Poll: Would true democracy work?
- Thread starter Larenxis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The thread has gotten a little too confused for me to quote any one person usefully, so I'll address points I've seen in aggregate.
As I have stated previously, the set of policies that are more "directly democratic" are open to abuse. The response was that I should prove that they are not open to abuse as a Representative Democracy are like, but this gets us back to a claim that these sets of laws, such as popular referenda, are in some way *opposed* to representative democracy, instead of layers on *top* of it. (true Direct Democracy *would* be opposed, but its been stated that this is not what is being argued for)
And again, if the goal of popular referenda are to avoid elite capture of a representational system, they fail, and instead insert new failure states from direct democratic systems. The better policy is to increase the levers of power of the general populace on the representative system.
In terms of the "people are selfish, evil, etc" argument against democracy. Firstly, people are neither inherently evil nor good, but rather inherently people, capable of being both to astonishing extremes. But insofar as people are capable of being evil, the very *point* of a representational system is to turn this fact into an advantage. First, a representational system provides a buffer for conflict between different sectors of the populace that prevents violance. War can still occur, as has been pointed out (see American Civil War, etc), but these conflicts are rarer than in other systems, and become more rare the more developed the system is (it's useful to remember the rather shallow nature of southern USA "democracy"). Seperation of powers creates a situation wherein a politicians own sense of self importance creates a check against over-reaching by other politicians. This also breaks down under sufficent ideological pressure, but it's *a* barrier.
Any other system is less stable, more arbitrary, more violent, less efficient, and given the rise of populism, generally less legitimate.
Churchill got it pretty much exactly right, it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
As I have stated previously, the set of policies that are more "directly democratic" are open to abuse. The response was that I should prove that they are not open to abuse as a Representative Democracy are like, but this gets us back to a claim that these sets of laws, such as popular referenda, are in some way *opposed* to representative democracy, instead of layers on *top* of it. (true Direct Democracy *would* be opposed, but its been stated that this is not what is being argued for)
And again, if the goal of popular referenda are to avoid elite capture of a representational system, they fail, and instead insert new failure states from direct democratic systems. The better policy is to increase the levers of power of the general populace on the representative system.
In terms of the "people are selfish, evil, etc" argument against democracy. Firstly, people are neither inherently evil nor good, but rather inherently people, capable of being both to astonishing extremes. But insofar as people are capable of being evil, the very *point* of a representational system is to turn this fact into an advantage. First, a representational system provides a buffer for conflict between different sectors of the populace that prevents violance. War can still occur, as has been pointed out (see American Civil War, etc), but these conflicts are rarer than in other systems, and become more rare the more developed the system is (it's useful to remember the rather shallow nature of southern USA "democracy"). Seperation of powers creates a situation wherein a politicians own sense of self importance creates a check against over-reaching by other politicians. This also breaks down under sufficent ideological pressure, but it's *a* barrier.
Any other system is less stable, more arbitrary, more violent, less efficient, and given the rise of populism, generally less legitimate.
Churchill got it pretty much exactly right, it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
Chilango2 said:
"As I have stated previously, the set of policies that are more "directly democratic" are open to abuse. The response was that I should prove that they are not open to abuse as a Representative Democracy are like, but this gets us back to a claim that these sets of laws, such as popular referenda, are in some way *opposed* to representative democracy, instead of layers on *top* of it. (true Direct Democracy *would* be opposed, but its been stated that this is not what is being argued for)"
What I was saying was that to give single examples where a system has been abused in the real world as definitive proof that that system is unworkable would lead to the conclusion that EVERY system is unworkable. We all know dozens of examples when representative government has strayed. If I were to mention a few like you mentioned Prop 13 and Prop 187 would that be proof that RD can never work well? With a cynical view of the American system I could say that the lower houses are hopelessly partisan thanks to gerrymandering and the courts fail to balance the elite against the commoner as to go to the courts is expensive and requires legal knowledge. But wait, you say, gerrymandering should be removed and the problem of the courts is somewhat addressed by class action suits. Exactly; just as the abuses of DD elements can be reduced by intelligent checks, balances and countermeasures.
Moreover, as I quoted from your articles, these propositions were either a) going to happen under representative government anyway, b) cleaned up by the checks and balances of representative government or c) the worst excesses were alleviated by further referenda.
