4 ms·

What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many unde

What you have is natural selection. Systemic corruption is itself a deterministic outcome/symptom when corruption is an adaptive trait. Unfortunately many undesirable behaviors are adaptive: the risk-adjusted rate of return is positive. 'Bad actors' have much more to gain from engaging in them than watchdogs have in stopping it. You will always lose the fight against corruption in the long run because as the war goes on you get weaker and they get stronger. This is a fundamental issue with organizational design (and democracy). Highly recommended further reading/viewing: Rules for rulers is very helpful at understanding this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs Iron law of Oligarchy (the deterministic outcome of democracy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

alasdair_ 9y ago
From the Iron Law of Oligarchy page: "no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy" I'm not sure this is proven yet. Certainly in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. If not absolutely direct, then at least having the ability to instantly revoke a mandate from someone you have entrusted could go a low way to limiting the power of an oligarchy, as could entrusting different individuals and groups with a single person's vote, depending on the issue. For example, maybe I'd trust a particular economist to vote on my behalf for specific economic proposals, but I'd want Greenpeace to vote on my behalf for anything to do with, say, baby seal clubbing. So long as the individuals can instantly take back the voting power they have entrusted to someone else, a reasonable semblance of direct democracy could work. In practice, of course, it would be a hell of a mess to get everything functional, I just don't buy the notion that it's impossible in a world where everyone can communicate with everyone else essentially for free.
- dfee 9y ago
  Essentially for free is not “for free”. For example, the best way many people have to communicate with their peers is Facebook. But A) their peers aren’t the ones seeding the discussions, and B) their communication is filtered for signals like “vitality”. More mundane, but important ideas, are a bit squashed on a platform like that. Picking on Facebook because they’re the biggest, but Twitter appears to be worse on every axis, as it continues to evolve to favor clout.
- narag 9y ago
  I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. But would it be desirable? I don't think so. If not absolutely direct, then at least having the ability to instantly revoke a mandate from someone you have entrusted could go a low way to limiting the power of an oligarchy, as could entrusting different individuals and groups with a single person's vote, depending on the issue. The later seems like a very good idea. The former not at all. If you trust someone with a mandate, just allow the time needed to develop a consistent plan. Worrying too much about short term is exactly the opposite of good administration.
- oconnore 9y ago
  > in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. Our current issues have nothing to do with latency, they have to do with manipulation and propaganda. The internet has so far made that worse, not better. If every single Facebook trend, or 30 second clip from Fox and Friends had the potential to derail an international treaty, or modify healthcare on the fly, reality would be strictly more terrifying than it is now. Show me web technology improving stability and deep thoughtfulness, and then we'll have something to talk about.
  - wlesieutre 9y ago
    Any online poll serves as an example of this. On the funny side, sometimes you get a whale named "Mr. Splashy Pants" or a boat named "Boaty Mc. Boat Face". Other times, you suggest "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" as a new flavor of Mountain Dew. For a legislative vote where some actors have a lot to gain or lose from the outcome, I'd expect the manipulation to get even more egregious than people trolling polls for amusement.
  - state_less 9y ago
    I don't think people have come to grips with the nature of manipulation. We talk about letting everyone vote in realtime, but that doesn't solve the problem, because it's not looking holistically enough. For example, Suppose on average 1% signup for the military in high school. Next suppose we add an intervention, we add a sign in the lunchroom for military recruiting (touching on all the right emotions). The average in these schools goes up to 3%! We say, these additional recruits CHOSE to join, but we know they wouldn't have had we not added the sign. It's in this way that I say that realtime voting doesn't solve the problem, because it doesn't look holistically enough, namely at influence. It's not just at the ballot box, but in your daily life. The question then becomes, who can influence and how much?
    - grzm 9y ago
      > "I don't think people have come to grips with the nature of manipulation." I agree that this is a big question. What are the divisions between manipulation, persuasion, coercion, influence, information, and education? Intent? Whether or not we agree with the position? I know that this can come off as flip, but it's not at all meant to. In the case of the poster, what if there were two posters, an additional one for the local university. Average recruitment goes up 3%, and applications for the local university go up 3%. Does that change our perspective on what happened and the students' choices?
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  I also fell in love with the dream of the democratizing effect of the internet. The problem is that speech isn't free (as in free beer). It's a commodity. The wealthier or more powerful get more of it. When people see messages frequently they tend to believe them [1]. It doesn't matter how direct your democracy is if people can be strongly influenced to vote as desired. I used to believe that a sufficiently intelligent and enlightened being could lead a democracy. Rules for Rulers says this is impossible, because the altruistic entity would always lose to the practical power-optimizing one. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201210/why-youre-likely-believe-political-lies https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/2012...
09094920394314 9y ago
What you, CGP Grey and other people tend to not say is that this is not a deterministic outcome of democracy at all. Even the second link you posted has some exceptions in the article . The book that the video is based on (the Dictators handbook, great read) contains some ways out of it dilemma. It shows how and why democracy is more efficient at creating wealth for a bigger number of people, and so there is a strong market pressure towards a free society. These forces can be smothered (e.g. by making pessimistic youtube videos because those get viral views) or tapped into and strengthened (by offering counter points, becoming active in your local political sphere etc.) Culture shapes us and is shaped by us. This is not a game where fate is a player (oh, and as a side note for those that need it, it is also in your personal monetary interest to become involved in politics, even if you do not get corrupt. Knowledge and connections are power, even without corrupt behaviour)
- abandonliberty 9y ago
  Actually that is precisely what the Iron Law of Oligarchy says.

