Some weeks ago I was listening to Jimmy Wales on NPR, and he was talking about the philosophy of involving people and trusting them vs. shepherding them into certain behaviors and punishing them when they step outside. Ever since then I've been toying with the idea of extending the organizational philosophy of Wikipedia to an entire society. Eliminate most laws and criminal justice systems and instead rely on the community to enforce standards of acceptable behavior while (somehow) requiring them to constantly renew consensus through group discourse in which everyone enjoys the assumption of good faith. Avoid alienation and apathy by directly involving the individual in all levels of societal decision-making. Very little room for rigidly-defined structures of power, either public or private. Something like that.
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
Some weeks ago I was listening to Jimmy Wales on NPR, and he was talking about the philosophy of involving people and trusting them vs. shepherding them into certain behaviors and punishing them when they step outside. Ever since then I've been toying with the idea of extending the organizational philosophy of Wikipedia to an entire society. Eliminate most laws and criminal justice systems and instead rely on the community to enforce standards of acceptable behavior while (somehow) requiring them to constantly renew consensus through group discourse in which everyone enjoys the assumption of good faith. Avoid alienation and apathy by directly involving the individual in all levels of societal decision-making. Very little room for rigidly-defined structures of power, either public or private. Something like that.
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
I’m thinking that a good way to punish thieves is to get ten people to take turns punching the thief’s face. I can probably even get nine people to agree to this. Maybe society at large won’t like it, but I think we’ll be able to get at least a couple rounds in before anybody decides to stop us. Even if we are stopped, we can just move operations to a different location and start over.
Some weeks ago I was listening to Jimmy Wales on NPR, and he was talking about the philosophy of involving people and trusting them vs. shepherding them into certain behaviors and punishing them when they step outside. Ever since then I've been toying with the idea of extending the organizational philosophy of Wikipedia to an entire society. Eliminate most laws and criminal justice systems and instead rely on the community to enforce standards of acceptable behavior while (somehow) requiring them to constantly renew consensus through group discourse in which everyone enjoys the assumption of good faith. Avoid alienation and apathy by directly involving the individual in all levels of societal decision-making. Very little room for rigidly-defined structures of power, either public or private. Something like that.
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
I’m thinking that a good way to punish thieves is to get ten people to take turns punching the thief’s face. I can probably even get nine people to agree to this. Maybe society at large won’t like it, but I think we’ll be able to get at least a couple rounds in before anybody decides to stop us. Even if we are stopped, we can just move operations to a different location and start over.
Yeah, Wikipedia's model doesn't make for a very good system when, y'know, people's lives are on the line.
Some weeks ago I was listening to Jimmy Wales on NPR, and he was talking about the philosophy of involving people and trusting them vs. shepherding them into certain behaviors and punishing them when they step outside. Ever since then I've been toying with the idea of extending the organizational philosophy of Wikipedia to an entire society. Eliminate most laws and criminal justice systems and instead rely on the community to enforce standards of acceptable behavior while (somehow) requiring them to constantly renew consensus through group discourse in which everyone enjoys the assumption of good faith. Avoid alienation and apathy by directly involving the individual in all levels of societal decision-making. Very little room for rigidly-defined structures of power, either public or private. Something like that.
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
The problem is that, in Wikipedia, everything you do is public and recorded. Not so in real life. This right there would make implementing a Wikipedian society very hard.
Moreover:
1) In Wikipedia, if someone is causing trouble, you can ban them. You can't ban someone from society. Well, you can throw them in jail or exile them, but I'd be weary of a system where this is done at the whim of the community rather than through a legal system.
2) In Wikipedia, when someone fucks up, reverting their fuck up takes but a single click. Not so in real life. With lasting consequences to your mistakes and the need for real reparation or retribution, comes the need for a real system.
There's always the Year King model. Elect a guy, let him rule, and sacrifice him after a year's up.