If you look at it this way the limited yet powerful direct democratic elements I'm suggesting are seen as not opposing rep government but simply acting as another check and balance as the many layers of government are meant to perform. In the case of DD the check would be to represent the will of the people and to curb the authority of representatives, just as the courts represent the legal and constitutional view. I realise I'm not arguing for true DD but that's like arguing for nuclear plants without the safety mechanisms to make them work. It's not fun and it's destined for failure.
"The better policy is to increase the levers of power of the general populace on the representative system."
This sentence seems to mean nothing. What levers of power are there- ones that work whether the government likes it or not-if the people can have no way to force government to listen? The only viable lever an RD has or can have is the vote, which I wouldn't hold my breath for, and wouldn't expect to change any specific law or issue. Elections are clumsy solutions in the realm of single issues.
In the end, without any kind of definitive proof that reasonable forms of DD overlaid onto RD are inherently more flawed than simple RD you're just giving your opinion. Simply giving examples of DD failures and ignoring all similar RD ones does not prove that DD fails where RD succeeds.
Thus making dictatorship far more pleasant.
And to darth mobius: If All of America's farmers were to go broke, nothing truly bad would happen. Labour costs would go down, more scruffy unemployed people would hang around on street corners, the goverment would spend less money on idiot farm subsidies (which are against capitalism) and the third world would imporve because they aren't competing against the over-subsidied American agriculture which wouldn't be able to survive against the third world without state intervention. Thus, everyone wins (except the farmers, but it would be their own fault for failing to pay attention to politics in favour of making moonshine and inbred children)
I feel that Saswatch undertsands my point. The purpose of democratic goverment is to ensure stability by ensuring that ALL groups have the correct share in goverment. This maintains a balance of power between the elite and the mob, the intellectual and the zealot, the businessman and the communist etc, etc, so that it is in the interests of all or most of the aforementioned groups to maintain the status quo of democratic goverment so that they all have the oppurtunity of advancing their own interests. Understand?
And to darth mobius: If All of America's farmers were to go broke, nothing truly bad would happen. Labour costs would go down, more scruffy unemployed people would hang around on street corners, the goverment would spend less money on idiot farm subsidies (which are against capitalism) and the third world would imporve because they aren't competing against the over-subsidied American agriculture which wouldn't be able to survive against the third world without state intervention. Thus, everyone wins (except the farmers, but it would be their own fault for failing to pay attention to politics in favour of making moonshine and inbred children)
I feel that Saswatch undertsands my point. The purpose of democratic goverment is to ensure stability by ensuring that ALL groups have the correct share in goverment. This maintains a balance of power between the elite and the mob, the intellectual and the zealot, the businessman and the communist etc, etc, so that it is in the interests of all or most of the aforementioned groups to maintain the status quo of democratic goverment so that they all have the oppurtunity of advancing their own interests. Understand?
Levers of power: The Vote, Campaign Donations, On the ground organizing, etc.Saskwach said:
How to make them more powerful: Federal mathcing donations if donation is under X amount. decentrilzied media. De-gerrymandering districts. These proposals actually *resolve* the problems your discussing, instead of adding new ones, as popular referenda do.
Did you miss the part, by the way, where, for example, Prop. 187 was a solution to a problem that did not exist? Did you miss the part about the effects of prop. 13 on California's budget and its education system?
And yes, those are just two examples, but their *instructive* in terms of the failure states direct refrenda have.
To a certain extent, you and I are talking in circles. You keep asking for "definitive proof" that DD elements overlaid on RD are in some unique way worse than the failures of RD, and keep insiting I am not ackowldging the failures of RD. But I *am*. That's not the discussion we are having. I've said this twice, but let me repeat, we are not having a "Is pure RD better than RD with DD elements?"
Rather, the discussion we are having is "RD has these failures. How to correct them?" Your position is that placing DD elements on top of the RD system is the way to correct RD's failures. My position is that those elements do *not* solve RD's problems, and instead introduce *new problems*.
