3 ms·

The first two objections, while they are real, are true for any agent and any decision system. Currently we live in era where people on Earth are most connected

The first two objections, while they are real, are true for any agent and any decision system. Currently we live in era where people on Earth are most connected and most educated in human history. We could sure do better, but there are countries with democratic tradition that worked extremely well for much less educated and connected population. The last objection I don't understand. The best way to know person preferences is just to ask them. If someone charismatic changes their preferences, so what? People change their preference based on other people all the time. As long as it is clearly their preference, we have to assume that it's in their interest. The point of democracy is that people express their interest. There may be smarter people doing smarter decisions, but why should they make the decisions in the interest of someone else? In any case, I think it's a good idea, often neglected, to structure society so that impact of any wrong decision at any level is minimized. Things like democratic decision-making, subsidiarity principle, reversibility of laws, non-discrimination, limited liability, social security, no capital punishment, time limited government contracts and free access to information all help.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
RE first two points, true, though one could make an argument similar to the popular saying - "in any given situation there best thing is to make the right decision, the second best is to make a wrong one, and the worst thing is not to make any decision at all". In current democracies, the very important issues are so important, that they become turned into political games. No significant changes are being made because there's always a side that will fight tooth and nail to oppose it for purely political reasons. We can't get anywhere, because no single person (or group) has enough power (or incentive) to just make a call and go through with it. As for the last objection - the typical voter's preference will be reflecting the political battles described above. > People change their preference based on other people all the time. As long as it is clearly their preference, we have to assume that it's in their interest. The problem is, it's not people changing their mind because they've heard someone reasonable saying something that makes sense. Politicians lie. Lie blatantly and lie on purpose. They hire the entire advertising machine, built out of professional liers and bullshiters, to convince people that their side of the debate is right by whatever means necessary. The average voter has to oppose people who are trained specialists in lying. I don't see how you could argue it's actually their preference. But back to the primary reason. I could accept that start of affairs as fair, as long as we're dealing with things that don't matter much. But at this moment in time, we have several important problems - like supergerms, climate change and depletion of fossil fuels - that are going to destroy humanity in few decades, or at least pull us back into the medieval age. This shit matters. We need to make some hard choices and do some decisive actions soon if we want to have any kind of civilization surviving to the end of this century. And the democratic process is by design incapable of making those hard choices. TL;DR: I don't want to "give power to the smarter" or a king or anything. I just want someone to actually do something about global warming and power issues before this stupid textbook-level coordination problem kills us all.
- asgard1024 11y ago
  You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. For example, the indecision could be easily resolved by referendum. Although I admit that general population tends to vote pretty conservatively in referendums. > The average voter has to oppose people who are trained specialists in lying. I don't see how you could argue it's actually their preference. People have to oppose these people in all areas of life. By having democracy, you actually distribute power more equally and using money to gain influence becomes more costly (its much cheaper to buy a senator than to influence people to vote certain way, and the latter poses much higher risk). I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear, and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. It seems to me this argument is blaming the victim. In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. Whether or not you can tell it's a preference depends on the information you have. Say a girl decides to sleep with a ladies' man, and he breaks up with her afterwards. If she knew, maybe she wouldn't do it. But at the time, she expressed her preference. > But at this moment in time, we have several important problems - like supergerms, climate change and depletion of fossil fuels As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. True. I'm basing on I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions, which are currently based on my experiences with the democracies I know - Poland where I live from direct experience, and few big Western countries from news and reading stuff. > By having democracy, (...) using money to gain influence becomes more costly That's a win only if the cost is too high to pay; as it seems to me now, the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that. See: presidential campaigns, and how much money, energy, time and manpower is wasted on what amounts to a zero-sum game. > I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear Yeah, I don't want to imply people are idiots - but it seems to me that the state of lack of information (and sometimes fear) is a constant in our societies. From what I read about the history of democracy, its basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided. > and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. I wish to know more. I'd love if someone with direct experience of Swiss process could tell how good is it. > In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. That's actually my core problem with continued existence of advertising/marketing industry (I include political campaigning under the term 'marketing' here). In other areas of life we don't tolerate such nonsense. If your friend tried to pull on you the stuff that is standard practice in marketing, you'd punch him in the face. And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice. > As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act. The issue I see here, and why I blame the democratic process for that, is that people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them. Start talking about CO₂ emissions tax and suddenly you'll be violently opposed by people. Point out we need a new nuclear power plant, and the NIMBYsts wake up. This feeds back into the democratic process and so (that's why I think) politicians stay away from solutions. At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people, whether they like it or not, and I don't see how (representative) democracy can help with that.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

