Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

I'm not playing this game. You have to do your own homework and learn to think in concepts.

Meanwhile, enjoy your game theory musings about non-reality.

Michael

On the contrary, you're the only one who's "playing this game." You accused me of dishonesty, and now that you can't prove that (because I'm not), you're resorting to calling me stupid.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Hence: Anonymous majority votes would be expected to be tyrannical, but non-anonymous would be expected to be ok, given your math as true premise of the underlying properties of the game.

I was thinking about this a little more, and I think there's still a way for A to come out ahead. What if A says "If anyone proposes a tax bill, and the bill passes, then I will give an extra dollar to everyone except the person who proposed it." Everyone waits for someone else to propose the bill in order to get the extra dollar, and so, nobody ever proposes the tax bill.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

I'm not playing this game. You have to do your own homework and learn to think in concepts.

Meanwhile, enjoy your game theory musings about non-reality.

Michael

On the contrary, you're the only one who's "playing this game." You accused me of dishonesty, and now that you can't prove that (because I'm not), you're resorting to calling me stupid.

Naomi,

(sigh...)

Call it what you wish.

This is definitely not a discussion of ideas and it is definitely not productive.

Where's the value? In you pretending you will be the savior of all Objectivist and libertarian thought up to now?

Well, that's just wonderful.

Life is not summed up in gotcha. And I get bored with that real fast.

Like I said, enjoy what you're doing.

Michael

[deanwins]

Hence: Anonymous majority votes would be expected to be tyrannical, but non-anonymous would be expected to be ok, given your math as true premise of the underlying properties of the game.

I was thinking about this a little more, and I think there's still a way for A to come out ahead. What if A says "If anyone proposes a tax bill, and the bill passes, then I will give an extra dollar to everyone except the person who proposed it." Everyone waits for someone else to propose the bill in order to get the extra dollar, and so, nobody ever proposes the tax bill.

This may work in a strict game theory game... but in real life one of the parasites will accept a bribe from the other parasites to compensate for the producer's lack of giving the proposer a dollar.

Government by definition does everything by force. Voting controls what the government does. Hence voting is force. Of course a single voter only has a fraction of the responsibility.

We agree that the purpose of government is to protect the property of innocent citizens. Hence those who have more property and income should have more say in what the government does. But I don't think it should just be a free to have large proportions if voting weight if you have lots of property. Instead, the more you pay to finance the government's policy execution, the more you should have say in what the government does. Also as a huge bonus, such a system could potentially result in a voluntarily funded government.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Government by definition does everything by force.

Dean,

Are you sure about this definition?

Government has a monopoly on force (including authorizing it). That doesn't mean it does everything it does by force.

To use a fictional example, did the government of Galt's Gulch do everything by force?

(But there are plenty of real-life examples, too.)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Naomi, The bribe doesn't work when the votes are anonymous. So people will agree to the bride and then vote a liar's vote.

Who said the votes are anonymous?

In the balloting systems used in the U.S. and other industrial countries the tally is made through computer or an unsigned ballot. There no name on the token that is counted toward the title.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

This may work in a strict game theory game... but in real life one of the parasites will accept a bribe from the other parasites to compensate for the producer's lack of giving the proposer a dollar.

Where would the parasites get the money with which to bribe though?

Government by definition does everything by force. Voting controls what the government does. Hence voting is force. Of course a single voter only has a fraction of the responsibility.

We agree that the purpose of government is to protect the property of innocent citizens. Hence those who have more property and income should have more say in what the government does. But I don't think it should just be a free to have large proportions if voting weight if you have lots of property. Instead, the more you pay to finance the government's policy execution, the more you should have say in what the government does. Also as a huge bonus, such a system could potentially result in a voluntarily funded government.

