6 ms·

> Those experiences have transmuted me into a full throated advocate for democracy. And if a majority of wolves vote for a sheep dinner?

by pekk 10y ago

mindcrime 10y ago
A well armed sheep contests the outcome...
- cup 10y ago
  So vote my way or civil war?
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Would you voluntarily submit to being eaten then?
    - Razengan 10y ago
      That hardly sounds civilized. What if the sheep can't arm themselves? What if the wolves are better armed?
      - mindcrime 10y ago
        Then the sheep is fucked. But at least they have a shot at trying to defend themselves. Note that I'm assuming that it goes without saying that armed defense is a measure of last resort. Obviously one would try diplomacy, etc., first. But my point is that "democracy" isn't any kind of inherently perfect system if you're the minority party. It has pathological edge cases that can't just be hand-waved around.
        Razengan 10y ago
        I think all forms of government and/or social codes are just temporary and perforated stopgaps on the way to the actual solution: a post-scarcity world, where everybody can just get whatever they want and nobody needs to infringe on anybody, baring psychological defects.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        Agreed. I just wonder if we'll ever actually be able to achieve a complete post-scarcity world. I'm optimistic, but not completely so. There's also a question of whether there is such a thing as "basic human nature" at play. As long as we are driven to compete with each other for access to the most desirable mates, etc., it seems there might always be some cause for humans to attempt to stomp on one another in various ways. Even if there was no shortage of material goods, food, water, etc., I suspect we'd still find some kind of basis to compete on, which could still lead to conflict.
specialist 10y ago
Everyone's grumpy about our (USA) elections, which use a terrible voting system (winner takes all), and then cynically conclude that all democracy is bad news. Because people are stupid. And can't be trusted to do the right thing. Because reasons. How do you currently choose new hires? Decide to ship (go/no go)? Probably something like Roman Evaluation. How do you triage defects or choose features? Probably something like Approval Voting.
- eru 10y ago
  There's also the possibility to vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Ie vote on your priorities and what you want to get done. Then use a prediction market (possibly on a very informal level, if it's a small group), to decide on a policy to reach those goals.
- ClayShentrup 10y ago
  "Winner takes all" is not a voting method, it just means single-winner districts. You can use an excellent winner-take-all method like Score Voting or Approval Voting.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  The country I live in uses a proportional voting system - and what happens is that one of the smallest and most narrow special interests party gets to be the the point of equilibrium - as nobody can form government without it. And then that party proceeds to blackmail everybody all the time. Thus all the governments need to pander to this particular party and they get to gridlock the government whenever they feel the smallest slight or displeasure.
  - tremon 10y ago
    nobody can form government without it Of course they can, they just choose not to. What you are saying is that the parties are choosing a blackmailer over a self-declared "enemy". That's a choice, it's not inevitable. Besides, if the political landscape is diverse enough, a minority coalition can be a boon for everyone: it means that the ruling parties must actually learn to cooperate with the opposition instead of dictating policy for the duration of their term.
faklco 10y ago
I'm curious what you mean by this in a real world situation? It seems like you're advocating the delegation of liberty into the hands of a trusted authority. What if they decide to do something against the interests of a minority?
e12e 10y ago
The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. If you have participation, where all are heard, and real work is made for a consensus - voting doesn't have to have centre stage. Voting makes sense for simple decisions, where little discussion is needed. It's a pretty poor way to foster participation (You voted, you lost, you can't complain). That said, sometimes the sheep needs to be eaten. If that is taken literally, that a group votes to eat one of its members - the situation should be rather extreme - like people stranded without food. One might agree to draw straws. But it would be much better to avoid such situations in the first place...
- ckastner 10y ago
  The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. If you have participation, where all are heard, and real work is made for a consensus, voting doesn't have to have centre stage And yet in practice, the only reason for a political party to hear all (including its opposition) and to seek consensus is to seek the number of votes need to pass a rule. Therefore, in practice, voting does take the center stage.
  - tremon 10y ago
    Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. That's just one mechanism. Your right to participate is also ensured by freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the ability to get your name on the voting ballot.
    - ckastner 10y ago
      Indeed! I wasn't my intention to reduce it just that one freedom, I merely wanted to address that specific comment. Another very prominent example would be freedom of press.
  - e12e 10y ago
    >> The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. > Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. It's a shallow form of participation. Being educated, informed, and being part of the decision process - drafting bills, finding alternatives - forming political parties, being part of committees , being available for election, all the work that is done before a vote his held is arguably more important. And if most people aren't involved in that part, you don't IMNHO have what can reasonably be called a real democracy. It's of course much easier to just present "the people" with the choice of a red or green bike shed, rather than discuss alternative economies that might make the nuclear plant less relevant.
vidarh 10y ago
Then it is not a democracy in any meaningful form, but a tyranny. It is insufficient with pure majority rule to form a democracy - democracy requires participation and at least basic levels of protection of all participants as well. There are many ways of doing this, with various suitability depending on context, but e.g. one alternative is simply to guarantee the right of withdrawal - if you can always remove yourself from the group if a decision is unacceptable to you, a majority will need to seek compromise if it wishes to avoid shedding members. Other alternatives include requiring super-majorities for particularly important decisions, guaranteeing rule of law and basic human rights.
js8 10y ago
> And if a majority of wolves vote for a sheep dinner? If that happens, you don't want to live in that society anyway, under whatever system. In other words, this is an extremely pessimistic view of human society.
sundarurfriend 10y ago
> a majority of wolves The problem lies there, not with democracy - whatever system you use, such an assemblage is going to screw the sheep over. In a democracy, there's at least a sense of shared responsibility, and hence in real life there'd be a dampening of the wolf's id by each one's conscience. In monarchic or oligarchic systems (and these terms don't have to be restricted to governments), the top person(s) will still probably end up being a wolf in such a condition, only now the other wolves would be "just following orders" and be more efficient in making dinner.

