Gyroscopic Investing

Democracy was the most successful political idea of the 20th century. Why has it run into trouble, and what can be done to revive it?

http://www.economist.com/news/essays/21 ... -can-be-do

What went wrong was that it got implemented!

All political theories and ideas look better on paper than they function in the real world. The basic problem with democracy is that it is a political system whose goal is to give people what they want, which sounds great in theory, but it turns out that a large part of what people want is to avoid the costs and consequences of getting the things they really do want. As a result, the political institutions of democracy tend to attract the kinds of power-seekers who are good at making speeches and promising things they can't deliver, with the result that the country eventually becomes ruled by the most ignorant, incompetent, and incapable rulers possible, whose failures eventually displease people so much that they elect a new set of incompetent, silver-tongued over-promisers who under-deliver just like their predecessors. It's simply an inevitable feature of the system. It can't be "fixed" without either fundamentally changing the nature of the system or jettisoning it entirely.

…That's the 1st world version. The 3rd world version is that a lot of what people want is to oppress the people 20 miles away who they hate but happen to share a country with due to the vagaries of 20th century colonialism. So "what the people want" often looks quite bloody and eventually morphs into dictatorship--an altogether more efficient form of government if the goal is out-and-out murder.

The article has a neat interactive slider showing the countries of the world and what kinds of government they've had over time in the last 40 years. Move it around and look at Africa. Democracies give way to dictatorships give way to democracies give way to dictatorships...

Democracy has a self destruct code built into its DNA. Democratic governments only last so long before they collapse from corruption and demagoguery. The American Republic has lasted as long as it has in no small part because we severely restricted the franchise for the first century and half or so of our existence and it was uniformly understood that the government existed to protect persons and property rights. Today the government's mission appears to be to undermine property rights and redistribute wealth for the benefit of whoever holds the majority in Congress and the Presidency.

We aren't in the final stages of collapse yet. But I think that political philosophers of antiquity would see us as probably at the mid point in the evolution of republican and democratic governments from idealistic success to corrupt and dysfunctional failed state.

Pointedstick wrote: All political theories and ideas look better on paper than they function in the real world. The basic problem with democracy is that it is a political system whose goal is to give people what they want, which sounds great in theory, but it turns out that a large part of what people want is to avoid the costs and consequences of getting the things they really do want. As a result, the political institutions of democracy tend to attract the kinds of power-seekers who are good at making speeches and promising things they can't deliver, with the result that the country eventually becomes ruled by the most ignorant, incompetent, and incapable rulers possible, whose failures eventually displease people so much that they elect a new set of incompetent, silver-tongued over-promisers who under-deliver just like their predecessors. It's simply an inevitable feature of the system. It can't be "fixed" without either fundamentally changing the nature of the system or jettisoning it entirely.

But its still better than the lifetime writs of King George III you can do nothing about, short of insurrection and revolution!

Since CA is such a bleeding edge leader in "direct democracy" according the article, of note I received my primary election ballot yesterday.  Of interest is it is now a "direct primary election".  "All voters can now vote in the Statewide Direct Primary Election, regardless of party preference."  It is nonpartisan.  No candidate is "nominated by the party.  If a candidate has a preferred political party, the party name appears on the ballot for information only."  "All candidates appear on one ballot."

What's interesting is that after the list of candidates and their party names, there's a page which lists the candidates nominated by various parties, which in this case is only 3 or 4 (Democrat, Republican, Green, American Independent).  Libertarian is not present, but two candidates for local offices are which is only detectable by their candidate statements as party names are not normally listed for judge, county, sheriff, local, etc..  I believe it is voluntary to do so and no one does that it is more difficult to just vote by party-line.  That could be a good thing if it encourages people to do actual research on the candidates, as I plan to.

or...

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: All political theories and ideas look better on paper than they function in the real world. The basic problem with democracy is that it is a political system whose goal is to give people what they want, which sounds great in theory, but it turns out that a large part of what people want is to avoid the costs and consequences of getting the things they really do want. As a result, the political institutions of democracy tend to attract the kinds of power-seekers who are good at making speeches and promising things they can't deliver, with the result that the country eventually becomes ruled by the most ignorant, incompetent, and incapable rulers possible, whose failures eventually displease people so much that they elect a new set of incompetent, silver-tongued over-promisers who under-deliver just like their predecessors. It's simply an inevitable feature of the system. It can't be "fixed" without either fundamentally changing the nature of the system or jettisoning it entirely.

But its still better than the lifetime writs of King George III you can do nothing about, short of insurrection and revolution!

Really? What writs are you referring to? I look at where we are today and wonder what ever motivated us to revolt against the King.

* George III never in his wildest dreams would have attempted to have any of his subjects assassinated by royal decree and without trial.
* Taxes were a pittance compared to what they are now.
* Mass government sponsored espionage on its own people was unknown during the reign of His Most Gracious Majesty.
* During his reign one could go through most of one's life with little or no contact with the government except when posting a letter or sealing a legal document.
* Governmental bureaucracy by today's standards did not exist.