Your solution fails to prevent elite capture, and California is actually a very good example of that. The amendment system hasn't changed the fundamental brokenness of the way the RD system works in California. At its best it passes necessary laws by going around the broken RD system, at worst it creates laws that have bad after effects or are illegal on their face (in which case, this is a net loss to the taxpayer, since it takes money to pass the law in the first place). But it doesn't change the dynamic, and it forces voters to do something they are not well equipped to do, judge complicated legislative arraignments and their long term effects. In fact, voters in California have grown so distrustful of amendements because of these issues that even popular amendements regularly go down to defeat. But again, the amendements *don't fix what is broken* in the RD system. It doesn't make the RD system more sensitive to the popular will or make individual voters more empowered. It just gives the political elite new ways to game the system, because organizing an amendment drive is something that is difficult to do as a spontaneous political act, and tends to be done by existing political actors with their own agenda.
You fix what is broken by making incumbents more vulnerable to challengers. That's it.
That's the point of fixing gerrymandering and then putting drawing district lines in the hands of a neutral party. That's the point of federal matching funds, to make small donations more powerful. That's why you want smaller districts, that are easier for challengers to take away from incumbents. That's why you want a decentralized media. *These* things actually address the problem of elite capture and solve your contention that the vote is a useless instrument to change things in a pure RD system.
Double standards, much? Firstly you list all the ways that RD's vulnerability to elite capture can be fixed. Then you say that problems in the California DD system CAN'T be solved even though I already suggested some? I already presented these solutions but here they are again. Firstly, referenda shouldn't be allowed to mess with the budget. Government should decide how it gathers and spends money within certain loose limits. Secondly, intitiatives shouldn't be allowed to put terms on government's decision making. Those right there would have solved Prop 13 just as well as gerrymandering would solve the problem of incumbency.Chilango2 said:
Don't suggest I haven't read the key points of Prop 13 and Prop 187. I gave a very balanced view of them in my earlier post.
"Your solution fails to prevent elite capture, and California is actually a very good example of that. The amendment system hasn't changed the fundamental brokenness of the way the RD system works in California. At its best it passes necessary laws by going around the broken RD system, at worst it creates laws that have bad after effects or are illegal on their face (in which case, this is a net loss to the taxpayer, since it takes money to pass the law in the first place)."
No YOUR solution fails to prevent elite capture. So there.
So you admit that California's type of RD is broken just like it's DD? Well using your logic I would say that RD is unworkable and the only solution is dictatorship.
"At its best it passes necessary laws by going around the broken RD system,"
This is a pretty good "best".
"at worst it creates laws that have bad after effects or are illegal on their face (in which case, this is a net loss to the taxpayer, since it takes money to pass the law in the first place)."
And again I'll say it. RD doesn't do these things? It doesn't pass stupid laws with destructive effects or downright unconstitutional ones? It doesn't waste taxpayers' money on frivolous rulings? Proposition 187 was stupid and unconstitutional but no law passed by an RD government was similar? Don't sidestep this by declaring "that's not the point". It's exactly the point. Both systems are equally likely to be stupid but one stupidity is that of the people who have to live under it. The other is of a small group of people who decide everyone else should.
As for your solutions: the vote I already stated as a solution but a clumsy one that rarely addresses the issues voters wanted addressed. Campaign funding changes are great but "elite capture" will still happen anyway. "On the ground campaigning": this is exactly what I+R is. A way of campaigning that can directly influence the laws we live under rather than just mass demonstrations, talking and hoping.
By that definition we have direct democracy in most states of the USA, since with enough signatures you can introduce a ballot initiative. However we do have an elite race of men in gowns who make it their life work to make sure the mob doesn't get uppity and actually make the changes the politicians are always promising.Saskwach said:
And anyone who believes illegal aliens underuse public services has not visited an emergency room lately.
Wow. Even for the internet that's a particularly stupid statement. The USA exports a great deal of food; if all American farmers went broke, the first thing to happen would be a world wide shortage of food and a huge run of inflation since Americans would probably forego other things in order to continue eating, thereby keeping a constant demand for a greatly dimenished supply. (Admittedly that's conservative economic theory; feel free to substitute the liberal theory of the "magic cupboard", where producers are evil oppressors held at bay by a brave and intrepid government which spends only a small portion of its time molesting interns and nailing hookers, if it helps your self-esteem.)Fondant said:
Second, all those ecstatic third-world farmers would presumably want something of value for their food - something more than your warm regards and sympathy, I'd guess. Little green pictures of dead white men are all well and good, but by themselves they won't buy much; you need a functioning economy to make those portraits useful. Turn a $78 billion (a billion = 1,000 million here) export into a $220 billion import and those little paper patriots lose value even more rapidly. Agriculture is one of the few things we still do well in the USA.