It doesn't at all seem obvious that this would result in the protection of individual rights. For example, suppose that a super rich guy donates a ton of money to the government in order to pass a bill that redistributes wealth from the rest of society to himself. He could then use this additional wealth to gain even more voting weight, while everyone else would necessarily have less wealth and therefore less voting weight, and thus it would be easier for him to take even more from the rest of society. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

In the balloting systems used in the U.S. and other industrial countries the tally is made through computer or an unsigned ballot. There no name on the token that is counted toward the title.

Ba'al Chatzaf

This objection was already answered in the thread.

[Selene]

Where would the parasites get the money with which to bribe though?

Eighty plus [80+] posts and the answer is the same I gave you in the second post.

The gun at the back of your child's head, or, yours.

You just do not get it yet do you?

[Francisco Ferrer]

It doesn't at all seem obvious that this would result in the protection of individual rights. For example, suppose that a super rich guy donates a ton of money to the government in order to pass a bill that redistributes wealth from the rest of society to himself. He could then use this additional wealth to gain even more voting weight, while everyone else would necessarily have less wealth and therefore less voting weight, and thus it would be easier for him to take even more from the rest of society. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And, of course, that is precisely what happened in the recent case of the bank bailouts.

If our goal is to protect individual rights, then the first step should be to de-fang and de-claw the institution that is the single greatest violator of personal and property rights, the state. Whether the ruling elite is self-elected or put in power by 51% or more of all eligible adults, nothing changes if the state's ability to rob, kidnap and murder goes unchecked.

It is the government's very power to tax (i.e. steal) that would make it necessary for your Citizen A to buy off potential voters for higher taxes. And what kind of "defense" is that anyway?

What kind of "freedom" or "security" would a citizen enjoy if he had to pay thugs in advance for the non-rape of his wife, the non-kidnapping of his son or the non-stealing of his bank account? Yet this is the same principle at work in your suggestion that "A goes to C and says, 'C, if you vote against this bill, I will give you $57,234.'"

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Eighty plus [80+] posts and the answer is the same I gave you in the second post.

The gun at the back of your child's head, or, yours.

You just do not get it yet do you?

I've told you once already. We're not talking about complete anarchy whereby anybody can just force anybody else to give them whatever they want. We're talking about a political system which may or may not infringe on the rights of individuals depending on the outcomes of the political process.

The whole point of this thread is to propose a political system which never violates the rights of individuals, even when it is able to do so, and when the majority have enormous incentives to do so.

It is only after the redistribution law is decided upon that the direct democracy can compel people to comply with the law (although, as I've argued in the OP and the rest of this tread, this never actually happens). You're putting the cart before the horse.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

And, of course, that is precisely what happened in the recent case of the bank bailouts.

If our goal is to protect individual rights, then the first step should be to de-fang and de-claw the institution that is the single greatest violator of personal and property rights, the state.

That's easier said than done. The state and anybody who has an interest in maintaining the status quo, including most of the biggest corporations, (essentially, the most powerful people and organizations in the country) aren't just gonna sit back and let that happen.

Whether the ruling elite is self-elected or put in power by 51% or more of all eligible adults, nothing changes if the state's ability to rob, kidnap and murder goes unchecked.

Actually, my argument in the OP suggests that direct democracy would not violate individual rights.

It is the government's very power to tax (i.e. steal) that would make it necessary for your Citizen A to buy off potential voters for higher taxes.

The government's very power to tax isn't going to go away any time soon, or ever, pretty much. Unless you can give me a reason to believe that politicians would be willing to part with this power, I find the whole idea highly implausible.

And what kind of "defense" is that anyway?

What kind of "freedom" or "security" would a citizen enjoy if he had to pay thugs in advance for the non-rape of his wife, the non-kidnapping of his son or the non-stealing of his bank account? Yet this is the same principle at work in your suggestion that "A goes to C and says, 'C, if you vote against this bill, I will give you $57,234.'"

A realistic kind. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

[Selene]

I've told you once already. We're not talking about complete anarchy whereby anybody can just force anybody else to give them whatever they want. We're talking about a political system which may or may not infringe on the rights of individuals depending on the outcomes of the political process.

