Very much off topic: hypothetical politcs
Pages: 12
So, for my philosophy class we've started talking about Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, etc, and how philosophers like them influenced the governments and economic systems of their time. This was most strongly related to Karl Marx and communism.
At the first mention of the word about 90% of the class scoffed and were very strongly arguing against it. The main argument was that it has never worked before in any society. The problem with that is we have never had a perfect communism (and I'll admit it is probably impossible to make, but that is irrelevant for the discussion). I brought that point up and was asked what defines a perfect communism...Well Marx's vision did not imply a dictator ship directly, in fact it was a perfect democracy, where everyone has an equal say in all situations. Immediately I was told that would never work, ever. I said "say time wasn't a question, and all you had to do is to come to a decision, then would it?"
The general answer was no, with a few yeses here and there.
Now, because of I would like to be given just one reason why a perfect democracy wouldn't work. Disregarding how slow it would be to get anything done, why wouldn't it? All you need is a majority vote...
At the first mention of the word about 90% of the class scoffed and were very strongly arguing against it. The main argument was that it has never worked before in any society. The problem with that is we have never had a perfect communism (and I'll admit it is probably impossible to make, but that is irrelevant for the discussion). I brought that point up and was asked what defines a perfect communism...Well Marx's vision did not imply a dictator ship directly, in fact it was a perfect democracy, where everyone has an equal say in all situations. Immediately I was told that would never work, ever. I said "say time wasn't a question, and all you had to do is to come to a decision, then would it?"
The general answer was no, with a few yeses here and there.
Now, because of I would like to be given just one reason why a perfect democracy wouldn't work. Disregarding how slow it would be to get anything done, why wouldn't it? All you need is a majority vote...
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
| one reason |
What's to stop the minority of voters from simply breaking away and starting their own faction if they weren't satisfied with the result of a vote?
Nothing, but that doesn't matter. That's no different than the possibility of Representative Democracy like that which is in America. If you don't like the way the place is run, you can leave and go some where else. Currently there is not much land for a new nation to be founded without taking it from some one else, but that is still a possibility in both cases.
I think the general idea is that there is always going to be someone to abuse his/her position and become more equal than everyone else.
Although if everyone is truly equal from the start, then maybe this wouldn't happen. On the other hand, perhaps it is best to leave certain decisions to those who are best equipped to make them.
For example, nuclear scientists are best able to decide how and indeed if to build new nuclear energy facilities (provided they aren't working for nuclear plant operators...). Mind you, we don't necessarily have such people making decisions right now either ;)
Oh and also, if everyone is truly equal and votes on every decision then the corruption would doubtless come from the enforcers (and perhaps the ballot counters).
I'm not sure this really answers the actual question, but I am just contributing my opinion to what will hopefully become a fruitful discussion...
Although if everyone is truly equal from the start, then maybe this wouldn't happen. On the other hand, perhaps it is best to leave certain decisions to those who are best equipped to make them.
For example, nuclear scientists are best able to decide how and indeed if to build new nuclear energy facilities (provided they aren't working for nuclear plant operators...). Mind you, we don't necessarily have such people making decisions right now either ;)
Oh and also, if everyone is truly equal and votes on every decision then the corruption would doubtless come from the enforcers (and perhaps the ballot counters).
I'm not sure this really answers the actual question, but I am just contributing my opinion to what will hopefully become a fruitful discussion...
closed account (3hM2Nwbp)
That's assuming that one side is willing to leave. That being said, I tend to agree more with socialism than representative democracy.
Surely a socialist society can have a representative democracy. The former presumably aims to achieve what is best for the majority, and a perfect representative democracy should achieve just that.
| Oh and also, if everyone is truly equal and votes on every decision then the corruption would doubtless come from the enforcers (and perhaps the ballot counters). |
That would have been a problem up until recently. ballot counting could be automated through computers, as for the enforcers..that's a whole other issue...Then again what's to stop a Representative Democratic governemnt like the U.S. to become corrupted as a whole and suppress the people? I guess my main argument is there is no real reason that a perfect democracy wouldn't work while a representative one would...
| That's assuming that one side is willing to leave. |
And if they don't they rebel and over throw the majority, but again, this is a risk in ALL governemnts.
You guys realise that "socialism" is a system for distributing resources, in other words it's the basis for an economy. It is NOT a system for electing leaders or establishing laws which is what a government is. EDIT: I guess my point is this topic is like saying "An apple makes a better piece of fruit then a baseball bat".
@Seraphimsan: And the biggest critisism about the companies that make those electronic ballot counters is? That's right source code that is not released to the public or verified in any way, a history of writing software systems that have been found to fail miserably in private tests, and an unusually high number of lawers on retainer. Guess who the "Enforcers" are now?
@Seraphimsan: And the biggest critisism about the companies that make those electronic ballot counters is? That's right source code that is not released to the public or verified in any way, a history of writing software systems that have been found to fail miserably in private tests, and an unusually high number of lawers on retainer. Guess who the "Enforcers" are now?