> Those experiences have transmuted me into a full throated advocate for democracy. And if a majority of wolves vote for a sheep dinner?

by pekk 10y ago

> Those experiences have transmuted me into a full throated advocate for democracy. And if a majority of wolves vote for a sheep dinner?

mindcrime 10y ago

A well armed sheep contests the outcome...

cup 10y ago
So vote my way or civil war?
- mindcrime 10y ago
  Would you voluntarily submit to being eaten then?
  - Razengan 10y ago
    That hardly sounds civilized. What if the sheep can't arm themselves? What if the wolves are better armed?
    - mindcrime 10y ago
      Then the sheep is fucked. But at least they have a shot at trying to defend themselves. Note that I'm assuming that it goes without saying that armed defense is a measure of last resort. Obviously one would try diplomacy, etc., first. But my point is that "democracy" isn't any kind of inherently perfect system if you're the minority party. It has pathological edge cases that can't just be hand-waved around.
      - Razengan 10y ago
        I think all forms of government and/or social codes are just temporary and perforated stopgaps on the way to the actual solution: a post-scarcity world, where everybody can just get whatever they want and nobody needs to infringe on anybody, baring psychological defects.
        mindcrime 10y ago
        Agreed. I just wonder if we'll ever actually be able to achieve a complete post-scarcity world. I'm optimistic, but not completely so. There's also a question of whether there is such a thing as "basic human nature" at play. As long as we are driven to compete with each other for access to the most desirable mates, etc., it seems there might always be some cause for humans to attempt to stomp on one another in various ways. Even if there was no shortage of material goods, food, water, etc., I suspect we'd still find some kind of basis to compete on, which could still lead to conflict.

specialist 10y ago

Everyone's grumpy about our (USA) elections, which use a terrible voting system (winner takes all), and then cynically conclude that all democracy is bad news. Because people are stupid. And can't be trusted to do the right thing. Because reasons. How do you currently choose new hires? Decide to ship (go/no go)? Probably something like Roman Evaluation. How do you triage defects or choose features? Probably something like Approval Voting.

