4 ms·

I'd say democracies/republics are about choosing stability over potential massive upside or downside. A great dictator can get shit done and improve lives very

I'd say democracies/republics are about choosing stability over potential massive upside or downside. A great dictator can get shit done and improve lives very quickly(Singapore), on the other hand a terrible dictator can quickly turn things to shit. Gridlock that many people complain about is almost the prime benefit of democracy, Scalia actually talked about this before he died https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTYa0nMmt-I

CrackerNews 4y ago
On the other side of gridlock, democratic centralism as associated with Leninism, is meant to break factional gridlocks and unite the entire one rule party behind a democratic decision to emphasize swiftness. If Arabs were starving, I think they would want swiftness in getting food and it may be why the article states that they may be looking to the Chinese model as an alternative in the uncertain future. The US is about checks and balances instead, but it seems like in this gridlock that the Supreme Court is the de facto lawmaking body with it being able to make the recent sweeping political decisions of the US. There's also the rise of "Trumpism" (for the lack of a better word) where people want a strong leader to bend the rules and get things done with the most radical supporters acting extrajudicially. There are also radical anarchists on the other side acting extrajudicially too. I'm not too certain about how stable this system can be with the recession /inflation on top that's clawing away economic and financial gains of ordinary people that may end up radicalizing them.
- engineer_22 4y ago
  The Supreme Court is not making laws, it's dismantling them. Those issues shall return to the legislature, where they belong. Should note, as I understand it, a great portion of the US model of law is based on "Common Law", mostly made up of case law, and adopting some coded law. Case law is debated by lawyers and ruled on by a judge. Case law has the benefit of having legal experts examine particular situations and make arguments for/against an outcome. Coded law written by elected legislatures has difficult time anticipating edge cases, but is perceived as being more democratic. Regarding your anxiety about systemic stability: take a news break. I get worried about our situation too, but there's not much I can do about the big picture, just take care of my little part. The news is pretty intense, even my 8 year old child asks about some of the situations they're describing with worry. Kind of sad if you think about it, grown ups trying to keep their jobs in a changing media landscape, as a side effect they're scaring our kids.
Georgelemental 4y ago
Gridlock/separation of powers has its upsides but it also has a big downside: lack of agency can mean lack of responsibility. "Oh sorry I can't do anything to fix this mess unless Congress acts" "well we in Congress passed a law but the administration is refusing to implement it properly" "it's the fault of the states" "blame the Feds" "the Supreme Court has tied our hands" etc. In an autocracy, the autocrat ideally has nobody to foist blame onto. (In practice they often blame imaginary bogeymen or minority groups)
KptMarchewa 4y ago
Any benevolent dictator eventually loses power or dies.
namlem 4y ago
Singapore is the sole exception to the rule that small coalitions produce worse outcomes for the populace. It was a fluke, Lee Kuan Yew just happened to be the right person in the right place at the right time. Generally speaking, small coalition regimes (governments that require the assent of a relatively small number of people to maintain power) have a strong incentive to favor private rewards to their supporters over public goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory?wprov=sfla1
- ren_engineer 4y ago
  >Singapore is the sole exception to the rule historically democracy is the exception and plenty of kings and dictators have had success. Arab golden age was the result of a string of 4 straight solid rulers in a row who prioritized science. Pretty similar period for Rome with the 4 good emperors. Democracy is more stable, finding a good successor worthy of all that power is the main challenge to non-democracies
  - namlem 4y ago
    Historically all those kingdoms were also quite poor, and societies that adopted norms that favored larger governing coalitions, such as the Republic of Venice, tended to flourish.
    - picsao 4y ago
    - CrackerNews 4y ago
      I think that's more rather the difference in economies with kingdoms traditionally extracting taxes from their fiefdoms and Venice being able to broadly trade. The difference in economy led to the difference in governance.
      - namlem 4y ago
        It's bidirectional and difference in governance absolutely produces differences in economies. After all, the economy is based on incentives, so when incentives change, so do economies. In Why Nations Fail there was a great example of how certain sub-Saharan African peoples didn't use plows for agriculture. The Europeans assumed it was because they were unsophisticated but actually it was because their king taxed them in such a way as to leave them with the same amount of grain regardless of how much they produced. They had zero incentive to be productive and therefore had no use for plows. As soon as the tax system changed, they began to use plows. Likewise, in highly corrupt systems, there is no reason to start a business, since the incentive monopolists will not permit it to compete anyway. That's why Ukraine, a country with relatively high levels of infrastructure and education, is so poor.

