7 ms·

> end of story. Is it? Here's another version I like even more that unsettles democracy dogmatics: power attracts the corrupt.

actionfromafar 9mo ago
Shouldn't it unsettle King dogmatics just as much?
- A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
  Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry. (Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition, brutality, and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)
  - actionfromafar 9mo ago
    In theory, born into it. That was just a foil to put an air of legitimacy over the institution. In the real world, there was (and is!) an incredible power game over who decides over what, who gets to live, who must abdicate, how much the real power lies with the King and how much with aristocracy or the Church and so on. It's a constant rebalancing of power factors.
    - A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
      Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. One can point to dozens of historical examples of well-run and stable monarchies, just as one can point to "monarchies" where the power rested with power-hungry and corrupt eunuchs, bishops, or chancellors -- or where the entire process of succession was as red in tooth and claw as anything in nature. The trouble with representative democracy is that it always selects for the most power-hungry of its denizens. And now we're in the midst of a situation that Polybius would immediately recognize: The crossroads where one path leads to rule by entrenched and corrupt oligarchs, at least as bad as any of the court eunuchs of old, and where the other path leads to ochlocracy. I'd take my chances with the latter, especially in this era where direct democracy is possible, but I'm afraid that's not likely how things are going to turn out.
      - foldr 9mo ago
        That seems an entirely false sense of inevitability. Once perfectly possible outcome is that representative democracy keeps chugging along as usual in most of the West and we don’t have mob rule or rule by a corrupt group of oligarchs. The present situation in the USA isn’t encouraging, but Trump hasn’t canceled the midterms yet.
        A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
        Things in Europe aren't looking good. The consent of the governed is being eroded and manipulated just as badly as it is in the US. The UK, for instance, is a tinder box, where the share of the population that simply votes against the status quo is growing to become an absolute majority.
        foldr 9mo ago
        The UK is a country where the Prime Minister may very probably have to resign because he is unpopular. See also Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers in the UK don’t usually last that long if the public turns against them. Compare to the US, where Trump is deeply unpopular but also in an essentially unassailable position as POTUS. If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day. So no, things are not going “just as badly” in the UK as they are in the US. You’re comparing general problems of discontent in a representative democracy with a total breakdown in standards of public life. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Brits “voting against the status quo”. That’s what happens any time you change from one party to another in a democracy. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if everyone kept voting for the same party and same policies all the time?
        iso1631 8mo ago
        > If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day Gordon Brown did an interview with a member of the public and forgot to take his microphone off when he got in the car. He said (in private) he'd just spoken to a biggoted woman. That was broadcast and it lost him the election. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gordon-brown-anniversary-gillian-duffy-transcript-full-read-1957274.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gor...
  - notahacker 9mo ago
    Being brought up believing you have a divine right to rule and a duty to enlarge your kingdom isn't a selection effect, but worked to pretty much the same outcome in terms of brutality. Even in European states where there were pretty straightforward primogeniture rules of succession, you ended up with hundreds of years of "legitimate" inheritors displaying fondness for foreign military expeditions and tactical ploys to acquire tendentious claims to other territory, and as soon as a direct adult male descendant from a single wife wasn't available succession selected for ambition and ruthlessness considerably more than a parliamentary system.
  - vintermann 9mo ago
    Even European monarchs, with the Catholic church holding much of the keys to their authority and being very against it, managed to do a considerable amount of tactical relative-killing. Everywhere else it's basically the norm for monarchies that princes murder each other. A shattering bow A burning flame A gaping wolf A screeching pig A rootless tree A mounting sea A flying spear A falling wave One night's ice A coiled serpent A bride's bed-talk or a breaking sword A bear's play or a child of a king. (Odin listing up some of the things a wise man never trusts, in stanza 85 and 86 of Hávamál)
  - Nursie 9mo ago
