540
Plato vs Democracy
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2024
540 points (97.9% liked)
Comics
5825 readers
300 users here now
This is a community for everything comics related! A place for all comics fans.
Rules:
1- Do not violate lemmy.ml site-wide rules
2- Be civil.
3- If you are going to post NSFW content that doesn't violate the lemmy.ml site-wide rules, please mark it as NSFW and add a content warning (CW). This includes content that shows the killing of people and or animals, gore, content that talks about suicide or shows suicide, content that talks about sexual assault, etc. Please use your best judgement. We want to keep this space safe for all our comic lovers.
4- No Zionism or Hasbara apologia of any kind. We stand with Palestine 🇵🇸 . Zionists will be banned on sight.
5- The moderation team reserves the right to remove any post or comments that it deems a necessary for the well-being and safety of the members of this community, and same goes with temporarily or permanently banning any user.
Guidelines:
- If possible, give us your sources.
- If possible, credit creators of each comics in the title or body of your post. If you are the creator, please credit yourself. A simple “- Me” would suffice.
- In general terms, write in body of your post as much information as possible (dates, creators, editors, links).
- If you found the image on the web, it is encouraged to put the direct link to the image in the ‘Link’ field when creating a post, instead of uploading the image to Lemmy. Direct links usually end in .jpg, .png, etc.
- One post by topic.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Hot take but i agree with Plato on the first half. People are too dumb, blind, and easily manipulated for a democracy.
But obviously a benevolent, kind, and uncoercible king with the interests of the people at heart is not realistic.
I dont have a solution. 🤷♂️
People often pull out the supposed quote from Churchill that "democracy is the worst system, except all the others". But, they omit an important bit from the actual quote:
IMO, a critical part of that quote is "that have been tried". The US is especially dumb here. A bunch of 25-year-old aristocrats from 250 years ago tried to design a government system. They did a pretty good job. But, they weren't political geniuses, or if they were, they were heavily biased by the times they lived in. They came along nearly 200 years before the development of game theory, let alone centuries of work in political science. The constitution should be a living document, learning from the mistakes those 25 year olds made.
They didn't understand the degree to which parties would take over. They didn't know about game theory showing that a FPTP system inevitably devolves into a 2-party system. They thought about the threat of a demagogue in the president's chair, but they were blind to the idea that he'd be the head of a party, and his party would prevent impeachment.
Unless it's too late, the US should start amending the constitution and fixing these bugs. But, instead it's seen as a holy document that should no longer be changed.
The last few centuries have been a process of taking power away from a hereditary class and distributing it to the people. But, the name "aristocrat" actually suggests why that form of government was supposed to be good. "Aristos" -> the best. "Kratos" -> rule. Aristocracy was supposed to be the "best" people ruling the country. It was the people who were educated from birth about how to govern ruling over peasants who had no education or knowledge of the world. Of course, the fact it was hereditary meant that the kratos were no longer really aristos.
But, maybe, there's a germ of an idea there. For example, it makes no sense that education policy be decided by a cabinet member / minister who is elected by being the least bad option in some random district, then joining the inner circle of the leader, then being appointed in charge of education. The people making decisions on educational policy should be educators: teachers, professors, scientists who study learning, etc. Of course, you need checks and balances, and maybe popular voting should be part of that, but not in the current way. Maybe professional organizations and unions should have a formal role in government, instead of simply having to spend money to lobby the education minister.
I don't know the solution either. But, what I know is that we should still be searching. Maybe the US is too far gone, but other countries should be coming up with new tweaks to their systems. Maybe (hopefully) that will mean less direct voting, and more decisions made by subject-matter experts.
When you think about it, it's pretty unreasonable to expect the entire population to become educated and engaged about everything involving running a modern society. Modern government is incredibly complicated. It's no wonder that tribalism wins over nuance. Who has time for nuance when they're worried about their jobs and families?
That's why I'd like to see some form of sortition tried. Draft a jury to do nothing but learn about a single topic for a period of time. Make all of their contact with the outside world public record to ensure nothing shady is going on. Let representatives from all sides of the issue address them. Then let them make their decisions and go back to their normal lives. No campaign donors or political careers to worry about.
In order for that to happen we all first need to chill. Most people's lives are just too hectic due to the strain the system puts on them.
I hear this claim made routinely, but I rarely see the folks saying it believe that they personally are too dumb, blind, and easily manipulated.
I might argue that people are routinely very clever, observant, and stubborn. And this is why simplistic, generalized political systems are so prone to failure. People worm their way into every crack and flaw in the system, seeking out every vulnerability as a potential personal advantage. And once they've found profit more people pour through the cracks until the system crumbles.
This isn't a problem unique to democracy.
I'd argue that anyone arguing politics online for either side probably has more knowledge about politics than 99% of the population, even if they are arguing with bad arguments and have bad information they've got SOMETHING
Most people we are talking about don't even know the candidates, don't know shit about shit and get their opinion from the last Facebook ad they saw.
That's a very self-aggrandizing theory of politics.
State and federal candidates routinely have very high name recognition. Lower level candidates tend to be invisible by design, and largely creatures of the party apparatus.
It hardly matters who your state house representative or city council member is when anyone running is just aspiring to become the crony of the mayor or governor.
It has happened. It's certainly not the typical outcome.
Futarchy?
I have: automate the government.
Automation is a labor multiplier, not a labor replacement. We'll still need some mechanism for deciding on which distro.
And who will create the automaton? How do we select people to maintain the automaton that will play the role of government?
That automatic government has to be created by a group of people. How do you plant to select them? The government automaton would also need to be maintained, as it is impossible for the authors of the machine to predict what humanity is going to look like 500 years from now. How do you select those?
The logic of "code is impartial, therefore code should be law" is flawed because code as to be written by someone, and that someone is not impartial.
Having a political education test before being allowed to vote
Who writes and administers the test? And who ensures everyone has equal access to education so a non-voting underclass isn't created?
The United States used to have a "voting literacy test" which effectively existed to keep non-whites from voting. It was practically impossible to pass, so it was at the clerk's discretion who could or could not vote.
I am not saying it's a good idea and implementation would be hard. But it is an idea
I'm for it, assuming everyone has equal access to a robust, non-biased education and sufficient resources to have the time and energy to utilize it; the test isn't designed to exclude by race, class, gender, etc.; and it is designed to simply ascertain whether or not a person is capable of self-directed, rational decision making versus voting for the prettiest or most charismatic candidate or the candidate who will "hurt the right people".
Many politicians would not want any of that.
Just cut to the chase and provide the education. If everyone has access to robust and adequate education then you don't need the test.
Just because it was misused before doesn't mean it's an unworkable idea. Would it really make things worse than the mess we have now?
Say, for example, you needed the support of a supermajority (67% or 75%) of the population to approve a test.
There are lots of potential flaws with the system, and lots of "attack vectors". But, you don't need to come up with a test that's perfect, just one that improves the current situation, which is pretty dire.
If something can be misused for political leverage, it will be.
Yes, just like all the current flaws are being exploited. The question is whether this would make the overall system better or worse. If it means that people weaned solely on a very biased media source / conspiracy theories have less of a chance of their vote deciding things, it might make it better.
It's an attempt to address an existing problem that has obvious consequences right now.