4 ms·

We agree on women and blacks. But good arguments have been made (weasel words because I don't remember the source) that a democracy where EVERYONE can vote is v

by b0rsuk 9y ago

We agree on women and blacks. But good arguments have been made (weasel words because I don't remember the source) that a democracy where EVERYONE can vote is very susceptible to populism and demagogy. Under this system, two idiots are worth more than a genius. People living under a rock, not knowing what's going on in the neighborhood, let alone the country, are worth just as much. How to deal with that ? One way is by restricting who gets to vote. Should clinically insane people be allowed to vote ? How about criminals ? But where to draw the line ? Another is similar - some wise people would get more votes. Third way - provide decent free education to everyone. It has been achieved on a small scale (Finland), in fact Finnish education is much more than that. I'm sympathetic to the Karl Popper's definition of democracy: It is wrong to ask who will rule. The ability to vote a bad government out of office is enough. That is democracy. and I personally call the type of government which can be removed without violence 'democracy,' and the other, 'tyranny.'. also Democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the institution of general elections is most important. For a majority might rule in a tyrannical way. (The majority of those who are less than 6 ft. high may decide that the minority of those over 6 ft. shall pay all taxes.) In a democracy, the powers of the rulers must be limited;

coldtea 9y ago
>We agree on women and blacks. But good arguments have been made (weasel words because I don't remember the source) that a democracy where EVERYONE can vote is very susceptible to populism and demagogy. Under this system, two idiots are worth more than a genius. The idea behind democracy, at least real athenian democracy, is that it doesn't matter who is an idiot and who is a genius. Not just because they are all people, but mainly because since they are all to be affected by the decisions of a vote, they should all have a say. If anything, when one was "too much of a genius" or too distinct from others, it was viewed with suspicion, and they could see themselves ostracised (with "ostraca" being the ancient greek word for sea-shells, but also the shards of pottery using for voting, upon which athenians wrote the names of people to exile from the city) [1]. (And come to think of it, some of the most disastrous, self serving, society destructing, laws and ideas, come not from "idiots" but for very clever and well educated people). So democracy is not about "finding what's best". It's about people participating in it, whether their thinking (or lack thereof), having equal say on what should be done in their community. That's why ancient athenians besides mass popular vote, they also gave some high official positions by lottery -- so anybody, at random, can get a chance to get to them (for a term). >People living under a rock, not knowing what's going on in the neighborhood, let alone the country, are worth just as much. How to deal with that ? Accept it. [1] Aristedes a.k.a. "Aristedes the just" was a renowned state-person, who everybody considered trustworthy and just (hence the nickname), and he had done much to prove himself so over the years. (...). Once, when there was a vote for ostacizing, (...) it is said that an illiterate voter who did not recognise Aristides approached the statesman and requested that he write the name of Aristides on his voting shard to ostracize him. The latter asked if Aristides had wronged him. "No," was the reply, "and I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear him everywhere called 'the Just'." Aristides then wrote his own name on the ballot.
- perfecot0r 9y ago
  We are talking about knowledge, the knowledge how to regulate public life. There is no way to accept anything, in terms of information, from someone who knows nothing.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >We are talking about knowledge, the knowledge how to regulate public life. There is no "knowledge to regulate" that has been imparted to some. The most educated "sages" have historically made the same (and worse) BS mistakes and disastrous policies as the ordinary citizen. And even if it was, it's not their call to impart it to the rest of the people. Those who get the effects of a regulation should have a say on the design of the regulation. >There is no way to accept anything, in terms of information, from someone who knows nothing. There is a way. It's called democracy (even more so in direct than in modern "representative" diluted democracy, but still). What there should not be a way of is for anybody, even if they know nothing, to accept the will of some other other them, without having their equal share in influencing what will happen. Those people would be slaves.
- b0rsuk 9y ago
  But the Founding Fathers were more inspired by Sparta than Athens (source: documentary by History Channel). Sparta had not just a constitution and voting, but also a couple of institutions: * two kings (equivalent of president) * apella (public voting for males over 30...) * ephors (ministers) * gerusia (elders... so senate ? In practice they held the most power and Sparta was an oligarchy) Remember that Athenians voted to sentence Socrates to death. Philosophers delighted in trolling, and Socrates specialized in inconvenient questions. Soon they regretted that because they needed his advice. But it was too late. * * * The issue is not that the decisions aren't perfect. Ignorant people are disturbingly easy to manipulate into voting. Stupid people can be outright dangerous. I think Carlo M. Cipolla argued it best: from social perspective, a stupid person is a person who causes harm to you while not getting any benefit for it or even getting hurt himself in the process. Maybe (instead of age requirement?) there should be some kind of "public affairs" test based on knowledge of what happened in the last few years ? Something like that.