eru 10y ago
There's also the possibility to vote on values, but bet on beliefs. Ie vote on your priorities and what you want to get done. Then use a prediction market (possibly on a very informal level, if it's a small group), to decide on a policy to reach those goals.
ClayShentrup 10y ago
"Winner takes all" is not a voting method, it just means single-winner districts. You can use an excellent winner-take-all method like Score Voting or Approval Voting.
JanezStupar 10y ago
The country I live in uses a proportional voting system - and what happens is that one of the smallest and most narrow special interests party gets to be the the point of equilibrium - as nobody can form government without it. And then that party proceeds to blackmail everybody all the time. Thus all the governments need to pander to this particular party and they get to gridlock the government whenever they feel the smallest slight or displeasure.
- tremon 10y ago
  nobody can form government without it Of course they can, they just choose not to. What you are saying is that the parties are choosing a blackmailer over a self-declared "enemy". That's a choice, it's not inevitable. Besides, if the political landscape is diverse enough, a minority coalition can be a boon for everyone: it means that the ruling parties must actually learn to cooperate with the opposition instead of dictating policy for the duration of their term.

faklco 10y ago

I'm curious what you mean by this in a real world situation? It seems like you're advocating the delegation of liberty into the hands of a trusted authority. What if they decide to do something against the interests of a minority?

e12e 10y ago

The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. If you have participation, where all are heard, and real work is made for a consensus - voting doesn't have to have centre stage. Voting makes sense for simple decisions, where little discussion is needed. It's a pretty poor way to foster participation (You voted, you lost, you can't complain). That said, sometimes the sheep needs to be eaten. If that is taken literally, that a group votes to eat one of its members - the situation should be rather extreme - like people stranded without food. One might agree to draw straws. But it would be much better to avoid such situations in the first place...

ckastner 10y ago
The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. If you have participation, where all are heard, and real work is made for a consensus, voting doesn't have to have centre stage And yet in practice, the only reason for a political party to hear all (including its opposition) and to seek consensus is to seek the number of votes need to pass a rule. Therefore, in practice, voting does take the center stage.
- tremon 10y ago
  Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. That's just one mechanism. Your right to participate is also ensured by freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the ability to get your name on the voting ballot.
  - ckastner 10y ago
    Indeed! I wasn't my intention to reduce it just that one freedom, I merely wanted to address that specific comment. Another very prominent example would be freedom of press.
- e12e 10y ago
  >> The key point of democracy isn't voting, it's participation. > Your right to vote is the mechanism by which your right to participate is ensured. It's a shallow form of participation. Being educated, informed, and being part of the decision process - drafting bills, finding alternatives - forming political parties, being part of committees , being available for election, all the work that is done before a vote his held is arguably more important. And if most people aren't involved in that part, you don't IMNHO have what can reasonably be called a real democracy. It's of course much easier to just present "the people" with the choice of a red or green bike shed, rather than discuss alternative economies that might make the nuclear plant less relevant.

vidarh 10y ago

Then it is not a democracy in any meaningful form, but a tyranny. It is insufficient with pure majority rule to form a democracy - democracy requires participation and at least basic levels of protection of all participants as well. There are many ways of doing this, with various suitability depending on context, but e.g. one alternative is simply to guarantee the right of withdrawal - if you can always remove yourself from the group if a decision is unacceptable to you, a majority will need to seek compromise if it wishes to avoid shedding members. Other alternatives include requiring super-majorities for particularly important decisions, guaranteeing rule of law and basic human rights.

js8 10y ago

> And if a majority of wolves vote for a sheep dinner? If that happens, you don't want to live in that society anyway, under whatever system. In other words, this is an extremely pessimistic view of human society.

sundarurfriend 10y ago

> a majority of wolves The problem lies there, not with democracy - whatever system you use, such an assemblage is going to screw the sheep over. In a democracy, there's at least a sense of shared responsibility, and hence in real life there'd be a dampening of the wolf's id by each one's conscience. In monarchic or oligarchic systems (and these terms don't have to be restricted to governments), the top person(s) will still probably end up being a wolf in such a condition, only now the other wolves would be "just following orders" and be more efficient in making dinner.