3 ms·

This argument is based on a deep misunderstanding of what democracy is for. It is not a system for making the best decisions. It is a system for getting every

by lisper 5y ago

This argument is based on a deep misunderstanding of what democracy is for. It is not a system for making the best decisions. It is a system for getting everyone to accept the decisions that have been made without resorting to violence by giving everyone the feeling that they have had their say.

hattmall 5y ago
With what we have right now it seems that very few get a say and most people feel that way.
mdp2021 5y ago
The idea that one could be fooled into some «feeling» is quite offensive, and the idea that one should is quite defeatist (and immoral). In fact, not only the «system for making the best decisions» is probably what one demands in the social contract: as an actively sought goal, it is also one of the best possible ways to bring the public into a grounded, founded contentment about the said decisions.
- lisper 5y ago
  Who said anything about fooling? The feeling of having had one's say could be legitimate, though reasonable people can and do disagree about this. The whole idea of "the best decisions" for a society is non-sensical because there is no universally agreed upon quality metric. Different people want different things.
  - mdp2021 5y ago
    Well, to orient someone's behaviour by giving them a "feeling" which does not overlap with reality, I call manipulation. But you probably did not mean it in these terms and I misread your expression. (That an expectation of contentment through "well but you had your say with voting" can be cheap is stressed by the very existence of a debate based on the doubtful status of voting systems in use.) I used the expression «best decisions» quoting you, but if you replaced that with "better decisions", or "best possible decisions given the circumstances", you have a different scenario, where the accent is on the attempt towards optimization as a goal. That goal, of efficiency, optimization, "doing things properly" etc. is explicitly demanded by many participants in the social contract. That different metrics and dimensions are there is exactly the game of "politics" (in terms of preferences). That different levels of possible quality exist in administration is entailed by the different quality of the members that may compose the administration: there is a difference between workers per job, even allowing ranking, so it is valid to say that there exist configurations in administration that are better than others, and it is valid to say that there can exist systems that achieve the goal of better configurations (instances, organigrams) of administrative bodies better than others. If, to give a very simple example, there may exist better snapshots than "Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson", than there may exist selection system that minimize this occurrences and maximize the better ones - otherwise, one would fall in a relativism to which I do not subscribe. To define such selection system, I would surely go in the direction opposite to randomness (as a general principle - though it does work as a specific part of some procedures).

by lisper 5y ago

hattmall 5y ago

With what we have right now it seems that very few get a say and most people feel that way.

mdp2021 5y ago

The idea that one could be fooled into some «feeling» is quite offensive, and the idea that one should is quite defeatist (and immoral). In fact, not only the «system for making the best decisions» is probably what one demands in the social contract: as an actively sought goal, it is also one of the best possible ways to bring the public into a grounded, founded contentment about the said decisions.

lisper 5y ago
Who said anything about fooling? The feeling of having had one's say could be legitimate, though reasonable people can and do disagree about this. The whole idea of "the best decisions" for a society is non-sensical because there is no universally agreed upon quality metric. Different people want different things.
- mdp2021 5y ago
  Well, to orient someone's behaviour by giving them a "feeling" which does not overlap with reality, I call manipulation. But you probably did not mean it in these terms and I misread your expression. (That an expectation of contentment through "well but you had your say with voting" can be cheap is stressed by the very existence of a debate based on the doubtful status of voting systems in use.) I used the expression «best decisions» quoting you, but if you replaced that with "better decisions", or "best possible decisions given the circumstances", you have a different scenario, where the accent is on the attempt towards optimization as a goal. That goal, of efficiency, optimization, "doing things properly" etc. is explicitly demanded by many participants in the social contract. That different metrics and dimensions are there is exactly the game of "politics" (in terms of preferences). That different levels of possible quality exist in administration is entailed by the different quality of the members that may compose the administration: there is a difference between workers per job, even allowing ranking, so it is valid to say that there exist configurations in administration that are better than others, and it is valid to say that there can exist systems that achieve the goal of better configurations (instances, organigrams) of administrative bodies better than others. If, to give a very simple example, there may exist better snapshots than "Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson", than there may exist selection system that minimize this occurrences and maximize the better ones - otherwise, one would fall in a relativism to which I do not subscribe. To define such selection system, I would surely go in the direction opposite to randomness (as a general principle - though it does work as a specific part of some procedures).