Korean Job Discussion Forums

[blurgalurgalurga]

I'm not so sure anymore that it is. The alternatives seem worse, I suppose, but there are some huge problems with giving everybody a vote.
For example:
1) A lot of people are really stupid and cruel.
2) Democracies tend to get deadlocked on big issues, and when a political group is able to do something really big (Roe v. Wade, the Iraq War, gay marriage) the opposition invariably gets really angry.

Unfortunately, I've no good alternatives to democracy, and figure it's the best system we have, but I'm getting pretty jaded on the whole deal and figure it rarely works well in large diverse populations.
What do you all think?

[Stevie_B]

The original Athenian concept of democracy was that a set number of citizens decided on all issues and were regularly rotated. It was not 'one man, one vote'. This prevented morons and idiots fucking things up. This would be a far superior system to what we have now, where dimwits blindly assent to maintaining the status quo believing that they're exercising some sort of power.

[JustJohn]

Was it Thomas Jefferson who said the "If men were angels" thing about government? Whoever that was was spot on. It's definitely an annoying paradox. The need for government and the problems that seemingly inevitably arise.


I'm kind of with the OP. Not impressed with democracy, but the alternatives look worse. Now, I've come up with a couple ideas that might be better, but working in theory and working in practice are two different things entirely.


Also, such ideas aren't likely to be put to use unless you're planning on starting your own country, so I didn't spend as much time thinking about it as with some things. Still, an interesting topic.

[Kuros]

[Suwon23]

It seems that democracy rewards leaders based not directly on their skill, intelligence, or accomplishment, but on their ability to convince others of their skill, intelligence, and accomplishment. Best case scenario, this means nothing. Worst case scenario, this creates a "popularity contest" where connections and charisma outweigh competence.

As I understand it, ambassadors must be confirmed by congress. This means that if you work in an embassy, no matter how qualified you are, you can never reach the highest position there until you move to Washington and shmooze with some senators for a while. Civil servants tend to know their jobs pretty well. Maybe all government positions should be organized along similar lines.

Of course, you have to make sure the standards that govern promotion are fair, transparent, and strictly enforced. More problematic, you need a way to keep bosses from promoting people in their own political camp. Has private business been successful at doing this? Perhaps it's possible.

[Unposter]

I vote for democracy; people should have a say in what goes on.

The person who brought up the point about Athenian democracy is on the right track. The problem is that as nations and governments get larger and complex, you and I actually have less say, which makes it less democratic.

The problem is not democracy. The problem is not enough democracy.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Actually, we're a democratic representative republic, modelled on Rome, not Classical Athens. It was the abuses the democrats of Athens committed that soured the Founders on the idea of democracy. See not only the Sicilian Expedition but also the whole career of Alcibiades, the trial of Socrates...a good place to start is 'Plutarch's Lives'.

What is missing is Public Virtue. Virtue isn't discussed much anymore. It probably should be.

[blurgalurgalurga]

I guess the problem with 'public virtue' is that there's little consensus on what is virtuous.
Somebody who blows up an abortion clinic probably considers themselves virtuous; likewise, the doctors conducting the abortions think the same of themselves.
To argue for the teaching of intelligent design seems in line with one version of virtue; but, simultaneously, arguing that intelligent design should be mocked and scorned is equally so.
Hence the deadlock intrinsic to democracy; what A thinks is good, B thinks is bad. Both wake up in the morning feeling virtuous. B, a man, goes out and marries another man. A is a law abiding citizen, so instead of punching B and his husband in their noses like he really wants to, starts a group called 'God Hates B!'
Unfortunately, both A and B go to bed at night still thinking themselves 'the good guy.'
What is to be done?

[Unposter]

Many of the founding fathers (U.S.) were democrats - Thomas Jefferson for example.