CrackerNews 4y ago

On the other side of gridlock, democratic centralism as associated with Leninism, is meant to break factional gridlocks and unite the entire one rule party behind a democratic decision to emphasize swiftness. If Arabs were starving, I think they would want swiftness in getting food and it may be why the article states that they may be looking to the Chinese model as an alternative in the uncertain future. The US is about checks and balances instead, but it seems like in this gridlock that the Supreme Court is the de facto lawmaking body with it being able to make the recent sweeping political decisions of the US. There's also the rise of "Trumpism" (for the lack of a better word) where people want a strong leader to bend the rules and get things done with the most radical supporters acting extrajudicially. There are also radical anarchists on the other side acting extrajudicially too. I'm not too certain about how stable this system can be with the recession /inflation on top that's clawing away economic and financial gains of ordinary people that may end up radicalizing them.

engineer_22 4y ago
The Supreme Court is not making laws, it's dismantling them. Those issues shall return to the legislature, where they belong. Should note, as I understand it, a great portion of the US model of law is based on "Common Law", mostly made up of case law, and adopting some coded law. Case law is debated by lawyers and ruled on by a judge. Case law has the benefit of having legal experts examine particular situations and make arguments for/against an outcome. Coded law written by elected legislatures has difficult time anticipating edge cases, but is perceived as being more democratic. Regarding your anxiety about systemic stability: take a news break. I get worried about our situation too, but there's not much I can do about the big picture, just take care of my little part. The news is pretty intense, even my 8 year old child asks about some of the situations they're describing with worry. Kind of sad if you think about it, grown ups trying to keep their jobs in a changing media landscape, as a side effect they're scaring our kids.

Georgelemental 4y ago

Gridlock/separation of powers has its upsides but it also has a big downside: lack of agency can mean lack of responsibility. "Oh sorry I can't do anything to fix this mess unless Congress acts" "well we in Congress passed a law but the administration is refusing to implement it properly" "it's the fault of the states" "blame the Feds" "the Supreme Court has tied our hands" etc. In an autocracy, the autocrat ideally has nobody to foist blame onto. (In practice they often blame imaginary bogeymen or minority groups)

KptMarchewa 4y ago

Any benevolent dictator eventually loses power or dies.

namlem 4y ago

Singapore is the sole exception to the rule that small coalitions produce worse outcomes for the populace. It was a fluke, Lee Kuan Yew just happened to be the right person in the right place at the right time. Generally speaking, small coalition regimes (governments that require the assent of a relatively small number of people to maintain power) have a strong incentive to favor private rewards to their supporters over public goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory?wprov=sfla1

ren_engineer 4y ago
>Singapore is the sole exception to the rule historically democracy is the exception and plenty of kings and dictators have had success. Arab golden age was the result of a string of 4 straight solid rulers in a row who prioritized science. Pretty similar period for Rome with the 4 good emperors. Democracy is more stable, finding a good successor worthy of all that power is the main challenge to non-democracies
- namlem 4y ago
  Historically all those kingdoms were also quite poor, and societies that adopted norms that favored larger governing coalitions, such as the Republic of Venice, tended to flourish.
  - picsao 4y ago
  - CrackerNews 4y ago
    I think that's more rather the difference in economies with kingdoms traditionally extracting taxes from their fiefdoms and Venice being able to broadly trade. The difference in economy led to the difference in governance.
    - namlem 4y ago
      It's bidirectional and difference in governance absolutely produces differences in economies. After all, the economy is based on incentives, so when incentives change, so do economies. In Why Nations Fail there was a great example of how certain sub-Saharan African peoples didn't use plows for agriculture. The Europeans assumed it was because they were unsophisticated but actually it was because their king taxed them in such a way as to leave them with the same amount of grain regardless of how much they produced. They had zero incentive to be productive and therefore had no use for plows. As soon as the tax system changed, they began to use plows. Likewise, in highly corrupt systems, there is no reason to start a business, since the incentive monopolists will not permit it to compete anyway. That's why Ukraine, a country with relatively high levels of infrastructure and education, is so poor.