I could go on, but I think the point has been made.

P.S. I'll take the guy at the top.

Ad Orientem wrote: P.S. I'll take the guy at the top.

Your friendly neighborhood anarchist agrees for practical purposes.

One declared king is preferable to 51% of the population declaring themselves king of the other 49% at election time. 

You two are clearly delusional and virtually treasonous American traitors for not fully understanding the impassionate motivations behind why we had a revolution against King George the 3rd.  It's all about cultural values; we tolerate Big Government "bugsplats" nowadays because our bedrock values are not composed of fissured ceramics.

But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

P.S.  We don't elect Presidents by a 51% majority of the population.  No, sir!  In fact, good ol' Abe Lincoln, the American Empire Larval NeoCon, won with less than 40%.  Back to Civics 101 for you!

MachineGhost wrote: But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

Actually, I'm a Jacobite and come from a long line of legitimists. Many of my for-bearers lost their land, rights and even their lives in support of the rightful succession. I am a collateral descendent of the aide de camp to James II at the Battle of the Boyne who later died exiled and impecunious.

MachineGhost wrote: You two are clearly delusional and virtually treasonous American traitors for not fully understanding the impassionate motivations behind why we had a revolution against King George the 3rd.  It's all about cultural values; we tolerate Big Government "bugsplats" nowadays because our bedrock values are not composed of fissured ceramics.

But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

P.S.  We don't elect Presidents by a 51% majority of the population.  No, sir!  In fact, good ol' Abe Lincoln, the American Empire Larval NeoCon, won with less than 40%.  Back to Civics 101 for you!

I'll go you one further MG......he won with less than 2 million votes and got the green light to rule over 31 million humans! So more like 7%. Back to reality 101 for you! 

sticks and stones will break my bones......what are we delusional about and treasonous against who? Weren't the founding fathers treasonous?

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: You two are clearly delusional and virtually treasonous American traitors for not fully understanding the impassionate motivations behind why we had a revolution against King George the 3rd.  It's all about cultural values; we tolerate Big Government "bugsplats" nowadays because our bedrock values are not composed of fissured ceramics.

But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

P.S.  We don't elect Presidents by a 51% majority of the population.  No, sir!  In fact, good ol' Abe Lincoln, the American Empire Larval NeoCon, won with less than 40%.  Back to Civics 101 for you!

I'll go you one further MG......he won with less than 2 million votes and got the green light to rule over 31 million humans! So more like 7%. Back to reality 101 for you! 

sticks and stones will break my bones......what are we delusional about and treasonous against who? Weren't the founding fathers treasonous?

Just curious... Where are you getting those numbers?

Desert wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

Actually, I'm a Jacobite and come from a long line of legitimists. Many of my for-bearers lost their land, rights and even their lives in support of the rightful succession. I am a collateral descendent of the aide de camp to James II at the Battle of the Boyne who later died exiled and impecunious.

Crap, Ad Orientem just sentenced me to a long night with the dictionary and wikipedia, trying to figure out what he just said there... 

That's me. Always promoting education... 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

MachineGhost wrote: You two are clearly delusional and virtually treasonous American traitors for not fully understanding the impassionate motivations behind why we had a revolution against King George the 3rd.  It's all about cultural values; we tolerate Big Government "bugsplats" nowadays because our bedrock values are not composed of fissured ceramics.

But, at least you two aren't advocating the return of the Tudors! 

I can sleep at peace knowing that.

P.S.  We don't elect Presidents by a 51% majority of the population.  No, sir!  In fact, good ol' Abe Lincoln, the American Empire Larval NeoCon, won with less than 40%.  Back to Civics 101 for you!

I'll go you one further MG......he won with less than 2 million votes and got the green light to rule over 31 million humans! So more like 7%. Back to reality 101 for you! 

sticks and stones will break my bones......what are we delusional about and treasonous against who? Weren't the founding fathers treasonous?

Just curious... Where are you getting those numbers?

The interlink.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: I'll go you one further MG......he won with less than 2 million votes and got the green light to rule over 31 million humans! So more like 7%. Back to reality 101 for you! 

sticks and stones will break my bones......what are we delusional about and treasonous against who? Weren't the founding fathers treasonous?

Just curious... Where are you getting those numbers?

The interlink.

What is that?  Sorry I searched I and came up with this:http://www.theinterlinkalliance.com.

I really don't think that was what you meant haha...

So I dug a bit myself, and while you are correct, similar numbers can be tallied for presidents before/after Lincoln. Part of it probably stems from the fact that between the blacks in the South, women, and anyone under 21, not to mention the standard disinterest in voting as well as what had to be quite a hassle back then, not that many people actually voted.

Doesn't seem like a problem/phenomenon unique to Lincoln. In fact, in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson won, it appears he had less than 1% of the vote.

moda0306 wrote: Doesn't seem like a problem/phenomenon unique to Lincoln. In fact, in 1800 when Thomas Jefferson won, it appears he had less than 1% of the vote.

1% ahahahahaha

Honestly though......do any supporters of Democracy think you get better government from 1% voters or 100%?