    > because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; This… well, I’d urge you to read some English history. I’m choosing English because it’s the one I know best. It is a litany of power struggles, of brother and sister plotting to kill aunt, uncle and father, nephew cousin, niece and anybody else. Of factionalism in court, bloody takeovers and power struggles. Noble houses vying for position as the monarch’s favoured ones, taking land and riches from less favoured houses, or winning it back. Scions of noble houses at war with each other over succession. Monarchs slaughtering potential usurpers. 9 day monarchies as one successor is positioned against another when the old king died, all based on religious backing… There were long periods of stability under certain monarchs too, but often these coincide with periods of extrinsic conflict. Sometimes their wars of adventure would come close to bankrupting the country. Other times their choice of who to marry (or divorce) would cause massive loss of life. They very much select for the power hungry, the venal, the egotistical and those capable of subterfuge and great violence to their own blood.
  - triceratops 8mo ago
    > aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. That's not what the Crusader Kings series tells me. Or Brett Devereaux's description of pre-industrial states as a "Red Queen's race" where the strong had to devour the weak to stay ahead of the competition.
- Der_Einzige 9mo ago
  In a world where the best ran country on earth is a "enlighten despotism" AKA Singapore, Nope. They think we just need more LKYs, or really, AI systems controlling everything. A benevolent dictatorial AI running society is exactly what all the futurists think is coming. Go read Orions Arm.
  - actionfromafar 8mo ago
    Disney land with a death penalty. If that's your thing.
whatever1 9mo ago
It is absolutely correct, hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies. An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the opposite. A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  A good intentioned participant will not have unlimited time to do good
  - geeunits 9mo ago
    If infinity joins the discussion, I'd venture it is Time that corrupts.
- AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
  > A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term is up? > A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan. The assumption is that the ruler is the elected official. What do you do if the malicious ruler is a corporation and the elected official is just a fungible subordinate?
  - bitmasher9 9mo ago
    Campaign finance is another piece of the puzzle to avoid revolving doors. Cutting it slows down the initial introduction phase. Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign. You go into politics in a debt to Group A that you feel obligated to repay. You give favorable treatment to Group A in your political career. Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.
noosphr 9mo ago
Sortition is the only system that ensures high quality universal education. If anyone can become president for a year then everyone needs to be able to be president for a year.
- Der_Einzige 9mo ago
  This but unironically.
- derektank 8mo ago
  I would like to see sortition implemented in one house of a bicameral legislature. Executive office is not where I would want to see it tested first (and I think it’s ill suited even in theory).
api 9mo ago
Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks. In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath. In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests. In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites. I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.
- carlosjobim 8mo ago
  I see things the same way as you do. Human behaviour and conflict can never be solved, and especially not by any kind of "system", which is just thin air of imagination. The closest we can get is striving to elevate our cultural and spiritual level as individuals, family, friends, neighbours and strangers. The entire power of the psychopaths in charge all stem from corrupting normal people, and the more that can be avoided, the less power they have. But it is difficult, because they corrupt our strongest feelings: fear, greed, pride, laziness, desire, community. Millions of young men have died in senseless wars because they didn't want to be seen as "cowards", they thought of their "honour". Who remembers them now? Who even thinks about the thousands of young soldiers dying in the battlefields in Ukraine? Why is Trump the only leader who talks about their deaths? Billions of people are paying taxes to support their psychopath rulers, because of simple fear. If everybody stopped tomorrow, the world would be liberated. But people are held in fear.
- thrance 8mo ago
  > Why is that only a problem for democracy? Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet). > I’m not aware of any system that [...] Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.
atoav 9mo ago
Well why not both? It is certainly true that power attracts those who seek to abuse it. But it is also true that a good fraction of those who are demonstrably corrupt started out way more idealistic.
- derektank 8mo ago
  Is it demonstrably true? Or do people just start out with zero record, making them appear more idealistic/allowing them to adopt more idealistic rhetoric without accusations of hypocrisy?
  - atoav 8mo ago
    Well it isn't as if we don't have historical evidence on thousands of political leaders including private diaries etc. Robespierre, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Napoleon to name only some of the very high profile ones. Not that there is any specific number we can attach to this, but yes, there are actual idealists who then abused their powers and we know that because there is ample historical evidence of it. On top of that I know some people personally who were part of the 68 student movement who also have been true idealists in their youth, but since them became defenders of their own order.

actionfromafar 9mo ago

Shouldn't it unsettle King dogmatics just as much?

