Is Democracy Sustainable in the Face of Human Nature?

[drankin]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself. Or, pass the costs to those who do not participate in the process i.e. outside of our borders.

Simplistic but a sincere effort to reduce the complexity of a problem I see in our democracy.

We are shifting the costs of our democracy outside of our borders in an effort to sustain it's lifestyle. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing but does create conflict.

Comments appreciated.

 

[WhoWee]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself. Or, pass the costs to those who do not participate in the process i.e. outside of our borders.

Simplistic but a sincere effort to reduce the complexity of a problem I see in our democracy.

We are shifting the costs of our democracy outside of our borders in an effort to sustain it's lifestyle. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing but does create conflict.

Comments appreciated.

I have a solution - only tax "payers" (including all retirement pension recipients) should be allowed to vote. People who pay $0.00 in Federal taxes - or live off of tax re-distribution or welfare of any type should not influence spending decisions. Again - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

I have a solution - only tax "payers" (including all retirement pension recipients) should be allowed to vote. People who pay $0.00 in Federal taxes - or live off of tax re-distribution or welfare of any type should not influence spending decisions. Again - IMO.

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

 

[Al68]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself.

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

 

[WhoWee]

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

Good find.

 

[Al68]

Good find.

The Law is required reading for all right-wingers. I've quoted it before in this forum, but it's been a while.

It's a very short book and you can read it and other Bastiat writings http://bastiat.org/" .

 

[drankin]

The Law is required reading for all right-wingers. I've quoted it before in this forum, but it's been a while.

It's a very short book and you can read it and other Bastiat writings http://bastiat.org/" .

Thank you for the reference.

 

[daveb]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

 

[drankin]

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

Maybe I am mistaken. Please prove that the premise is incorrect.

 

[loseyourname]

There is a far more fundamental problem with democratic government than that, namely that it's democratic. We gain representativeness and hopefully some level of protection of individual and minority liberties and degrade the ability of the government to become tyrannical, but at the expense of actually having an efficient, cost-effective, and just plain effective government. The people in charge are not subject-matter experts. As it stands in the U.S., they're mostly attorneys. It's no surprise we end up with a stultifying bureaucracy that stifles the innovation and initiative of local directors and middle managers in favor of extremely specific and unyielding rules written in damn near code that demand complete allegiance to the rule of law but basically no individual discretion or creativity, making robots of all but the legislature, and then we get back to the problem that legislators are not policy experts, and they answer to voters, who know even less and are very easily manipulated into believing there are simple answers usually involving the scapegoating of a currently unpopular subpopulation that keep us from seeking real answers.

 

[daveb]

Your the person who made the claim, and therefore it is your job to show the premise as true.

 

[Al68]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

drankin's statement is opinion, not a factual claim (so no proof is necessary), although it's an opinion I share.

The real question isn't how government and lawmakers are chosen, but what they are empowered to do. The word "democratic" refers to the former, not the latter. An Elk Lodge, for example chooses it's leader democratically, but such leader doesn't have unlimited power, he has only whatever power its members delegate to him. It's logically impossible for him to have other powers by virtue of his democratic election.

The same logic applies to any government. A democratic process can logically only delegate power, it doesn't create any legitimate power that didn't already exist with those delegating it..

It's all too common for people to falsely equate "democratic" with unlimited power and scope, then fallaciously claim that limits on the scope of the government's power is undemocratic.

 

[drankin]

Your the person who made the claim, and therefore it is your job to show the premise as true.

Yes, it is my opinion. I should have moved the "IMO" to before the first sentence. My bad.

Beyond that, do you have anything to add?

 

[daveb]

I would say it's definitely the most desireable...efficient? One can argue that a distatorship can be more efficient.

 

[drankin]

I would say it's definitely the most desireable...efficient? One can argue that a distatorship can be more efficient.

I never said "efficient" :)

I did say "effective", but I agree that is debateable. But considering our world position, though it may be declining, it has been the most influential.

 

[russ_watters]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

 

[ThomasEdison]

In reference to the OP:

Democracy is desirable to who? To everybody?
Do you make the claim that everyone's opinion on how to run their government holds equal merit?
That is the flaw in democracy that nobody talks about: the fallacy that everyone's opinion is equal. The myth of equality sounds noble, but the more I really think about it, the more I have to disagree.

I feel that it is the elephant in the room when talking about "power to the people!"

 

[Ryumast3r]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

Not really Democracy though... The US is a Republic.

 

[tedbradly]

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

Is this a joke?I don't like democracy for the same reason I don't want people to vote on how to build the next bridge or to vote on how to construct the next skyscraper. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in engineering build bridges and skyscrapers. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in government, politics, economics, and so on vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this a joke?


I don't like democracy for the same reason I don't want people to vote on how to build the next bridge or to vote on how to construct the next skyscraper. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in engineering build bridges and skyscrapers. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in government, politics, economics, and so on vote.

I think my idea is a little more fair - the more you pay in taxes - the greater your voice is regarding how to spend the money. To extend your idea - there would be testing at the polls to determine who is knowledgeable enough to vote?