RE first two points, true, though one could make an argument similar to the popular saying - "in any given situation there best thing is to make the right decision, the second best is to make a wrong one, and the worst thing is not to make any decision at all". In current democracies, the very important issues are so important, that they become turned into political games. No significant changes are being made because there's always a side that will fight tooth and nail to oppose it for purely political reasons. We can't get anywhere, because no single person (or group) has enough power (or incentive) to just make a call and go through with it. As for the last objection - the typical voter's preference will be reflecting the political battles described above. > People change their preference based on other people all the time. As long as it is clearly their preference, we have to assume that it's in their interest. The problem is, it's not people changing their mind because they've heard someone reasonable saying something that makes sense. Politicians lie. Lie blatantly and lie on purpose. They hire the entire advertising machine, built out of professional liers and bullshiters, to convince people that their side of the debate is right by whatever means necessary. The average voter has to oppose people who are trained specialists in lying. I don't see how you could argue it's actually their preference. But back to the primary reason. I could accept that start of affairs as fair, as long as we're dealing with things that don't matter much. But at this moment in time, we have several important problems - like supergerms, climate change and depletion of fossil fuels - that are going to destroy humanity in few decades, or at least pull us back into the medieval age. This shit matters. We need to make some hard choices and do some decisive actions soon if we want to have any kind of civilization surviving to the end of this century. And the democratic process is by design incapable of making those hard choices. TL;DR: I don't want to "give power to the smarter" or a king or anything. I just want someone to actually do something about global warming and power issues before this stupid textbook-level coordination problem kills us all.

asgard1024 11y ago
You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. For example, the indecision could be easily resolved by referendum. Although I admit that general population tends to vote pretty conservatively in referendums. > The average voter has to oppose people who are trained specialists in lying. I don't see how you could argue it's actually their preference. People have to oppose these people in all areas of life. By having democracy, you actually distribute power more equally and using money to gain influence becomes more costly (its much cheaper to buy a senator than to influence people to vote certain way, and the latter poses much higher risk). I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear, and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. It seems to me this argument is blaming the victim. In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. Whether or not you can tell it's a preference depends on the information you have. Say a girl decides to sleep with a ladies' man, and he breaks up with her afterwards. If she knew, maybe she wouldn't do it. But at the time, she expressed her preference. > But at this moment in time, we have several important problems - like supergerms, climate change and depletion of fossil fuels As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > You're assuming representative democracy; there are other kinds of democratic systems. True. I'm basing on I need to learn more about those other systems, I might revise some of my opinions, which are currently based on my experiences with the democracies I know - Poland where I live from direct experience, and few big Western countries from news and reading stuff. > By having democracy, (...) using money to gain influence becomes more costly That's a win only if the cost is too high to pay; as it seems to me now, the cost is higher but not limiting, so the result is that more of society's resources are redirected towards that. See: presidential campaigns, and how much money, energy, time and manpower is wasted on what amounts to a zero-sum game. > I don't think people are that stupid. I agree they can be temporarily confused by lack of information or fear Yeah, I don't want to imply people are idiots - but it seems to me that the state of lack of information (and sometimes fear) is a constant in our societies. From what I read about the history of democracy, its basic assumption is that of a population well-educated in the issues to be decided. > and that in representative democracy, there is a risk of the person lying. But that's a problem with that system, and there are many options how to prevent that. For example, in Switzerland, on some referendums, people can get a summary information with arguments for and against. And often the debate itself is very healthy. I wish to know more. I'd love if someone with direct experience of Swiss process could tell how good is it. > In all other areas of life, we call out the liar. That's actually my core problem with continued existence of advertising/marketing industry (I include political campaigning under the term 'marketing' here). In other areas of life we don't tolerate such nonsense. If your friend tried to pull on you the stuff that is standard practice in marketing, you'd punch him in the face. And yet we accept this from companies and politicians, and we even turned it into a respectable occupation choice. > As far as I know (at least in U.S. and my country), based on various opinion polls and so on, general public is pretty positive towards solving these problems. It's the actual politicians who are reluctant to act. The issue I see here, and why I blame the democratic process for that, is that people may be "pretty positive towards solving these problems" as long as it doesn't require any sacrifices from them. Start talking about CO₂ emissions tax and suddenly you'll be violently opposed by people. Point out we need a new nuclear power plant, and the NIMBYsts wake up. This feeds back into the democratic process and so (that's why I think) politicians stay away from solutions. At this point we really need someone to force some solutions on people, whether they like it or not, and I don't see how (representative) democracy can help with that.