4 ms·

Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.

by davedx 5y ago

sologoub 5y ago
A lot is changing in the US society and some not for the better - if you compare to even 80s/90s, the strength of the institutions has eroded and the trust is all but gone. The “so far” may not last much longer.
- NationalPark 5y ago
  Just to put some data behind it, Monmouth found in June that 63% of Republican-identifiers and Republican-leaners believe Joe Biden only won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Seems bad, but how does it stack up to faith in institutions historically?
dTal 5y ago
My first thought was that the US in particular suffers from the same disease. It's a highly individual-focused culture that tends to credit people with their successes and blame them for their failures. Criminal justice reform, or harm reduction for drug users, is fiercely opposed on the grounds that it's their fault they got into that situation. A persistent fiction is that if only the right individual becomes President, everything will be fixed. Systems level thinking is unpopular. As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.
- aaron-santos 5y ago
  > Systems level thinking is unpopular. It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
  - traject_ 5y ago
    > Systems level thinking is unpopular. I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems. >At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity). Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  I think the American people have forgotten some important small-r republican principles. They have forgotten tolerance, accepting that others may have differing values and opinions, but that we need not force them to agree with us. They have forgotten that every power you let "your guy" exercise is going to be turned on you by "the other guy". They have forgotten that loyalty should be to principles, not parties or individuals, because a true principle never turns hypocrite. And they have forgotten that the responsibility for preserving liberty rests with them, not politicians, not Supreme Court justices. There are structural problems, yes, but I believe the root cause is the people's lack of education in these points. The system is made out of people.
  - abandonliberty 5y ago
    >The system is made out of people. Yes, and a people system has serious vulnerabilities. Consider marketing, or the impact of a handful of vaccine misinformation bloggers had on a huge segment of the population. or: >“. . .it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” Those admirable qualities you mention have been not been forgotten by accident. We've been made to forget, because people without them are easier to manipulate. It's extremely hard to prevent this, because those who perpetrate it have much to gain directly, while those who prevent it do not. Consider any environmental protection law that is costly to a business - if you benefit financially you can put resources/lobbyists/marketing against it, than the volunteers who seek to protect it can. For strictly economic reasons, in the long run, the people lose. You can't really rely on "people". The vulnerabilities need to be patched.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.
- IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
  Hwrein lies the problem that is at the core of our rot. The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house. Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family. For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics. This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Yet the system has worked orders of magnitude better than any other system in human history.

Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.

by davedx 5y ago

Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. So far.

sologoub 5y ago

A lot is changing in the US society and some not for the better - if you compare to even 80s/90s, the strength of the institutions has eroded and the trust is all but gone. The “so far” may not last much longer.

NationalPark 5y ago
Just to put some data behind it, Monmouth found in June that 63% of Republican-identifiers and Republican-leaners believe Joe Biden only won the 2020 election because of voter fraud. Seems bad, but how does it stack up to faith in institutions historically?

dTal 5y ago

My first thought was that the US in particular suffers from the same disease. It's a highly individual-focused culture that tends to credit people with their successes and blame them for their failures. Criminal justice reform, or harm reduction for drug users, is fiercely opposed on the grounds that it's their fault they got into that situation. A persistent fiction is that if only the right individual becomes President, everything will be fixed. Systems level thinking is unpopular. As for tyrant-resistance, I would go so far as to say that the US just had a tyranny stress test, and the results were deeply concerning.

aaron-santos 5y ago
> Systems level thinking is unpopular. It is. Moreover, the most pressing problems we face are in fact systems level problems. At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous. Are there other sources than the Roman republic for more optimistic instances where this dynamic played out?
- traject_ 5y ago
  > Systems level thinking is unpopular. I think it is the opposite really. Materialistic thinking is the baseline in modern society and in many ways the tendency to dismiss the unquantifiable as non-existent is one of the greatest weaknesses of modernity. It is certainly far easier to quantify the average temperature in a region using Antarctic or Greenland ice core data and use that to determine how that may affect agricultural production in a historic time period or analyze average skeleton height sizes to assess quality of life metrics than to analyze how cultural changes affected problems. >At the root of this exists a fallacy of composition where the argument is that if each individual is virtuous, then the whole[system] is virtuous The Romans may not have worded it correctly but it should not be surprising if we replace the word 'virtue' with 'social norms' and re-analyze how changes in social norms can affect social trust, how institutions are structured and even how families are structured(e.g. a change in norms from the religious change from paganism to Christianity meant a change from the city focused philanthropy of euergetism to the poor/sick focused ecclesiastical charity). Social trust, for example, is very important as it greatly reduces transaction costs yet and its core much of it relies upon the concept of common shared knowledge (in the form of traditions, values and principles) that is difficult to quantify. Yet at its core, the change in social norms would be deeply related to changes in 'virtues' as virtues, in practice, are ideals that society pressures individuals to follow. So, the Romans may not have the scholarly data on material changes in the environment to be sure but they also have a better intuitive understanding of the importance of virtues than their modern successors.
JasonFruit 5y ago
I think the American people have forgotten some important small-r republican principles. They have forgotten tolerance, accepting that others may have differing values and opinions, but that we need not force them to agree with us. They have forgotten that every power you let "your guy" exercise is going to be turned on you by "the other guy". They have forgotten that loyalty should be to principles, not parties or individuals, because a true principle never turns hypocrite. And they have forgotten that the responsibility for preserving liberty rests with them, not politicians, not Supreme Court justices. There are structural problems, yes, but I believe the root cause is the people's lack of education in these points. The system is made out of people.
- abandonliberty 5y ago
  >The system is made out of people. Yes, and a people system has serious vulnerabilities. Consider marketing, or the impact of a handful of vaccine misinformation bloggers had on a huge segment of the population. or: >“. . .it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” Those admirable qualities you mention have been not been forgotten by accident. We've been made to forget, because people without them are easier to manipulate. It's extremely hard to prevent this, because those who perpetrate it have much to gain directly, while those who prevent it do not. Consider any environmental protection law that is costly to a business - if you benefit financially you can put resources/lobbyists/marketing against it, than the volunteers who seek to protect it can. For strictly economic reasons, in the long run, the people lose. You can't really rely on "people". The vulnerabilities need to be patched.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Compare with the US: a system of laws, checks and balances can prevent the most determined tyrants from seizing power. The laws, etc., help a lot, but they are built by people and can be dismantled by people. The founders could have built an authoritarian government; IIRC Washington was offered much more power than he took, and his resignation after two terms was his choice to put democracy first.

IG_Semmelweiss 5y ago
Hwrein lies the problem that is at the core of our rot. The system promotes the worst for office: as presidents , senators or house. Washington came in to office at great risk and sacrifice to himself and his family. For as long as US politicians are able to enrich themselves and leave high office richer than they started, we shouldnt be surprised that we attract the worst kind of people to politics. This is easily solvable with the right laws but we need a small miracle to get another washington elected first
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Yet the system has worked orders of magnitude better than any other system in human history.