 

[amwest]

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

I hope this is sarcasm here. If true than the poor would be enslaved to the rich. Which we sort of are now with the rich lobbying groups buying votes in congress(not litterly but figurativly)
To put this into context this would be like moving towards an aristocracy. The rich would ensure the laws protect them above everyone else.

 

[drankin]

I hope this is sarcasm here. If true than the poor would be enslaved to the rich. Which we sort of are now with the rich lobbying groups buying votes in congress(not litterly but figurativly)
To put this into context this would be like moving towards an aristocracy. The rich would ensure the laws protect them above everyone else.

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

 

[Office_Shredder]

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

Why should someone with no say in a decision be held accountable to it? What reason do I have to follow the laws of a government in which I don't get to vote because I'm too poor?

 

[drankin]

Why should someone with no say in a decision be held accountable to it? What reason do I have to follow the laws of a government in which I don't get to vote because I'm too poor?

Because you aren't contributing. If you work, you have a say because your money is going into the system too. It seems to me that if you aren't working and paying taxes why should you be able to have a say as to where that money goes?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Because you aren't contributing. If you work, you have a say because your money is going into the system too. It seems to me that if you aren't working and paying taxes why should you be able to have a say as to where that money goes?

If your money goes to funding a police force, and deciding, for example, that aspirin should be illegal, why should I pay any attention to you (besides the police force arresting me of course)? Would you argue that the top 5% of income earners in the country has the right to ban aspirin because hey, they're paying for enforcing that ban?

The government has immense power to harm people as well as help them, and you can't just ignore those people because they can't buy their way to influence. Well, you can, but not in the context of democracy

 

[drankin]

If your money goes to funding a police force, and deciding, for example, that aspirin should be illegal, why should I pay any attention to you (besides the police force arresting me of course)? Would you argue that the top 5% of income earners in the country has the right to ban aspirin because hey, they're paying for enforcing that ban?

The government has immense power to harm people as well as help them, and you can't just ignore those people because they can't buy their way to influence. Well, you can, but not in the context of democracy

Yep, that is where the fundamentals have to be established. Unalienable rights. Those cannot be infringed. The right to use/purchase aspirin, um... marijuana etc. The laws cannot infringe on the rights of the individual regardless of voting status. Back when we founded this nation, it was expected/understood but unfortunately not specified. It was a totally new deal. They created a system with checks and balances impeccably with what they could possibly foresee. Unfortunately, you cannot completely account for the human tendency to subvert the intentions of a system.

 

[rootX]

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

Ideas like those don't play well in practice.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yep, that is where the fundamentals have to be established. Unalienable rights. Those cannot be infringed. The right to use/purchase aspirin, um... marijuana etc. The laws cannot infringe on the rights of the individual regardless of voting status. Back when we founded this nation, it was expected/understood but unfortunately not specified. It was a totally new deal. They created a system with checks and balances impeccably with what they could possibly foresee. Unfortunately, you cannot completely account for the human tendency to subvert the intentions of a system.

Who decides what the inalienable rights are? Who has the power to update these inalienable rights over time (alternatively, what is your solution to the possible problem of these rights being subverted in unexpected ways in 100 years?)

 

[drankin]

Who decides what the inalienable rights are? Who has the power to update these inalienable rights over time (alternatively, what is your solution to the possible problem of these rights being subverted in unexpected ways in 100 years?)

That's the point of unalienable rigths. They can't be changed.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's the point of unalienable rigths. They can't be changed.

There's still the problem of how do you choose them, and how do you ensure that the ones you've chosen aren't subverted in 100 years, similar to how the existing constitutional rights are insufficient protection to allow people to vote proportional to income tax.

You need to set rules to ensure that things like prison time for crimes that don't even exist yet, tax rates on goods and services that don't exist yet, government procedures for services that have never been conceived of, are all handled in a fair and judicious manner that cannot harm the people who can't effectively vote. I propose that this task is impossible

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

Fair enough - modification required - let's add strict term limits for the House and a single 6 year Presidential Term (no re-election campaign). Last, once someone serves a full term in the House -they would be eligible to run for Senate (20 year limit).

 

[daveb]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

I've sometimes wondered if the idea of natural selection could philosophically be applied to social systems.

 

[WhoWee]

I've sometimes wondered if the idea of natural selection could philosophically be applied to social systems.

Ahhh - you'd like to eliminate Congressional re-districting - maybe use county lines instead - I agree.

 

[daveb]

The problem with the idea of having unalienable rights, such as those delineated in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, is that it is the government's duty to protect them and the people's duty to demand them. When the government is run by only a few, though, when they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who determine whether or not those rights are safeguarded.

"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - Madison, Federalist 51

 

[WhoWee]

The problem with the idea of having unalienable rights, such as those delineated in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, is that it is the government's duty to protect them and the people's duty to demand them. When the government is run by only a few, though, when they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who determine whether or not those rights are safeguarded.

"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - Madison, Federalist 51

IMO - our 2 party system has shifted the power from the people to a sophisticated "power broker" network. Next, the Beltway politicians are much too comfortable - there's very little accountability for poor performance - if everyone does something/nothing - nobody is to blame (kids learn that at an early age). Accordingly, everyone's top priority is keeping their job - regardless of the cost. I think this is why the TEA Party has been so influential - it seeks to put the people's voice and accountability back into the formula. AGAIN - IMO.