The whole point of this thread is to propose a political system which never violates the rights of individuals, even when it is able to do so, and when the majority have enormous incentives to do so.

It is only after the redistribution law is decided upon that the direct democracy can compel people to comply with the law (although, as I've argued in the OP and the rest of this tread, this never actually happens). You're putting the cart before the horse.

Yep, you sure are good at telling people.

I was not talking about anarchy, complete, or, incomplete.

My point about the gun to the head is what will happen in all of your systems that you have proposed so far.

A suggestion for you is to never use the word never when creating a paradigm that attempts to totally control humans.

Maybe I am putting the cart before the horse, however, you would have to prove it rather than state it.

Do you believe that the folks on this board who have some basic agreement on rights could ever fit in the systems that you have proposed so far?

A...

[Francisco Ferrer]

And, of course, that is precisely what happened in the recent case of the bank bailouts.

If our goal is to protect individual rights, then the first step should be to de-fang and de-claw the institution that is the single greatest violator of personal and property rights, the state.

That's easier said than done. The state and anybody who has an interest in maintaining the status quo, including most of the biggest corporations, (essentially, the most powerful people and organizations in the country) aren't just gonna sit back and let that happen.

Whether the ruling elite is self-elected or put in power by 51% or more of all eligible adults, nothing changes if the state's ability to rob, kidnap and murder goes unchecked.

Actually, my argument in the OP suggests that direct democracy would not violate individual rights.

And why should we suppose that "anybody who has an interest in maintaining the status quo" with its attendant and systematic violation of individual rights is just going to sit back and let your proposed rights-protecting direct democracy happen?

By the way, in a direct democracy would we get rid of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court? If not, what's so "direct" about it? If so, wouldn't we have to go the the polls practically every week to approve ambassadors and judges, vote on pay raises, listen to hearings on Benghazi, and get morning briefings from the CIA about the Russians in the Crimea?

It is the government's very power to tax (i.e. steal) that would make it necessary for your Citizen A to buy off potential voters for higher taxes.

The government's very power to tax isn't going to go away any time soon, or ever, pretty much. Unless you can give me a reason to believe that politicians would be willing to part with this power, I find the whole idea highly implausible.

And I find it implausible that an institution that engages in massive and daily aggression should be regarded with any seriousness as a "defender of individual rights."

And while we're on the subject of politicians parting with their powers, how to we convince them to do away with representation in favor of your direct democracy?

What kind of "freedom" or "security" would a citizen enjoy if he had to pay thugs in advance for the non-rape of his wife, the non-kidnapping of his son or the non-stealing of his bank account? Yet this is the same principle at work in your suggestion that "A goes to C and says, 'C, if you vote against this bill, I will give you $57,234.'"

A realistic kind. Anything else is just wishful thinking.

So paying robbers and rapists and thieves not to ply their trade is more realistic than banding together to eliminate those vermin from society?

In any case, I don't see how paying voters B and C not to vote in socialism provides security. This year, B and C want $5,000 each. Next year, no less than $7,000. The following year . . . ? In this very "practical and realistic" way we can attain the kind of income equality the Marxists only dreamed about.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Yep, you sure are good at telling people.

I was not talking about anarchy, complete, or, incomplete.

My point about the gun to the head is what will happen in all of your systems that you have proposed so far.

Yes, you keep saying that but with no justification for the claim. Have I made an error in my argument which demonstrates that this won't happen? Do you have any counter-argument that justifies your belief that it will?

A suggestion for you is to never use the word never when creating a paradigm that attempts to totally control humans.

Maybe I am putting the cart before the horse, however, you would have to prove it rather than state it.

A...

What "total" control of humans? Where are you even getting that from?

Prove what, exactly?

Do you believe that the folks on this board who have some basic agreement on rights could ever fit in the systems that you have proposed so far?

Fit how?

[Selene]

Never mind - you are just too tedious.

Carry on.