by b0rsuk 9y ago

coldtea 9y ago

>We agree on women and blacks. But good arguments have been made (weasel words because I don't remember the source) that a democracy where EVERYONE can vote is very susceptible to populism and demagogy. Under this system, two idiots are worth more than a genius. The idea behind democracy, at least real athenian democracy, is that it doesn't matter who is an idiot and who is a genius. Not just because they are all people, but mainly because since they are all to be affected by the decisions of a vote, they should all have a say. If anything, when one was "too much of a genius" or too distinct from others, it was viewed with suspicion, and they could see themselves ostracised (with "ostraca" being the ancient greek word for sea-shells, but also the shards of pottery using for voting, upon which athenians wrote the names of people to exile from the city) [1]. (And come to think of it, some of the most disastrous, self serving, society destructing, laws and ideas, come not from "idiots" but for very clever and well educated people). So democracy is not about "finding what's best". It's about people participating in it, whether their thinking (or lack thereof), having equal say on what should be done in their community. That's why ancient athenians besides mass popular vote, they also gave some high official positions by lottery -- so anybody, at random, can get a chance to get to them (for a term). >People living under a rock, not knowing what's going on in the neighborhood, let alone the country, are worth just as much. How to deal with that ? Accept it. [1] Aristedes a.k.a. "Aristedes the just" was a renowned state-person, who everybody considered trustworthy and just (hence the nickname), and he had done much to prove himself so over the years. (...). Once, when there was a vote for ostacizing, (...) it is said that an illiterate voter who did not recognise Aristides approached the statesman and requested that he write the name of Aristides on his voting shard to ostracize him. The latter asked if Aristides had wronged him. "No," was the reply, "and I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear him everywhere called 'the Just'." Aristides then wrote his own name on the ballot.

perfecot0r 9y ago
We are talking about knowledge, the knowledge how to regulate public life. There is no way to accept anything, in terms of information, from someone who knows nothing.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >We are talking about knowledge, the knowledge how to regulate public life. There is no "knowledge to regulate" that has been imparted to some. The most educated "sages" have historically made the same (and worse) BS mistakes and disastrous policies as the ordinary citizen. And even if it was, it's not their call to impart it to the rest of the people. Those who get the effects of a regulation should have a say on the design of the regulation. >There is no way to accept anything, in terms of information, from someone who knows nothing. There is a way. It's called democracy (even more so in direct than in modern "representative" diluted democracy, but still). What there should not be a way of is for anybody, even if they know nothing, to accept the will of some other other them, without having their equal share in influencing what will happen. Those people would be slaves.
b0rsuk 9y ago
But the Founding Fathers were more inspired by Sparta than Athens (source: documentary by History Channel). Sparta had not just a constitution and voting, but also a couple of institutions: * two kings (equivalent of president) * apella (public voting for males over 30...) * ephors (ministers) * gerusia (elders... so senate ? In practice they held the most power and Sparta was an oligarchy) Remember that Athenians voted to sentence Socrates to death. Philosophers delighted in trolling, and Socrates specialized in inconvenient questions. Soon they regretted that because they needed his advice. But it was too late. * * * The issue is not that the decisions aren't perfect. Ignorant people are disturbingly easy to manipulate into voting. Stupid people can be outright dangerous. I think Carlo M. Cipolla argued it best: from social perspective, a stupid person is a person who causes harm to you while not getting any benefit for it or even getting hurt himself in the process. Maybe (instead of age requirement?) there should be some kind of "public affairs" test based on knowledge of what happened in the last few years ? Something like that.