In all seriousness, the drawback of democracy is how ignorant and apathetic towards government/politics most people are. A lot of you guys are probably in college? Well, college usually has a fair number of people who are interested in learning what's going on in the world. Wait until you get out. Most people don't know anything about politics except sound bites and hot button issues (for/against abortion, etc). I work in an office with people from age 40 to 26 and they all vote based only on whether a candidate is Republican/Democrat. (Most are Republicans.) You can't discuss any issue with them, despite the fact that they are intelligent enough to be able to comprehend them if they learned about them. They drive me crazy. Can't identify our senator who's been fighting to keep the VA funding intact for years, but will analyze the performances of the fucking American Idol competitors for hours.
I think you encounter a problem when you assert that any intelligent leader is somehow favourable. The United States has elected plenty of presidents who were extremely intelligent, but who, upon entry to office, proved to be complete failures. Hell, you have Nixon and Carter just in the last fourty odd years.
Not to mention the (extremely obvious) fact that even if a leader is intelligent, they might not have the people's interests at heart. This is especially true in the case of, for instance, totalitarian regimes. Look at Stalin: ferociously intelligent and tough, but the lack of accountability he had made him, on top of deficiencies in his personality, a horrible and cruel leader. At least, in regards to the actual people he was governing, if not the Soviet state itself. So your China example is flawed by definition. Yes the men at the top are smart, but, if allied with cruel or ridiculous policies, they just end up better at enacting these policies themselves. I would much rather have a stupid leader in charge of a democracy than a smart one in charge of a dictatorship.
However, the main thing you begin to realise is that it's not so much the system you live under that matters, but the quality of the people in charge of the system. I could quite happily live under Caesar Augustus, for instance, while I'd be shit scared of a mad man like Nero. I'd be happy under Reagan, but not LBJ.
Of course, this stops being true when the system you encounter is a totalitarian dictatorship, where, no matter who is at the top, the goal is always to continue the perpetuity of the ruling system, which, inevitably slides into something immoral.
So basically, by and large, most systems of government are good if the leader leading them is good. It just so happens to be that democracy, with its built in accountability and wisdom of crowds, offers the most practical, feasible way to run a country while consistently choosing able leaders who will act in the majority of the peoples' best interests.
I disagree completely with this post.
Both the ideas that intelligent people are more selfish and that the people in charge, and not the laws, are the important thing seem obviously false.
Oh I don't mean that in general intelligent people are more selfish. What I meant was that the only thing intelligent people generally are is intelligent. Other than that common factor, they can have nothing in common. They can be cunts, and they can be saints. They can be good leaders, they can be bad. The OP assumed that having an intelligent leader is by definition a preferred state. I was merely calling that a gross over simplification. In no way did I mean to degrade the value of intelligence, because that would be stupid.
My second point is also valid only to a certain extent. Obviously one code of laws can be visibly preferable to another. Take meritocracy over feudalism. The advantages to most people for most people are evident. I guess my point is that good laws can only do so much. When a leader is bad and resides over good laws, the leader can twist and bend and defile those laws. For instance, your current president (assuming you're American). The idea being, the leader or organisation in charge of the country has the power to make and change laws and thus, while having good laws is a damn good starting ground, they're no good by themselves. The people in charge need to be good too. The same is possible in reverse: you can potentially lead a good life under bad laws while the person in charge is competent and decent. See: Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. Despite being a one party state, despite the lack of freedom of speech etc. etc., it was, by and large, a damn fine place to live. High standard of living, a Yugoslavian passport let you travel anywhere, all that good stuff. Now look at the same country, with the same (or largely same) laws under the leadership after Tito's death: the entire nation went to hell. So the leader is indeed very important.
Obviously, you want the best of both, which is why I'm living in a democratic nation. Democracy has built in rights which I regard as highly important, generally fair laws and a system of checks and balances which stop the ruling party from totally ruining the show, while allowing for a fair system of choosing the ruling party with a good success rate of choosing a good ruling party.
Oh, and obviously 'good' and 'bad' laws are awful terms, but I couldn't think of anything better. It's vague, but in general its understandable what I mean (I hope).
Tito's kind of a strong example you know. He was the leader of the WWII resistance movement and loved by all Yugoslavians, so he was able to keep that ethnic patchwork quilt together. His presence was an important part of the state, and his death ended many Yugoslavians' loyalty to Yugoslavia.