Last edited on
I wasn't debating socialism at all, this was a discussion between Representative Democracy and a Pure Democracy. It only sparked from a debate on communism (which by the way DOES NOT EQUAL SOCIALISM)
AS for the problem with who makes the ballet counters? They don't have to be closed source. And if it is open and publicly available for all to see there is a high chance that those of differing views would see it and be able to keep it from skewing the results.
I still don't know who the enforces would be, so that could be it's main downfall right there, In that case it is an anarchy and that by definition is a non self sustaining government.
AS for the problem with who makes the ballet counters? They don't have to be closed source. And if it is open and publicly available for all to see there is a high chance that those of differing views would see it and be able to keep it from skewing the results.
I still don't know who the enforces would be, so that could be it's main downfall right there, In that case it is an anarchy and that by definition is a non self sustaining government.
I would call the proposed electronic ballot system an "oligarchy" just because a few people would have power. People would see the illusion of their opinion making a difference and most would simply except the fate that they believe the majority chose for them. This would work to keep everyone complacent. Thus a system of electing a leader and establishing order in a self sustaining manner. It's all very tin foil hat kind of stuff, I personally want a human being that is too afraid of going to jail or getting lynched to try anything with the ballots.
Last edited on
Enforcers = robots which are also open source... (joke, but open source ballot counting software would be a solution to any problems regarding counting
+1 Seraphimsan :P
If enforcers were elected by the public and removed by the public then that might help. But on the other hand it would be micromanagement on a ridiculous scale. Enforcers would have no time to enforce anything as they would be too busy voting on who to be enforcers... unless of course one moved back to the representative system
For example, here in the UK, I heard a suggestion about elected Police commissioners. Then the police would be more accountable, but it is still only a representative style setup.
But basically enforcers must surely need administrators. The people can't vote on every tiny decision necessary to perform enforcement operations. On the other hand without administrators or people input then the enforcers would just be rebel militia.
And once you have people directing the enforcers, you have people who are in a position of power, making decisions for the people, whether this person was elected or not. No more pure democracy.
So I suppose it goes back to the original point about pure democracy being slow. If everyone votes on every tiny decision then it will be so slow that no one would ever have a chance for anything but voting and discussing. There would not exist any situations to apply the policy to.
On the other hand, as soon as the people delegate resonsibility to a sufficient degree, it's a representative democracy at best, and at worst a system administered by unaccountable individuals.
| communism (which by the way DOES NOT EQUAL SOCIALISM) |
+1 Seraphimsan :P
If enforcers were elected by the public and removed by the public then that might help. But on the other hand it would be micromanagement on a ridiculous scale. Enforcers would have no time to enforce anything as they would be too busy voting on who to be enforcers... unless of course one moved back to the representative system
For example, here in the UK, I heard a suggestion about elected Police commissioners. Then the police would be more accountable, but it is still only a representative style setup.
But basically enforcers must surely need administrators. The people can't vote on every tiny decision necessary to perform enforcement operations. On the other hand without administrators or people input then the enforcers would just be rebel militia.
And once you have people directing the enforcers, you have people who are in a position of power, making decisions for the people, whether this person was elected or not. No more pure democracy.
So I suppose it goes back to the original point about pure democracy being slow. If everyone votes on every tiny decision then it will be so slow that no one would ever have a chance for anything but voting and discussing. There would not exist any situations to apply the policy to.
On the other hand, as soon as the people delegate resonsibility to a sufficient degree, it's a representative democracy at best, and at worst a system administered by unaccountable individuals.
Alright, these are good reason.
I made this post because no one in my philosophy class could bring up a good reason besides "because it would fail" which is circular logic for the loose.
I made this post because no one in my philosophy class could bring up a good reason besides "because it would fail" which is circular logic for the loose.
| "because it would fail" |
Yes that is a rather awful reason isn't it.
@Computergeek
| I would call the proposed electronic ballot system an "oligarchy" |
Presumably you mean this in the case where the software is developed closed source by a private company?
I would certainly agree with this with the board of directors etc. the oligarchs.
However, by making it open source this problem with be at least partially removed, would it not? Admittedly not everyone would have the knowledge to understand the source code, but it would be there for anyone who was capable to look at it.
Surely academic papers are open even though not everyone can understand them?
I should clarify my Philosophy professor left this discussion mostly up to the class, while only stepping in when things were getting to heated for comfort. Or to pose a question to heat things back up...I love philosophy classes :P But anyways I don't want anyone to think she was promoting the circular logic I was given, or taking my side :O
Don't worry - I usually try to avoid pinning any particular blame even where it is perhaps due. Much safer to talk in generalities... :P
Yeah I'm meaning to start going to a philosophy club, but I haven't got round it it yet ;)
By the way, if you want some pure and simple political fun, try http://www.nationstates.net/. You can make a nation and then you make policy decisions and it tells you your economy, peoples' causes of death, government spending and so forth. It's really fun, and funny too - let me know if you try it out :)
Yeah I'm meaning to start going to a philosophy club, but I haven't got round it it yet ;)
By the way, if you want some pure and simple political fun, try http://www.nationstates.net/. You can make a nation and then you make policy decisions and it tells you your economy, peoples' causes of death, government spending and so forth. It's really fun, and funny too - let me know if you try it out :)
I might just check that out :O
On a completely unrelated note, I'm having a bitch of a time trying to get grease monkey to accept my script to change the color of visited links from purple to red.