Third, moving food from third world countries to the USA requires more energy, energy that would suck even more money from the US economy. Energy that would melt even more glaciers and make liberals' hand-wringing even faster, until it actually threatens passing birds. Got a grudge against polar bears and birds, budrow?
Fourth, the 2007 Farm Bill was $280 billion for five years, but farmers get only part of that, and family farms get a tiny minority. Corporate farms get about 3/4 of the direct payments - presumably you don't think Archer Daniels Midland employees beget inbred children because it is an agribusiness - and much of the Farm Bill goes for conservation and nutrition programs which would not decrease if there were no US farmers.
Fifth, the net cost to our country for our food equals the subsidies plus the purchasing price. If foreign farmers can't compete now, removing subsidies totalling less than 10% aren't going to be much help. Rather our total food costs would likely increase. Cut out US production and that cost would skyrocket.
Sixth, there's something to be said for the security of being able to feed yourself. A country that cannot do that basic thing is in danger of being cut off from its food supply, not to mention generally not respected in the world.
You would be surprised (and no doubt confused) at how much science goes into farming as it is done in the USA. Many - perhaps most - farmers today have internet access. Most subscribe to trade magazines and keep abreast of research in relevant fields, varying stock and seed to increase yields and better compete. And of the many farmers I know, none have inbred children.
I won't say you're a perfect moron, because perfection is rare. But that paragraph certainly shows it's within your grasp.
Absolutely; direct democratic elements are present in dozens of American states.werepossum said:
This is true. I skipped a paragraph but have you mentioned the benefit of having one with impending oil peak (considering the energy requirements of transportation)? Because that's a good reason, too.werepossum said:
Yes, because the best thing for the U.S. is less production. Wait, you might not get my sarcasm...Fondant said:
The U.S. has already paid a horrible and rising price for outsourcing and importing everything. The value of the American dollar is extremely low and is only surviving because it's the currency oil must be bought in. When this is threatened, (say some country tries to deal with Euros coughIraqcough), the U.S. reacts in violent desperation. They have a very powerful army, and they are not afraid to use it on the rest of the world. So yeah, if the farmers all went broke, I don't know what they'd do. They've already abandoned morality (see Military Commissions Act and the PATRIOT Act) and don't seem to care what the U.N. has to say, so I'd be frightened.
That and there'd be a lot less food. Which, you know, is helpful with the whole 'you have to eat to live' thing.
Actually, that's proof of underuse. Emergency Rooms aren't per se a public service, like MedicAid, etc. Here, let me describe what happens, and why Prop 187 would have made the problem your describing worse. 1) Illegal immigrant gets sick. 2) Illegal immigrant avoid going to the doctor, etc, because they likely have no insurance, and are afraid that if they go in they will be deported. 3) Illegal immigrant gets *really* sick. 4) Illegal immigrant gets taken to emergency room.werepossum said:
See the problem? Denying health services to illegal immigrants makes the problem *worse*, by actually increasing the times they end up in an emergency room. Unless, of course, you think health professionals should let them die. The other theory is that if we let them die, they won't come here, but I dare say evidence proves otherwise.
Okay. I feel like I am repeating myself here. Yes, you listed ways that the DD system can be fixed. But you didn't list the ways that the DD system fixes the problems of RD. I have said this *three* times now. Giving people a means to directly create legislation does not prevent elite capture.Saskwach said:
Yes, California's RD system is currently broken. But you keep creating false dilemmas. Our choices are not your preferred RD with DD elements system a "broken" RD system, and dictatorship. Insofar as RD has problems, its when it's *less* representative. To a certain extent, the problem of elite capture is the problem of elites using their power to make the system less representational, and thus less "RD like." In your system, the elites still sit there, unmolested, while your populace tries to work around them through DD elements. Even if you fix the problems with the DD elements, the problems with the RD system remain.
That's why I keep saying we aren't having the discussion you seem to want to have. We're not talking about how wonderful or broken DD elements on top of a RD system are. We are talking about the problems with an RD system, and you argue that your solution is fixed DD elements. But their clearly not, because they treat a symptom, not the disease. They can't do it, because its not what they were designed to do.