The United States, in contrast, has gone through massive scandal and unnecessary war waged by the president, yet we still go on anyway. The US doesn't put so much power into the hands of the Chief Executive that a disaster in the Executive branch would destroy America. That's sort of why I think that there isn't anything better than democracy.
Some weeks ago I was listening to Jimmy Wales on NPR, and he was talking about the philosophy of involving people and trusting them vs. shepherding them into certain behaviors and punishing them when they step outside. Ever since then I've been toying with the idea of extending the organizational philosophy of Wikipedia to an entire society. Eliminate most laws and criminal justice systems and instead rely on the community to enforce standards of acceptable behavior while (somehow) requiring them to constantly renew consensus through group discourse in which everyone enjoys the assumption of good faith. Avoid alienation and apathy by directly involving the individual in all levels of societal decision-making. Very little room for rigidly-defined structures of power, either public or private. Something like that.
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
It's how small tribes work.
It breaks down in groups larger than about 1000 as I understand it. Once a group is large enough that people don't know each other personally the internet principle begins to take over. Nice guy + anonymity = anti-social behavior.
Fareed Zacharia made an argument in his book The Future of Freedom that we needed a stronger appreciation of the limits of popular democracy as a constructive force. The federal courts, the federal reserve bank, the military - the unnaccountable sections of our government generally score higher in polls of public approval than the elected sections. The reason seems to be that politicians are more vulnerable and dependent on special interest groups and so less able to conduct themselves in ways conducive to the public good.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
I don't suppose the economic angle (opening markets/expanding the middle class) snuck into that debate. Or is that more a sentiment shared by optimistic theorists overplaying the PRC's potential for democratic reform?
I don't suppose the economic angle (opening markets/expanding the middle class) snuck into that debate. Or is that more a sentiment shared by optimistic theorists overplaying the PRC's potential for democratic reform?
No, that wasn't part of it.
He was generally pointing out the faults of popular democracy and arguing for stronger emphasis on liberalism and representative government. Property rights are tangential to his point.
One of the things which makes me care about democracy is not it's efficiency (or lack thereof). It's the fact that (hopefully), it's government by the people. The people govern themselves, and when they (we) suck, they suffer.
All these benevolent dictatorships etc might work very well in the short term, but they keep the normal people in a child-like role. Democracy is for grown-ups. It's the only form of government that pushes the human race to better ourselves.
Fareed Zacharia made an argument in his book The Future of Freedom that we needed a stronger appreciation of the limits of popular democracy as a constructive force. The federal courts, the federal reserve bank, the military - the unnaccountable sections of our government generally score higher in polls of public approval than the elected sections. The reason seems to be that politicians are more vulnerable and dependent on special interest groups and so less able to conduct themselves in ways conducive to the public good.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter.
Elected officials worry more about how their decisions look to the general public then what they actually do. Cause in the end, they do want to keep their jobs. A smart but unpopular decision is a good way to be out of work fast in politics.
The real question in my mind then, is how one sets up an unelected and generally slow changing check against the power of the elected part of the government?
Fareed Zacharia made an argument in his book The Future of Freedom that we needed a stronger appreciation of the limits of popular democracy as a constructive force. The federal courts, the federal reserve bank, the military - the unnaccountable sections of our government generally score higher in polls of public approval than the elected sections. The reason seems to be that politicians are more vulnerable and dependent on special interest groups and so less able to conduct themselves in ways conducive to the public good.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter.
Elected officials worry more about how their decisions look to the general public then what they actually do. Cause in the end, they do want to keep their jobs. A smart but unpopular decision is a good way to be out of work fast in politics.
The real question in my mind then, is how one sets up an unelected and generally slow changing check against the power of the elected part of the government?
All you really have to do is figure out ways to insulate representatives not from the public at large, but from the interest groups.
It isn't that politicians have to do favors for interest groups because they are cowardly people - it's that politicians who don't do favors for them don't get and stay elected.