The Federalists won out. The Federalists demanded Republicanism to keep poor people and radicals from gaining political positions. They were frightened of the "tyranny of the mob," i.e. the poor would democraticly take the rich people's money. They created checks and balances and tried to remove the people from much of the voting. For example, in the beginning, the U.S. Senate was decided by State legislatures not people and of course the Electoral College which is still defacto in effect which elects the President. In additon, voting was limited to white, male, property owners which drastically limited who had a say in government.

The progress of history has been toward more direct involvement of the American people. Obviosuly, now Americans vote directly for U.S. Senators and all citizens, who have not been convicted of a felony, may vote. There has even been movements to give more people a direct say in government decisions. California being the best example (don't live there so I could have a detail or two wrong) but it is relatively easy for people to petition and vote in laws bypassing the legislature.

I think the problems with the U.S. government lies in the fact that many people are anti-government. I think Bush is anti-government. I don't think he wants the government to play a role in the people's lives except in cases of defence - a pretty libertarian position. The problem is that government can and does play an important role. That is why you have problems like Katrina. We do need the government to play a role in public safety and regulation. Enron would be another example. We do need some levels of economic regulation to keep people from completely defrauding others.

If by public virtue, you mean that we need political leaders who see a positive role for government rather than a personal toy for their pleasure or for their financial gain, then yes, that would be a great step in the right direction.

Anyway, what we need is more democracy not less.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I didn't say Virtue was easy.

[Unposter]

The only thing that can be done is to allow people the right to their opinion but not the right to act violently.

In a totalitarian system, yes, you can legislate morality and tell people what they should believe and how they should act. But, is this the way you want to live? At worst, their is violence both by the central government to keep sections of the population from believing what they want to believe and sections of the population being violent to get the freedom to believe what they want. At best, everyone thinks the same thing, spends their life conforming, worrying that they are out of place. Ideas stagnate. I am not sure you can even have free enterprise in such a system as people should be free to take economic risks.

Tolerance is the best answer. Who cares whether someone thinks differently than me? More power to them! Just don't interfer in my right to think as I want as long as I don't interfer with someone elses rights or act violently.

I forget the exact quote, but it is something like, "My rights end where your nose begins."

Or as a friend of mine once said, "You can believe what you want as long as you don't piss in my cornflakes."

[Ya-ta Boy]

unposter overstates how democratic Jefferson was. Jefferson wanted a republic of farmers--lots of small farmers. He seriously distrusted cities and feared the propertyless workers. (One of the great ironies is that his Embargo spurred the development of New England factories and produced exactly what he didn't want.)

I agree that the trend has been toward more democracy. However, that dangerously messes with the check and balance system that was so carefully constructed. California is an excellent example of this. The tax initiative took away the legislature's control of taxation but left the people still demanding the same services. Too much democracy is a bad thing.

I also agree that one of the worst developments is this anti-government sentiment. Healthy skepticism is good. This rampant 'Government is the problem, not the answer' has been hugely damaging. As far as I can see, it is just individualism gone mad. Me, me, me. Part of public virtue is demanding good government; another part is the public thinking and acting with a certain sense of community.

[Unposter]

Ya-ta Boy,

I don't think we are too far off.

As for Jefferson, yes, his utopia was a country where everyone was a small farmer. I am less sure about his fear of propertyless urban dwellers. I think Jefferson thought there was enough land so that everyone could have some, so there was no need to have propertyless urban dwellers.

Jeffereson also thought there should be periodic revolution to keep things honest.

I think the excesses of people-centered government are a little overstated. There is no such thing as perfection. There are plenty of examples of the excesses of Government by elite. I haven't counted but I'll wager there are probably much more examples of excess by represented government than by people-centered decisions.

Another problem is people's expectations are just too high (or too low when it came to Bush). We think there should be a right answer to social problems. But, there isn't always, sometimes never, a right answer. The best answers usually allow us the freedom to seek out our own solutions to moral questions.

I am with you on the public virtue though. Sadly, honest people are ripped to shreds in Washington. Good luck there.

[Beej]

Benevolent dictatorship would be the best form of government if achievable.

[Bryan]