If the answer is 1%.....how about .1%?

At what point is it obvious that zero percent is obviously the ideal?

Zero percent the ideal?  I'd have thought you'd say that something is only legitimate if 100% of people vote for it.

Xan wrote: Zero percent the ideal?  I'd have thought you'd say that something is only legitimate if 100% of people vote for it.

It's kind of the opposite.......but you're sorta right.

No matter how many people vote for theft or violence I don't consider it legitimate. However......if 100% of people agreed on something without coercion you might be able to call that a voluntary action. It's kind of a moot point though.

But it's like saying 100% of people vote for welfare. Well, if it's the case that 100% of people are in favor of welfare....it's pretty clear we don't need it because everyone wants to take care of the poor already!

Actually quite a few of our presidents have been elected with a minority of the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... ote_margin

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote: Zero percent the ideal?  I'd have thought you'd say that something is only legitimate if 100% of people vote for it.

It's kind of the opposite.......but you're sorta right.

No matter how many people vote for theft or violence I don't consider it legitimate. However......if 100% of people agreed on something without coercion you might be able to call that a voluntary action. It's kind of a moot point though.

But it's like saying 100% of people vote for welfare. Well, if it's the case that 100% of people are in favor of welfare....it's pretty clear we don't need it because everyone wants to take care of the poor already!

Everyone wants to have the poor taken care of automatically.  Doesn't necessarily mean they want to do it themselves or have to have it be a questionable institution every year and especially during recessions.

And that's like saying if a military has universal support it's not needed. Some things have universal support of voters because they recognize governments are the most ideal social entity to provide the service.  Grocery stores have almost universal support of consumers, but not of voters... Why is that?  Maybe people believe that certain social organizational entities are better at certain things... Even if they "don't really exist," the vast majority of people think they do, and economics is just a big ass popularity contest.

moda0306 wrote: ...and economics is just a big ass popularity contest.

A dash makes all the difference.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: ...and economics is just a big ass popularity contest.

A dash makes all the difference.

Nice. Haha.

And in the interests of not hijacking the thread, I must point out that politics--and especially democracy--is also just a big ass popularity contest!

Pointedstick wrote: And in the interests of not hijacking the thread, I must point out that politics--and especially democracy--is also just a big ass popularity contest!

Of course. Which is why it's kind of goofy to separate the two (economics v politics) the way anarcho-capitalists do.

moda0306 wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: And in the interests of not hijacking the thread, I must point out that politics--and especially democracy--is also just a big ass popularity contest!

Of course. Which is why it's kind of goofy to separate the two (economics v politics) the way anarcho-capitalists do.

Shouldn't economics be just the facts behind buying, selling, markets, etc. If you do A, B will happen, etc. and not just justification for imposing your preferred politics on everyone?  Isn't it possible to state e.g. here is the way these systems behave under conditions a, b, c etc?  I realize this may be a naive question and am aware the economics is not considered a science by at least some.

I think people's expectations of democracy are unrealistically high. When given the right to vote every two to fours years, people will by and large vote for candidates whom they think might be serious about at least attempting to implement the ideas they are espousing. If and when they don't, they get thrown out and another group gets a shot at it. Expectations come into play because people don't want any hardship and that is just not realistic. For example, people want both a pristine environment and low-cost domestically-mined/drilled fossil fuels, or nuclear reactors that don't have that nagging disposal problem. They surely won't accept a level of energy consumption that can only be delivered by wind, water and solar (all of which, when harnessed, have their own environmental issues). And that's just one small example.

We think that nobody should be living in abject poverty (at any stage in life), be in pain when a doctor and medicine could help, or be disadvantaged when it comes to education. All reasonable positions, no?

Politicians are being asked to perform miracles because we are asking them to maintain a society that is ever more complex and therefore ever more expensive. What do you mean you can't balance the budget? Debt is an inevitable eventuality when the populace wants so much (By the way, please keep the whole place safe from invading armies, terrorists and those bothersome criminals. Just don't spend too much while you're at it). And keep those roads and bridges in good condition, would you?

We incessantly get "morons" in public office and they will only appear more moronic as time goes by because they will be expected to do more and more with less and less money. So the cycle continues regardless of which party rules. We can argue all we want about which group of pols is more or less ineffectual but, for the most part, we are only debating degree.

Some things we can change as individuals. Let's see... we can use less in the way of resources by living in smaller spaces (cities are ideal because of all the sharing of resources... i. e., you heat your apartment and mine gets warmer by a bit). We can exercise to help bring down medical costs. We can eat a bit less which maybe frees up a bit of farmland to go back to jungle over the next several thousand years. I can stop watering my damn lawn in the summer months. The list goes on and on but the point - at least in this paragraph - is that we are not totally powerless as individuals to at least affect some tiny change.

I realize I am trying to tackle a book with a mere forum post. What the hell is my unifying thesis then? Maybe the question as to whether or not we as individuals are willing to accept a simpler life. I personally am guilty as hell of over consumption if I look at how my life has been lived.

And that's just on one cup of coffee folks!