Fareed Zacharia made an argument in his book The Future of Freedom that we needed a stronger appreciation of the limits of popular democracy as a constructive force. The federal courts, the federal reserve bank, the military - the unnaccountable sections of our government generally score higher in polls of public approval than the elected sections. The reason seems to be that politicians are more vulnerable and dependent on special interest groups and so less able to conduct themselves in ways conducive to the public good.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter.
Elected officials worry more about how their decisions look to the general public then what they actually do. Cause in the end, they do want to keep their jobs. A smart but unpopular decision is a good way to be out of work fast in politics.
The real question in my mind then, is how one sets up an unelected and generally slow changing check against the power of the elected part of the government?
All you really have to do is figure out ways to insulate representatives not from the public at large, but from the interest groups.
It isn't that politicians have to do favors for interest groups because they are cowardly people - it's that politicians who don't do favors for them don't get and stay elected.
That is certainly true, especially when it comes to funding and the like, but the media is also partly to blame for political pandering. It's become less about the issues at hand and more about either a shouting match between polar opposite pundits or psycho-analyzing the politician and his proposal rather than talking about the merits of the program and all of that. Not that things were perfect and all of that before, but things have certainly gone downhill.
Fareed Zacharia made an argument in his book The Future of Freedom that we needed a stronger appreciation of the limits of popular democracy as a constructive force. The federal courts, the federal reserve bank, the military - the unnaccountable sections of our government generally score higher in polls of public approval than the elected sections. The reason seems to be that politicians are more vulnerable and dependent on special interest groups and so less able to conduct themselves in ways conducive to the public good.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter.
Elected officials worry more about how their decisions look to the general public then what they actually do. Cause in the end, they do want to keep their jobs. A smart but unpopular decision is a good way to be out of work fast in politics.
The real question in my mind then, is how one sets up an unelected and generally slow changing check against the power of the elected part of the government?
All you really have to do is figure out ways to insulate representatives not from the public at large, but from the interest groups.
It isn't that politicians have to do favors for interest groups because they are cowardly people - it's that politicians who don't do favors for them don't get and stay elected.
It's more then that though. It's not just interest groups, it's everyone. It's the media working only in soundbites, like the below you said.
But most of all, it's a limitation of the system. By forcing our leaders to basically get re-approved by the public every few years, we encourage them to do things that LOOK good instead of actually ARE good. Things that are good long term but involve sacrifices in the short term are political suicide. The whole system encourages decisions that have to pay dividends for the leader in the short term (ie - in time for the next election). The current piss poor state of the US media of course, just makes this worse.
Posts
In that case, I gotta think more. Cuz that opens up a lot of options
I have not developed the idea much further than this, and it's probably rubbish.
Yeah, Wikipedia's model doesn't make for a very good system when, y'know, people's lives are on the line.
Moreover:
1) In Wikipedia, if someone is causing trouble, you can ban them. You can't ban someone from society. Well, you can throw them in jail or exile them, but I'd be weary of a system where this is done at the whim of the community rather than through a legal system.
2) In Wikipedia, when someone fucks up, reverting their fuck up takes but a single click. Not so in real life. With lasting consequences to your mistakes and the need for real reparation or retribution, comes the need for a real system.
In all seriousness, the drawback of democracy is how ignorant and apathetic towards government/politics most people are. A lot of you guys are probably in college? Well, college usually has a fair number of people who are interested in learning what's going on in the world. Wait until you get out. Most people don't know anything about politics except sound bites and hot button issues (for/against abortion, etc). I work in an office with people from age 40 to 26 and they all vote based only on whether a candidate is Republican/Democrat. (Most are Republicans.) You can't discuss any issue with them, despite the fact that they are intelligent enough to be able to comprehend them if they learned about them. They drive me crazy. Can't identify our senator who's been fighting to keep the VA funding intact for years, but will analyze the performances of the fucking American Idol competitors for hours.
Bread and circuses, bread and circuses.
Also, I had to write an essay about this.
Twas a bitch.
Oh I don't mean that in general intelligent people are more selfish. What I meant was that the only thing intelligent people generally are is intelligent. Other than that common factor, they can have nothing in common. They can be cunts, and they can be saints. They can be good leaders, they can be bad. The OP assumed that having an intelligent leader is by definition a preferred state. I was merely calling that a gross over simplification. In no way did I mean to degrade the value of intelligence, because that would be stupid.