...the javascript code worked fine (all 6 different ways I attempted it) when embedded directly in the webpages I write, but the moment I try installing it with greasemonkey it complains that DOM objects that should exist, don't. I've reinstalled greasemonkey like six times, and it still gives the same errors.
I would give up on this strictly for how frustrating it is. But I'm doing it for a colorblind friend who can't tell the difference between blue and purple.
On a completely unrelated note, I'm having a bitch of a time trying to get grease monkey to accept my script to change the color of visited links from purple to red.
...the javascript code worked fine (all 6 different ways I attempted it) when embedded directly in the webpages I write, but the moment I try installing it with greasemonkey it complains that DOM objects that should exist, don't. I've reinstalled greasemonkey like six times, and it still gives the same errors.
I would give up on this strictly for how frustrating it is. But I'm doing it for a colorblind friend who can't tell the difference between blue and purple.
I think rather than argue how to count the votes we should instead focus on the core mechanics of this system.
Let's take a look at a small sample - a family (a very socialist structure, I should add). I don't really know whether it is obvious that implementing any system in small scale is easier than in reality or it needs to be proved.. Also, when I say family I mean somewhat 12 people (grandparents, parents, children). It would be a bit too simple to talk about 2-4..
It's hard to say what form of government works in such small system but that isn't really relevant. The question is whether it is better to consider all opinions or to give the power to a small subset of the group. This system has a clear reason to form a hierarchical structure. The oldest members have the most experience, thus their word is most important, while the word of a child is hardly relevant (but not necessarily ignored).
While the real scale problem is much more complex and a bit different altogether (as there are many different fields with many different experiences that are hard to measure), I believe that the principle remains the same. People are ignorant. We don't even have a choice. There is so much knowledge available that no one man can digest it all. It makes no sense for someone with no knowledge of economy vote for tax reforms and etc.
I suppose it would be possible have a society where people only vote if they have a good understanding of the problem, but it seems to me that we're pretty far from that.
Let's take a look at a small sample - a family (a very socialist structure, I should add). I don't really know whether it is obvious that implementing any system in small scale is easier than in reality or it needs to be proved.. Also, when I say family I mean somewhat 12 people (grandparents, parents, children). It would be a bit too simple to talk about 2-4..
It's hard to say what form of government works in such small system but that isn't really relevant. The question is whether it is better to consider all opinions or to give the power to a small subset of the group. This system has a clear reason to form a hierarchical structure. The oldest members have the most experience, thus their word is most important, while the word of a child is hardly relevant (but not necessarily ignored).
While the real scale problem is much more complex and a bit different altogether (as there are many different fields with many different experiences that are hard to measure), I believe that the principle remains the same. People are ignorant. We don't even have a choice. There is so much knowledge available that no one man can digest it all. It makes no sense for someone with no knowledge of economy vote for tax reforms and etc.
I suppose it would be possible have a society where people only vote if they have a good understanding of the problem, but it seems to me that we're pretty far from that.
That's actually not a bad analogy. As I said earlier, I do feel that it makes more sense to leave decisions to those who are qualified to make them. But as you say, that's certainly not the system we have right now...
As I see it one of the main downsides of the kind of electoral systems we have is that politicians make decisions to please the people and make them vote for the party rather than decisions that are good for the country in the long term.
This is one problem which a pure democracy might avoid since there are no representatives. But on the other hand, as I said above, it would be grossly inefficient. And as you say hamsterman, some people are more equipped to make certain decisions than others. E.g. we (hopefully) trust our doctor to provide medical advice more than some arbitrary crackpot site on the net...
As I see it one of the main downsides of the kind of electoral systems we have is that politicians make decisions to please the people and make them vote for the party rather than decisions that are good for the country in the long term.
This is one problem which a pure democracy might avoid since there are no representatives. But on the other hand, as I said above, it would be grossly inefficient. And as you say hamsterman, some people are more equipped to make certain decisions than others. E.g. we (hopefully) trust our doctor to provide medical advice more than some arbitrary crackpot site on the net...
Personally I'm very much pro redistribution of wealth, public ownership of the means of production and such like, but I also believe in liberty and that the government shouldn't get involved with people's personal lives (I believe its only purpose is to protect its people, run the economy and generally keep things "fair"). I also believe in pure democracy (as opposed to representational democracy). So I'm like a libertarian socialist minarchist democrat.
I love long strings of political terms like that :P
But surely any functional society must delegate certain administrative responsibilities to people, and then you already have at best some kind of representative democracy, or at worst as system operated by unaccountable bureaucrats. It must surely be impractical for everyone to vote and discuss every decision.
But surely any functional society must delegate certain administrative responsibilities to people, and then you already have at best some kind of representative democracy, or at worst as system operated by unaccountable bureaucrats. It must surely be impractical for everyone to vote and discuss every decision.
Pages: 12