A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry. (Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition, brutality, and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)
- actionfromafar 9mo ago
  In theory, born into it. That was just a foil to put an air of legitimacy over the institution. In the real world, there was (and is!) an incredible power game over who decides over what, who gets to live, who must abdicate, how much the real power lies with the King and how much with aristocracy or the Church and so on. It's a constant rebalancing of power factors.
  - A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
    Sometimes it was, sometimes it wasn't. One can point to dozens of historical examples of well-run and stable monarchies, just as one can point to "monarchies" where the power rested with power-hungry and corrupt eunuchs, bishops, or chancellors -- or where the entire process of succession was as red in tooth and claw as anything in nature. The trouble with representative democracy is that it always selects for the most power-hungry of its denizens. And now we're in the midst of a situation that Polybius would immediately recognize: The crossroads where one path leads to rule by entrenched and corrupt oligarchs, at least as bad as any of the court eunuchs of old, and where the other path leads to ochlocracy. I'd take my chances with the latter, especially in this era where direct democracy is possible, but I'm afraid that's not likely how things are going to turn out.
    - foldr 9mo ago
      That seems an entirely false sense of inevitability. Once perfectly possible outcome is that representative democracy keeps chugging along as usual in most of the West and we don’t have mob rule or rule by a corrupt group of oligarchs. The present situation in the USA isn’t encouraging, but Trump hasn’t canceled the midterms yet.
      - A_D_E_P_T 9mo ago
        Things in Europe aren't looking good. The consent of the governed is being eroded and manipulated just as badly as it is in the US. The UK, for instance, is a tinder box, where the share of the population that simply votes against the status quo is growing to become an absolute majority.
        foldr 9mo ago
        The UK is a country where the Prime Minister may very probably have to resign because he is unpopular. See also Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers in the UK don’t usually last that long if the public turns against them. Compare to the US, where Trump is deeply unpopular but also in an essentially unassailable position as POTUS. If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day. So no, things are not going “just as badly” in the UK as they are in the US. You’re comparing general problems of discontent in a representative democracy with a total breakdown in standards of public life. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Brits “voting against the status quo”. That’s what happens any time you change from one party to another in a democracy. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if everyone kept voting for the same party and same policies all the time?
        iso1631 8mo ago
        > If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day Gordon Brown did an interview with a member of the public and forgot to take his microphone off when he got in the car. He said (in private) he'd just spoken to a biggoted woman. That was broadcast and it lost him the election. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gordon-brown-anniversary-gillian-duffy-transcript-full-read-1957274.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gor...
- notahacker 9mo ago
  Being brought up believing you have a divine right to rule and a duty to enlarge your kingdom isn't a selection effect, but worked to pretty much the same outcome in terms of brutality. Even in European states where there were pretty straightforward primogeniture rules of succession, you ended up with hundreds of years of "legitimate" inheritors displaying fondness for foreign military expeditions and tactical ploys to acquire tendentious claims to other territory, and as soon as a direct adult male descendant from a single wife wasn't available succession selected for ambition and ruthlessness considerably more than a parliamentary system.
- vintermann 9mo ago
  Even European monarchs, with the Catholic church holding much of the keys to their authority and being very against it, managed to do a considerable amount of tactical relative-killing. Everywhere else it's basically the norm for monarchies that princes murder each other. A shattering bow A burning flame A gaping wolf A screeching pig A rootless tree A mounting sea A flying spear A falling wave One night's ice A coiled serpent A bride's bed-talk or a breaking sword A bear's play or a child of a king. (Odin listing up some of the things a wise man never trusts, in stanza 85 and 86 of Hávamál)
- Nursie 9mo ago
  > because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; This… well, I’d urge you to read some English history. I’m choosing English because it’s the one I know best. It is a litany of power struggles, of brother and sister plotting to kill aunt, uncle and father, nephew cousin, niece and anybody else. Of factionalism in court, bloody takeovers and power struggles. Noble houses vying for position as the monarch’s favoured ones, taking land and riches from less favoured houses, or winning it back. Scions of noble houses at war with each other over succession. Monarchs slaughtering potential usurpers. 9 day monarchies as one successor is positioned against another when the old king died, all based on religious backing… There were long periods of stability under certain monarchs too, but often these coincide with periods of extrinsic conflict. Sometimes their wars of adventure would come close to bankrupting the country. Other times their choice of who to marry (or divorce) would cause massive loss of life. They very much select for the power hungry, the venal, the egotistical and those capable of subterfuge and great violence to their own blood.
- triceratops 8mo ago
  > aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. That's not what the Crusader Kings series tells me. Or Brett Devereaux's description of pre-industrial states as a "Red Queen's race" where the strong had to devour the weak to stay ahead of the competition.
Der_Einzige 9mo ago
In a world where the best ran country on earth is a "enlighten despotism" AKA Singapore, Nope. They think we just need more LKYs, or really, AI systems controlling everything. A benevolent dictatorial AI running society is exactly what all the futurists think is coming. Go read Orions Arm.
- actionfromafar 8mo ago
  Disney land with a death penalty. If that's your thing.