My second point is also valid only to a certain extent. Obviously one code of laws can be visibly preferable to another. Take meritocracy over feudalism. The advantages to most people for most people are evident. I guess my point is that good laws can only do so much. When a leader is bad and resides over good laws, the leader can twist and bend and defile those laws. For instance, your current president (assuming you're American). The idea being, the leader or organisation in charge of the country has the power to make and change laws and thus, while having good laws is a damn good starting ground, they're no good by themselves. The people in charge need to be good too. The same is possible in reverse: you can potentially lead a good life under bad laws while the person in charge is competent and decent. See: Yugoslavia under Marshall Tito. Despite being a one party state, despite the lack of freedom of speech etc. etc., it was, by and large, a damn fine place to live. High standard of living, a Yugoslavian passport let you travel anywhere, all that good stuff. Now look at the same country, with the same (or largely same) laws under the leadership after Tito's death: the entire nation went to hell. So the leader is indeed very important.
Obviously, you want the best of both, which is why I'm living in a democratic nation. Democracy has built in rights which I regard as highly important, generally fair laws and a system of checks and balances which stop the ruling party from totally ruining the show, while allowing for a fair system of choosing the ruling party with a good success rate of choosing a good ruling party.
Oh, and obviously 'good' and 'bad' laws are awful terms, but I couldn't think of anything better. It's vague, but in general its understandable what I mean (I hope).
The United States, in contrast, has gone through massive scandal and unnecessary war waged by the president, yet we still go on anyway. The US doesn't put so much power into the hands of the Chief Executive that a disaster in the Executive branch would destroy America. That's sort of why I think that there isn't anything better than democracy.
It's how small tribes work.
It breaks down in groups larger than about 1000 as I understand it. Once a group is large enough that people don't know each other personally the internet principle begins to take over. Nice guy + anonymity = anti-social behavior.
He suggested we get rid of referendums and recalls, make Congressional committee meetings closed to the public and have our tax bills written by unelected, independent experts with overall policy direction from the Congress.
Elkamil hated the book, but I suspect that is because he had an allergic reaction to the suggestion that separation of powers/checks and balances were more important reforms for middle eastern governments than elections.
This was roughly the argument indeed.
To me, it commends itself in that it basically follows the way in which western republics developed.
No, that wasn't part of it.
He was generally pointing out the faults of popular democracy and arguing for stronger emphasis on liberalism and representative government. Property rights are tangential to his point.
All these benevolent dictatorships etc might work very well in the short term, but they keep the normal people in a child-like role. Democracy is for grown-ups. It's the only form of government that pushes the human race to better ourselves.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18911849/
Given the kind of policy that often gets advanced, I'm a huge fan of not actually making decisions much of the time.
That's pretty much my opinion on the matter.
Elected officials worry more about how their decisions look to the general public then what they actually do. Cause in the end, they do want to keep their jobs. A smart but unpopular decision is a good way to be out of work fast in politics.
The real question in my mind then, is how one sets up an unelected and generally slow changing check against the power of the elected part of the government?
All you really have to do is figure out ways to insulate representatives not from the public at large, but from the interest groups.
It isn't that politicians have to do favors for interest groups because they are cowardly people - it's that politicians who don't do favors for them don't get and stay elected.
That is certainly true, especially when it comes to funding and the like, but the media is also partly to blame for political pandering. It's become less about the issues at hand and more about either a shouting match between polar opposite pundits or psycho-analyzing the politician and his proposal rather than talking about the merits of the program and all of that. Not that things were perfect and all of that before, but things have certainly gone downhill.
It's more then that though. It's not just interest groups, it's everyone. It's the media working only in soundbites, like the below you said.
But most of all, it's a limitation of the system. By forcing our leaders to basically get re-approved by the public every few years, we encourage them to do things that LOOK good instead of actually ARE good. Things that are good long term but involve sacrifices in the short term are political suicide. The whole system encourages decisions that have to pay dividends for the leader in the short term (ie - in time for the next election). The current piss poor state of the US media of course, just makes this worse.