I mean, the best that could be said is that maybe a refrenda could *implement* the solutions to fix the RD system's problems, but then... you'd have a working RD system with less need of DD elements!
And with that, I'll shut up, because honestly, if after explaining this three times its not clear, there's no point in continuing.
*laughs*
Who here can put there hand on their heart and say they honestly respect the person that they voted for?
People vote to keep the idiots out, not the good people in.
Uh, sorry if I'm repeating someone's said already, but to those who suggest only allowing people who have certain qualifications: The problem with this idea is "What if the majority don't have said qualifications?" Then, you'd have a situation where only 10% of the population could vote, and it'd end up like the situation Khell's first post exhibited.
First off, stop trying to say I'm not listening. It's a low argument that really means "he's disagreeing with me". I only said it myself when I was being angry and stupid.Chilango2 said:
I wasn't listening all three times because I don't care about your "elite capture". It's a term you're using to mean what you want.
"Yes, California's RD system is currently broken. But you keep creating false dilemmas. Our choices are not your preferred RD with DD elements system a "broken" RD system, and dictatorship. Insofar as RD has problems, its when it's *less* representative. To a certain extent, the problem of elite capture is the problem of elites using their power to make the system less representational, and thus less "RD like." In your system, the elites still sit there, unmolested, while your populace tries to work around them through DD elements. Even if you fix the problems with the DD elements, the problems with the RD system remain."
I'm not creating any false dilemmas. Here is the dilemma I'm presenting: RD system with DD elements or RD system alone. Both will, no matter what, be played by unscrupulous people. There are, however, ways to mitigate beither system. My personal problem with the RD-only route is that there is no mitigation for representatives making whatever laws they like within certain limits-ie they can't pass laws that truly infuriate the populace. I prefer DD elements so that the laws that live in the ground between "most people like this" and "you'll lose office if you even talk about this" can be examined and halted by the people if they so choose. This doesn't seem like "[my] populace [working] around [the elites]". It seems like them working THROUGH it.
"That's why I keep saying we aren't having the discussion you seem to want to have. We're not talking about how wonderful or broken DD elements on top of a RD system are. We are talking about the problems with an RD system, and you argue that your solution is fixed DD elements. But their clearly not, because they treat a symptom, not the disease. They can't do it, because its not what they were designed to do."
We are talking about both. I am saying some DD elements are wonderful because when applied properly they do a good job of fixing the chief problem of representative government: that it doesn't always represent the peoples' wishes. Besides, I thought the subject of this debate, once we'd agreed, was whether DD elements added to RD would work. In my first post of the thread I stated my own definition of viable DD, why it would work and why it should be added to RDs (to make them more representative), as simply proving something would work is no good reason for arguing that it should be used. My points about RDs "not working"- note I never said they don't, I just feel they can be made more representative with DD while continuing to work- were used to show that practically every argument you made against DD elements could be made against RD elements so logically RD couldn't possibly work either. And yet they do.
I too will shut up but you should know that I had decided earlier that if, when I next checked this thread, I saw no post by you or at least a post that didn't imply that I was an idiot I would have simply said, without any further arguing or chest beating "let's agree to disagree". It was clear a couple of posts back that we had made all our points and rebutted the other's and only mutual stubborness kept us going. I think you're wrong, and you think I'm wrong. However, I respected your clear and intelligent viewpoint. That was enough for me to walk away from this debate without a parting shot until I read your last post.
Wrong. The illegals in the emergency rooms are not necessarily *really* sick, nor are they necessarily *taken* to emergency rooms. Instead, they use emergency rooms for primary care, regular colds and fevers and cuts, and their payment rate (at least in Tennessee) is less than 5%. Illegals almost never have insurance, and because emergency room care cannot be denied they are not turned away. Almost universally they either plead no income and no money, or simply give false addresses which are then returned and classified as not collectible. Therefore they get free medical care, paid for by the hospital. However, hospitals get partial compensation from federal and state governments for treatment of indigents. Thus illegals' medical care is paid for in part by taxes, and in part by hospitals (which compensate by raising rates on paying customers.)Chilango2 said:
You need less liberal theory and more real world knowledge. There is no free lunch - only a lunch paid for by someone else.
I'd like to see some evidence of this before I condemn a whole group of people. And I'd also like to see that the same thing isn't done by 'legals'.