4 ms·

The rationale against voting on cars or food doesn't apply to all things. There is no voting system for what cars or food to produce... for good reason. Not e

The rationale against voting on cars or food doesn't apply to all things. There is no voting system for what cars or food to produce... for good reason. Not everyone wants to eat the same food or drive the same car, and within certain limits (which are the subject of laws), what you eat and what you drive is not anyone else's business. You need some sort of broad voting for public works projects and other issues of broad public concern, like how much pollution should be allowed into the environment from steady-state industrial processes, or how much tax money to spend regulating and engineering hedges against engineering disasters like Deepwater Horizon or Fukushima. One person one vote may not be the universal best way to produce law, but it's the best way society has figured out how to run things that doesn't degenerate into dictatorships, or unjustified discrimination/disenfranchisement. It's true that certain people are better at determining proper policy, but once they get exclusive voting rights on policy, it turns into an oligarchy, a cabal, that too often seeks to increase its own wealth and power and sustain itself rather than serving the public interest.

baddox 12y ago
> There is no voting system for what cars or food to produce. I was presenting the market for cars or food as essentially a "vote with your wallet" system. You don't literally vote, of course, but by choosing where to spend your money, you determine what product you end up, and also influence the producers. > However, you need some sort of broad voting for public works projects and issues of broad public concern, like ... That is an economic claim, and I would disagree. I think there are very plausible economic arguments that other ways of organizing society could solve these problems as well or better than the what we currently have.
- harshreality 12y ago
  Do you have an example of such an alternative way of organizing society? An example that has been tested in a large society? It's easy to propose theoretical alternatives with no regard for psychological or sociological effects (which are complex and therefore difficult to predict in theory). Changing culture, which is the means to change the psychological and sociological effects of different forms of governance (or different conditions, generally), is difficult. You can't legislate culture. Form of government A works in society B, therefore we can import A into the U.S. and get the benefits seen in society B even while Intel continues to turn out cpus and farmers in Iowa continue to grow corn? In order to achieve what you want, you need not only a better form of government, you need a way to hack culture to get it to tolerate that form of government without significant shocks to perceived quality of life (A shock to perceived happiness in that sense is, I think, more likely to disrupt your plans for better political order than to anchor them).
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Do you have an example of such an alternative way of organizing society? An example that has been tested in a large society? There are examples of self-organization to various extents, although there is obviously no example of a society exactly like what I propose. Many parts of what we currently consider the standard role of government have been done without government by many societies. What is considered the "standard role of government" changes quickly (it would probably sound ridiculous 200 years ago to say that Western states would tax something like a third of national GDP). Private arbitration is already quite common, and government courts are widely recognized as slow, expensive, and unreliable. International trade by definition has no higher level central body governing it, and that constitutes a decent chunk of global GDP. Decentralized mechanics already govern nearly all everyday transactions which are not worth the cost and unreliability of using government arbitration (restaurants generally try to satisfy their customers not out of fear of prosecution or litigation). > It's easy to propose theoretical alternatives with no regard for psychological or sociological effects (which are complex and therefore difficult to predict in theory). In fact, the vast majority of my arguments revolve around psychological and sociological incentives. You're right that any significant change to society is difficult to assert with absolute confidence. But that alone doesn't mean that a given proposal is more like to be bad than good. > In order to achieve what you want, you need not only a better form of government, you need a way to hack culture to get it to tolerate that form of government without significant shocks to perceived quality of life I'm a proponent of gradualism, so while that's a valid criticism, I don't think it applies to me.

baddox 12y ago

> There is no voting system for what cars or food to produce. I was presenting the market for cars or food as essentially a "vote with your wallet" system. You don't literally vote, of course, but by choosing where to spend your money, you determine what product you end up, and also influence the producers. > However, you need some sort of broad voting for public works projects and issues of broad public concern, like ... That is an economic claim, and I would disagree. I think there are very plausible economic arguments that other ways of organizing society could solve these problems as well or better than the what we currently have.

harshreality 12y ago
Do you have an example of such an alternative way of organizing society? An example that has been tested in a large society? It's easy to propose theoretical alternatives with no regard for psychological or sociological effects (which are complex and therefore difficult to predict in theory). Changing culture, which is the means to change the psychological and sociological effects of different forms of governance (or different conditions, generally), is difficult. You can't legislate culture. Form of government A works in society B, therefore we can import A into the U.S. and get the benefits seen in society B even while Intel continues to turn out cpus and farmers in Iowa continue to grow corn? In order to achieve what you want, you need not only a better form of government, you need a way to hack culture to get it to tolerate that form of government without significant shocks to perceived quality of life (A shock to perceived happiness in that sense is, I think, more likely to disrupt your plans for better political order than to anchor them).
- baddox 12y ago
  > Do you have an example of such an alternative way of organizing society? An example that has been tested in a large society? There are examples of self-organization to various extents, although there is obviously no example of a society exactly like what I propose. Many parts of what we currently consider the standard role of government have been done without government by many societies. What is considered the "standard role of government" changes quickly (it would probably sound ridiculous 200 years ago to say that Western states would tax something like a third of national GDP). Private arbitration is already quite common, and government courts are widely recognized as slow, expensive, and unreliable. International trade by definition has no higher level central body governing it, and that constitutes a decent chunk of global GDP. Decentralized mechanics already govern nearly all everyday transactions which are not worth the cost and unreliability of using government arbitration (restaurants generally try to satisfy their customers not out of fear of prosecution or litigation). > It's easy to propose theoretical alternatives with no regard for psychological or sociological effects (which are complex and therefore difficult to predict in theory). In fact, the vast majority of my arguments revolve around psychological and sociological incentives. You're right that any significant change to society is difficult to assert with absolute confidence. But that alone doesn't mean that a given proposal is more like to be bad than good. > In order to achieve what you want, you need not only a better form of government, you need a way to hack culture to get it to tolerate that form of government without significant shocks to perceived quality of life I'm a proponent of gradualism, so while that's a valid criticism, I don't think it applies to me.