6 ms·

If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Iran would gladly send you to the gallows if you deemed it's religious leader - Ayatollah, also the

If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Iran would gladly send you to the gallows if you deemed it's religious leader - Ayatollah, also the political leader by design, as Iran is a religious state with no minority rights, a 'bad' political experiment. And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.

mirimir 7y ago
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? That's a tough question, given human nature. From what I've read, I'd say some Native American cultures, which were ~stable for thousands of years. Also some parts of Polynesia.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  Back in the 19th century, Herman Melville documented an apparently stable society in Typee. It was however, not without violence -- some of it so appalling to most readers that the novel barely hints at it.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  You mean like the Aztec empire that practiced human sacrifice and tortured other tribes?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    No, not them. I said "some" for just that reason.
    - chrisco255 7y ago
      Ok, your opportunity to explain which one you meant and why they were better or more stable than our current system?
      - mirimir 7y ago
        I'm no expert. I'd say the Hopi. The Iroquois Confederacy also comes to mind. But they were quite warlike. Definitely not the Comanche.
      - crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
        The are several Coast Salish tribes to take a look at. Some were anarchic, so their culture could be of great use to studies of governance.
- gsk22 7y ago
  Which cultures? And what specific attributes of their governing systems made them "good"?
  - mirimir 7y ago
    Individual freedom. Egalitarianism. Non-violence. Consensus-based decision making. Stuff like that.
vidoc 7y ago
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Switzerland, one the only real democracy.
- implements 7y ago
  Not if you define democracy as rule that occurs within a framework of fundamental human rights. The Swiss were denying women the vote in federal elections until the early 1970s. And that's the problem with 'tyranny of the masses' - popular isn't the measure of good, just or rational.
  - DubiousPusher 7y ago
    I think people overstate the problems witr Democracies vs. Republics. Looking at the history of the U.S. there is very little evidence to suggest that Republicanism has resulted in a non-tyranical majority rule. In fact, the only thing I can see that has maintained any rights for social, political and racial minorities in U.S. history is the Bill of Rights Andrew that frequently ignored or tempered until the post WWII era.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  To address crawfordcomeaux's point: Does Switzerland let you peacefully revoke your consent to be governed? No, I'm pretty sure it does not. Does any country allow that? No. So why pick on the US?
  - crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
    Cause it's where I live and it's where the cultures and legal systems I'm attempting to hack are located. It's the state asserting itself over my child in some way, which I don't recognize as mine to give away on their behalf. And that's a religious standpoint, so I'm curious how the US might handle this situation. It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
lukifer 7y ago
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1). Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar. (That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Getting 2/3 of a large group to agree on anything is damn near impossible. I think the American system does a pretty good job of balancing popular and regional concerns and has some democratic elements that require 50% + 1 and many things that require larger majorities.
  - lukifer 7y ago
    My thinking is that there should be a high bar to spend public funds or leverage the state's monopoly on violence (and believe me, I'm not reflexively anti-statist: I'm all for infrastructure and social safety nets, etc). Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%. To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.
carapace 7y ago
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Bhutan. It's technically a Third-world country, but they seriously have their shit together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_modernization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_mo... The old women wept when the King decreed democracy. > Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38] They track not GDP but GNH: Gross National Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness Unfortunately, they're likely doomed: > In 1999, the government lifted a ban on television and the Internet, making Bhutan one of the last countries to introduce television.

mirimir 7y ago

> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? That's a tough question, given human nature. From what I've read, I'd say some Native American cultures, which were ~stable for thousands of years. Also some parts of Polynesia.

everybodyknows 7y ago
Back in the 19th century, Herman Melville documented an apparently stable society in Typee. It was however, not without violence -- some of it so appalling to most readers that the novel barely hints at it.
chrisco255 7y ago
You mean like the Aztec empire that practiced human sacrifice and tortured other tribes?
- mirimir 7y ago
  No, not them. I said "some" for just that reason.
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Ok, your opportunity to explain which one you meant and why they were better or more stable than our current system?
    - mirimir 7y ago
      I'm no expert. I'd say the Hopi. The Iroquois Confederacy also comes to mind. But they were quite warlike. Definitely not the Comanche.
    - crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
      The are several Coast Salish tribes to take a look at. Some were anarchic, so their culture could be of great use to studies of governance.
gsk22 7y ago
Which cultures? And what specific attributes of their governing systems made them "good"?
- mirimir 7y ago
  Individual freedom. Egalitarianism. Non-violence. Consensus-based decision making. Stuff like that.

vidoc 7y ago

> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Switzerland, one the only real democracy.

implements 7y ago
Not if you define democracy as rule that occurs within a framework of fundamental human rights. The Swiss were denying women the vote in federal elections until the early 1970s. And that's the problem with 'tyranny of the masses' - popular isn't the measure of good, just or rational.
- DubiousPusher 7y ago
  I think people overstate the problems witr Democracies vs. Republics. Looking at the history of the U.S. there is very little evidence to suggest that Republicanism has resulted in a non-tyranical majority rule. In fact, the only thing I can see that has maintained any rights for social, political and racial minorities in U.S. history is the Bill of Rights Andrew that frequently ignored or tempered until the post WWII era.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
To address crawfordcomeaux's point: Does Switzerland let you peacefully revoke your consent to be governed? No, I'm pretty sure it does not. Does any country allow that? No. So why pick on the US?
- crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
  Cause it's where I live and it's where the cultures and legal systems I'm attempting to hack are located. It's the state asserting itself over my child in some way, which I don't recognize as mine to give away on their behalf. And that's a religious standpoint, so I'm curious how the US might handle this situation. It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago

lukifer 7y ago

> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1). Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar. (That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

chrisco255 7y ago
Getting 2/3 of a large group to agree on anything is damn near impossible. I think the American system does a pretty good job of balancing popular and regional concerns and has some democratic elements that require 50% + 1 and many things that require larger majorities.
- lukifer 7y ago
  My thinking is that there should be a high bar to spend public funds or leverage the state's monopoly on violence (and believe me, I'm not reflexively anti-statist: I'm all for infrastructure and social safety nets, etc). Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%. To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.

carapace 7y ago

> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Bhutan. It's technically a Third-world country, but they seriously have their shit together. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_modernization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_mo... The old women wept when the King decreed democracy. > Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38] They track not GDP but GNH: Gross National Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness Unfortunately, they're likely doomed: > In 1999, the government lifted a ban on television and the Internet, making Bhutan one of the last countries to introduce television.