I'm out.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

And why should we suppose that "anybody who has an interest in maintaining the status quo" with its attendant and systematic violation of individual rights is just going to sit back and let your proposed rights-protecting direct democracy happen?

By the way, in a direct democracy would we get rid of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court? If not, what's so "direct" about it? If so, wouldn't we have to go the the polls practically every week to approve ambassadors and judges, vote on pay raises, listen to hearings on Benghazi, and get morning briefings from the CIA about the Russians in the Crimea?

And I find it implausible that an institution that engages in massive and daily aggression should be regarded with any seriousness as a "defender of individual rights."

And while we're on the subject of politicians parting with their powers, how to we convince them to do away with representation in favor of your direct democracy?

We shouldn't because they won't. In fact, I think that the defense of individual liberties and laisezze-faire capitalism is a utopian pipe dream for reasons I've provided in some of my previous threads.

The secret plot of this thread is kind of to get people to think critically about government institutions in a precise way and to break out of ingrained ways of thinking, so that they might come up with new and interesting ideas that I can then learn from.

So paying robbers and rapists and thieves not to ply their trade is more realistic than banding together to eliminate those vermin from society

The problem when you do that, is that you create a powerful organization that has the capability to violate rights on an even larger scale than any of the "vermin".

In any case, I don't see how paying voters B and C not to vote in socialism provides security. This year, B and C want $5,000 each. Next year, no less than $7,000. The following year . . . ? In this very "practical and realistic" way we can attain the kind of income equality the Marxists only dreamed about.

Read the OP.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Never mind - you are just too tedious.

Carry on.

I'm out.

Adam,

This poster deals with selective reality, not real living-breathing-thinking-feeling human beings.

When you tell her about how humans act in real life, she says she's not talking about a situation where they do that.

Then she talks about "practical and realistic" overall applications to real human beings of her math fantasies.

You are right. If you take it seriously, it's tedious to keep pointing out the contradiction.

But it gets the girl some attention, I guess.

Either that or who knows why she sets herself up that way.

The secret is not take it seriously.

Give her the same intellectual respect she gives you.

This is not a serious thinker.

Michael

[Selene]

Fully understand Michael.

When I drew her out and she explained her "condition," it was interested to discuss some ideas with her,

However, this might have worked when I was 17 and we had the anarchist conferences at Columbia and Hunter, however, I am not 17 anymore and there is a big beautiful world out there which unfortunately has some really nasty humans in abundance.

That will never change.

Agreed as to a serious thinker though she does have promise.

A...

[Selene]

FYI - some nice threads...

Rights Theory

This thread was started by Wolf DeVoon - a fine mind.

Critique of voluntary taxation

Started by Ninth Doctor - another fine mind.

Proper Restrictions on Voting Matt Faherty who I do not know Rights: Coming at them the Right way...

Started by Tony another fine mind

[deanwins]

One issue with game theory that becomes a big problem in democracy is that the players in real life don't have the ability to make the most optimal decision. This is a premise of game theory. But in real life people have a huge variation in mathematical/economical thinking. A large portion of the population cannot for example differentiate the words of Ron Paul from McCain/Romney/Obama. They do not conclude for themselves that the Keynessian arbitrarily chosen formulas have no relation to reality and economic flourishing, nor do they recognize Australian economics. Most people are overwhelmingly manipulated, voting for Obama's promised hope of flourishing instead of voting for Ron Paul's closer to optimal.

Hence equal weighted voting doesn't go well for the middle class producers in the game where players have a more diverse normally distributed decision making ability.

[Selene]

Dean, I assume you meant Austrian economics.

[deanwins]

Dean, I assume you meant Austrian economics.

Woops haha you caught me using my cell phone to type.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dean,

You should see what you can do with crowd manipulation, with persuasion skills, and just plain old storytelling.

You can even get a nation that boasts of some of the greatest minds on earth, the cream of mankind--including scientists, artists of all stripes, philosophers, and so on, to follow a madman on a quest to conquer the world in the name of genocide.

