5 ms·

You really think democracy solved these? The Greeks had their demagogues, and today we still have political elites. Even a "perfect" democracy would still be ma

You really think democracy solved these? The Greeks had their demagogues, and today we still have political elites. Even a "perfect" democracy would still be majority rule (as benevolent it voluntarily might act towards the minorities). Hierarchies save us from chaos and anarchy. And at the same time they open us up for abuse and make everything less democratic. In practice, we seem to strive to find a balance where we allow some hierarchy to avoid chaos (representatives in our democracy, chain of command in governments) while we simultaneously try to cap the powers of such hierarchies and also establish competing hierarchies so they can check each other (e.g. separation of powers in most democracies). However, we did not really solve anything, but created a system we constantly try to re-adjust once it tilts too much to either direction, and from which we try to eliminate bad actors.

edna314 7y ago
I think there are pro's and con's when it comes to democracy. All I tried to point out that we theoretically have a solution to the problem that people have personal biases which potentially makes them abuse their power. And this solution is simply a majority vote where personal biases average out.
- rndgermandude 7y ago
  If only it was so easy. History is chock-full of examples where the majority made minorities or individuals suffer for no apparent reason other than ideology, bias and/or outright moronic beliefs.
  - metalchianti 7y ago
    It's shocking to me that more people aren't aware of this fundamental concept when democracy is discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
zeveb 7y ago
I wonder what a good approach would be for academics. There's already a very strong and I think unavoidable have/have-not divide between those who have knowledge (faculty) and those who don't (students, who go on to become teaching & research assistants). And many academic institutions even add another power structure: non-academic administrators, whose primary incentive is to expand non-academic administration, build buildings &c. And then there are collegiate sports. I don't even know why those exist, but for some reason they do, and for some reason they are an important power base in an American university or college. I think it would make sense for a college or university to be primarily run by the tenured faculty: they do, after all, have the knowledge which is the whole reason that a school exists. They don't necessarily have administrative skills, so it makes sense that there be some sort of executive, accountable to the school government. Perhaps there could be a tricameral school government: tenured-faculty senate, non-tenured employee representatives, student representatives. Assign certain decisions to each; make certain decisions decidable by two out of the three and others requiring all three to agree. Make administrators accountable to all three, perhaps on a sliding scale such the the chief administrator can be removed by one house but the lowest level of employee needing censure by all three to be removed. But I honestly don't know if that would help.

edna314 7y ago

I think there are pro's and con's when it comes to democracy. All I tried to point out that we theoretically have a solution to the problem that people have personal biases which potentially makes them abuse their power. And this solution is simply a majority vote where personal biases average out.

rndgermandude 7y ago
If only it was so easy. History is chock-full of examples where the majority made minorities or individuals suffer for no apparent reason other than ideology, bias and/or outright moronic beliefs.
- metalchianti 7y ago
  It's shocking to me that more people aren't aware of this fundamental concept when democracy is discussed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

zeveb 7y ago

I wonder what a good approach would be for academics. There's already a very strong and I think unavoidable have/have-not divide between those who have knowledge (faculty) and those who don't (students, who go on to become teaching & research assistants). And many academic institutions even add another power structure: non-academic administrators, whose primary incentive is to expand non-academic administration, build buildings &c. And then there are collegiate sports. I don't even know why those exist, but for some reason they do, and for some reason they are an important power base in an American university or college. I think it would make sense for a college or university to be primarily run by the tenured faculty: they do, after all, have the knowledge which is the whole reason that a school exists. They don't necessarily have administrative skills, so it makes sense that there be some sort of executive, accountable to the school government. Perhaps there could be a tricameral school government: tenured-faculty senate, non-tenured employee representatives, student representatives. Assign certain decisions to each; make certain decisions decidable by two out of the three and others requiring all three to agree. Make administrators accountable to all three, perhaps on a sliding scale such the the chief administrator can be removed by one house but the lowest level of employee needing censure by all three to be removed. But I honestly don't know if that would help.