alasdair_ 9y ago

From the Iron Law of Oligarchy page: "no sufficiently large and complex organization can function purely as a direct democracy" I'm not sure this is proven yet. Certainly in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. If not absolutely direct, then at least having the ability to instantly revoke a mandate from someone you have entrusted could go a low way to limiting the power of an oligarchy, as could entrusting different individuals and groups with a single person's vote, depending on the issue. For example, maybe I'd trust a particular economist to vote on my behalf for specific economic proposals, but I'd want Greenpeace to vote on my behalf for anything to do with, say, baby seal clubbing. So long as the individuals can instantly take back the voting power they have entrusted to someone else, a reasonable semblance of direct democracy could work. In practice, of course, it would be a hell of a mess to get everything functional, I just don't buy the notion that it's impossible in a world where everyone can communicate with everyone else essentially for free.

dfee 9y ago
Essentially for free is not “for free”. For example, the best way many people have to communicate with their peers is Facebook. But A) their peers aren’t the ones seeding the discussions, and B) their communication is filtered for signals like “vitality”. More mundane, but important ideas, are a bit squashed on a platform like that. Picking on Facebook because they’re the biggest, but Twitter appears to be worse on every axis, as it continues to evolve to favor clout.
narag 9y ago
I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. But would it be desirable? I don't think so. If not absolutely direct, then at least having the ability to instantly revoke a mandate from someone you have entrusted could go a low way to limiting the power of an oligarchy, as could entrusting different individuals and groups with a single person's vote, depending on the issue. The later seems like a very good idea. The former not at all. If you trust someone with a mandate, just allow the time needed to develop a consistent plan. Worrying too much about short term is exactly the opposite of good administration.
oconnore 9y ago
> in the past, I'd have agreed, but with communication via the Internet making realtime decision-making between all members of a democracy possible, I think direct democracy is theoretically possible at least. Our current issues have nothing to do with latency, they have to do with manipulation and propaganda. The internet has so far made that worse, not better. If every single Facebook trend, or 30 second clip from Fox and Friends had the potential to derail an international treaty, or modify healthcare on the fly, reality would be strictly more terrifying than it is now. Show me web technology improving stability and deep thoughtfulness, and then we'll have something to talk about.
- wlesieutre 9y ago
  Any online poll serves as an example of this. On the funny side, sometimes you get a whale named "Mr. Splashy Pants" or a boat named "Boaty Mc. Boat Face". Other times, you suggest "Hitler Did Nothing Wrong" as a new flavor of Mountain Dew. For a legislative vote where some actors have a lot to gain or lose from the outcome, I'd expect the manipulation to get even more egregious than people trolling polls for amusement.
- state_less 9y ago
  I don't think people have come to grips with the nature of manipulation. We talk about letting everyone vote in realtime, but that doesn't solve the problem, because it's not looking holistically enough. For example, Suppose on average 1% signup for the military in high school. Next suppose we add an intervention, we add a sign in the lunchroom for military recruiting (touching on all the right emotions). The average in these schools goes up to 3%! We say, these additional recruits CHOSE to join, but we know they wouldn't have had we not added the sign. It's in this way that I say that realtime voting doesn't solve the problem, because it doesn't look holistically enough, namely at influence. It's not just at the ballot box, but in your daily life. The question then becomes, who can influence and how much?
  - grzm 9y ago
    > "I don't think people have come to grips with the nature of manipulation." I agree that this is a big question. What are the divisions between manipulation, persuasion, coercion, influence, information, and education? Intent? Whether or not we agree with the position? I know that this can come off as flip, but it's not at all meant to. In the case of the poster, what if there were two posters, an additional one for the local university. Average recruitment goes up 3%, and applications for the local university go up 3%. Does that change our perspective on what happened and the students' choices?
abandonliberty 9y ago
I also fell in love with the dream of the democratizing effect of the internet. The problem is that speech isn't free (as in free beer). It's a commodity. The wealthier or more powerful get more of it. When people see messages frequently they tend to believe them [1]. It doesn't matter how direct your democracy is if people can be strongly influenced to vote as desired. I used to believe that a sufficiently intelligent and enlightened being could lead a democracy. Rules for Rulers says this is impossible, because the altruistic entity would always lose to the practical power-optimizing one. [1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/201210/why-youre-likely-believe-political-lies https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-new-resilience/2012...

09094920394314 9y ago

What you, CGP Grey and other people tend to not say is that this is not a deterministic outcome of democracy at all. Even the second link you posted has some exceptions in the article . The book that the video is based on (the Dictators handbook, great read) contains some ways out of it dilemma. It shows how and why democracy is more efficient at creating wealth for a bigger number of people, and so there is a strong market pressure towards a free society. These forces can be smothered (e.g. by making pessimistic youtube videos because those get viral views) or tapped into and strengthened (by offering counter points, becoming active in your local political sphere etc.) Culture shapes us and is shaped by us. This is not a game where fate is a player (oh, and as a side note for those that need it, it is also in your personal monetary interest to become involved in politics, even if you do not get corrupt. Knowledge and connections are power, even without corrupt behaviour)

abandonliberty 9y ago
Actually that is precisely what the Iron Law of Oligarchy says.