None of the economic models I know of deal with this part of human nature in a way that can be predicted. It's different for marketers, though.

It's funny, but a run-of-the mill marketer knows what many economists don't--that price has very little to do with sales or buying motives. Sometimes it does, but for the vast majority of the market, it doesn't. Economists always talk about a person's self-interest in money as getting more of it or spending less of it for something. (The famous econ.) That's not what happens in reality. Marketers never tire of learning over and over that the secret to moving dead inventory of a certain kind is to charge more for it. When they charge less, no one will buy it. When they up their price, they sell out quickly.

Things are getting better with economists, though. I abhor Kahneman's politics, but his work on cognitive biases and shortcuts starts hitting closer to the mark of what humans really are and what they do with their money. Ditto for odd birds like Nassim Taleb with his black swan events.

The best part of libertarian economists is their insistence on separating the market from government. But the things I have read so far do not go into too much depth on how the underbelly of the human mind works in making decisions with money. They, too, tend to presume that self-interest money-wise for everybody means more of it. That doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

(If you want to read some really weird but fascinating stuff about this, with repeatable experiments to boot, read Dan Ariely's works--they are written for the popular audience. For example, he has found that paying workers more in many situations drastically reduces their performance. Weird counterintuitive things like that. And, like I said, repeatable.)

I made a promise to myself that I would not use the persuasion skills I am learning to manipulate OL posters. I have been very good at keeping that promise and I am fully committed to doing so in the future (on the contrary, I want to help people learn this stuff as intellectual armor), but I swear, it's a temptation at times.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

And why should we suppose that "anybody who has an interest in maintaining the status quo" with its attendant and systematic violation of individual rights is just going to sit back and let your proposed rights-protecting direct democracy happen?

By the way, in a direct democracy would we get rid of the President, Congress and the Supreme Court? If not, what's so "direct" about it? If so, wouldn't we have to go the the polls practically every week to approve ambassadors and judges, vote on pay raises, listen to hearings on Benghazi, and get morning briefings from the CIA about the Russians in the Crimea?

And I find it implausible that an institution that engages in massive and daily aggression should be regarded with any seriousness as a "defender of individual rights."

And while we're on the subject of politicians parting with their powers, how to we convince them to do away with representation in favor of your direct democracy?

We shouldn't because they won't. In fact, I think that the defense of individual liberties and laisezze-faire capitalism is a utopian pipe dream for reasons I've provided in some of my previous threads.

The secret plot of this thread is kind of to get people to think critically about government institutions in a precise way and to break out of ingrained ways of thinking, so that they might come up with new and interesting ideas that I can then learn from.

So paying robbers and rapists and thieves not to ply their trade is more realistic than banding together to eliminate those vermin from society

The problem when you do that, is that you create a powerful organization that has the capability to violate rights on an even larger scale than any of the "vermin".

In any case, I don't see how paying voters B and C not to vote in socialism provides security. This year, B and C want $5,000 each. Next year, no less than $7,000. The following year . . . ? In this very "practical and realistic" way we can attain the kind of income equality the Marxists only dreamed about.

Read the OP.

Nothing wrong with thinking critically and creatively provided that the thinking is also done logically. The problem is that the original post proposed a defense of individual rights while leaving in place one of the key violations of rights, the state's power to tax.

Creating a marketplace for bribery, in which welfare recipients would collect tribute from productive taxpayers in exchange for not voting in higher taxes, does not advance freedom or the defense of rights or the rollback of the mega-state one inch.

Employing the state's power to rob as a threat to leverage "private" welfare from productive citizens is simply another form of coercion. Nothing about the proposal changes the central injustice of using the government's monopoly on force to perform wealth redistribution.

If, as you say, you're concerned about powerful organizations, then you'd do well to consider that, unlike corporations that must daily cater to consumer preferences, the state with its armed revenue collection power is able to expand and thrive without regard to the vagaries of public opinion.