing about money is that it fosters greed. It’s a catalyst for greed. Think about this: it would be technically difficult and extremely inconvenient to hold the equivalent of, say a 100 million dollars in natural goods. Trying to keep hold of such treasures in properties, vehicles, livestock, works of art, and other material possessions would require a sizable staff of maintainers and the fortune would be subjected to natural shrinkage and perils of all kinds. However, it’s no problem to hold 100 million in a bank, or in similar capital investments which yield interest or revenue. In other words, money allows for wealth concentration and wealth increase. Thus it is economically advantageous and therefore rational to hoard money. Greed is virtually tempted by the instrument of money.

Cheers, Thomas

[todd]

I think it is not about money but about power as Nietzsche said.
Money is just the way to power today.
Competition is undeniably in the human nature and success means power. Communism is a form of democracy and it didn't fail because of money, but because the corruption and abuse generated by power. The religious communities are also affected by the fight for power. We always think that we are better than the others, we want to rule our little worlds, and no social organization could deal with this problem yet.
Democracy was questioned since the beginnings because it postulates the false idea that the opinion of the majority is better than that of the minority.
In time, in the democratic states, institutions and tools developed to control the abuse of power in the state structures like mass media or civil organizations, but we all feel a continuous struggle, and there is a lot more to do. The democratic state is still an oppressor for the individual, but for now it is all we got, the only acceptable form oppression for most of us, and we have to stick with it.

[kskf]

Democracy can avoid a continued concentration of power. There certainly is no guarantee that the "best" or even simply a "wise" or "good" leader will emerge from democracy system, yet the system (if properly implemented, say, free from corruption, misleading propaganda, control over the media and freedom of speech, expression and assembly, fair or perhaps even distribution of funds for propaganda of candidates to an election, etc.) guarantees that the "worst" guy will not be in power forever.

What is a "good" leader or a "bad" leader is a subjective thing. Arrow won the Nobel prize in economics for having proved that individual choices (without attaching any differential weights to the choices of different people) cannot be transformed into a rational social choice. Assuming there are only 3 citizens trying to decide on which option for building the central park in their country is best. Say, A ranks option I over II over III; B ranks option II over III over I; and C ranks option III over I over II. Adopting a democratic way of decision making, I is preferred to II as supported by 2 citizens; II is preferred to III as supported by 2 citizens; and III is preferred to I as supported by 2 citizens. No sensible decision can be made by the principle of majority rule.

If a weight is attached to the choices of individuals, say, A is elder one and his choice has more force; or B is highly educated so his choice should be more powerful; or C have more money and his voice should be louder, etc., then a "social" decision may be made. However, the problem in the first place is why different weight should be given to different people. The wealthier one will say his welfare is affected to the greatest extent if the central park is build in a way to block the flow of transport, and the cost of delivering his goods to the market will be affected. The elder one will say the park's location will affect the concentration of "clean" air in the centre of the city and it will affect the health of the elderly most as their respiratory system is the weakest. The more educated one will say his view on urban design is the most valuable in planning how to build the central park to bring good to the city as a whole. As Pascal has pointed out, in cases where uncertainty causes one not to have any clue as to what probabilities should be attached to different possible outcomes, then equal probabilities should be attached to different options. Hence, democracy only counts the head. Everyone has only one life and a social choice will affect every person uniquely, as only he has his own life and only he can assess his own quality of life. So everyone has only one vote and each vote has an equal weight.

It is a "good" system? Sorry, it again is a question to be answered. But is it to be answered by majority votes? By bidding (so that the wealthiest people have the final say)? By "you" (can be anyone, say, Christians, Americans, Muslims, communists, etc.) who believe himself / themselves to be the wisest one on earth? I don't know the answer. But I know that if a choice has been wrongly made, people will learn the lesson and will vote the other way "next time". Whether voting on the "next time" could effectively correct the bad decision depends on the system of voting. If a voting system only allows men to vote, no one will forecast any decision on oppression against women would be corrected easily and voluntarily. But democracy at least offers a better chance for people to make a choice for correction periodically than dictatorship does. The cost to the society for removing a leader from power in democratic systems is much lower than that in a dictatorship regime.

Perhaps how to improve the system of democracy (e.g. to avoid the wealthier families such as the Bush or Kennedy family from monopolizing political powers in a democratic system) is more imminent than what other system currently still unknown by human should replace the present system of democracy.