whatever1 9mo ago

It is absolutely correct, hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies. An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the opposite. A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.

direwolf20 9mo ago
A good intentioned participant will not have unlimited time to do good
- geeunits 9mo ago
  If infinity joins the discussion, I'd venture it is Time that corrupts.
AnthonyMouse 9mo ago
> A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted. The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term is up? > A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan. The assumption is that the ruler is the elected official. What do you do if the malicious ruler is a corporation and the elected official is just a fungible subordinate?
- bitmasher9 9mo ago
  Campaign finance is another piece of the puzzle to avoid revolving doors. Cutting it slows down the initial introduction phase. Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign. You go into politics in a debt to Group A that you feel obligated to repay. You give favorable treatment to Group A in your political career. Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.

noosphr 9mo ago

Sortition is the only system that ensures high quality universal education. If anyone can become president for a year then everyone needs to be able to be president for a year.

Der_Einzige 9mo ago
This but unironically.
derektank 8mo ago
I would like to see sortition implemented in one house of a bicameral legislature. Executive office is not where I would want to see it tested first (and I think it’s ill suited even in theory).

api 9mo ago

Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks. In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath. In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests. In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites. I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.

carlosjobim 8mo ago
I see things the same way as you do. Human behaviour and conflict can never be solved, and especially not by any kind of "system", which is just thin air of imagination. The closest we can get is striving to elevate our cultural and spiritual level as individuals, family, friends, neighbours and strangers. The entire power of the psychopaths in charge all stem from corrupting normal people, and the more that can be avoided, the less power they have. But it is difficult, because they corrupt our strongest feelings: fear, greed, pride, laziness, desire, community. Millions of young men have died in senseless wars because they didn't want to be seen as "cowards", they thought of their "honour". Who remembers them now? Who even thinks about the thousands of young soldiers dying in the battlefields in Ukraine? Why is Trump the only leader who talks about their deaths? Billions of people are paying taxes to support their psychopath rulers, because of simple fear. If everybody stopped tomorrow, the world would be liberated. But people are held in fear.
thrance 8mo ago
> Why is that only a problem for democracy? Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet). > I’m not aware of any system that [...] Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.

atoav 9mo ago

Well why not both? It is certainly true that power attracts those who seek to abuse it. But it is also true that a good fraction of those who are demonstrably corrupt started out way more idealistic.

derektank 8mo ago
Is it demonstrably true? Or do people just start out with zero record, making them appear more idealistic/allowing them to adopt more idealistic rhetoric without accusations of hypocrisy?
- atoav 8mo ago
  Well it isn't as if we don't have historical evidence on thousands of political leaders including private diaries etc. Robespierre, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Napoleon to name only some of the very high profile ones. Not that there is any specific number we can attach to this, but yes, there are actual idealists who then abused their powers and we know that because there is ample historical evidence of it. On top of that I know some people personally who were part of the 68 student movement who also have been true idealists in their youth, but since them became defenders of their own order.