Why Politics is Pointless

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

Yup.

Government by many is vastly superior when there are many individuals in power who collide against each other all the time (without violence).

Michael

Then remind me again why a direct democracy is worse than a representative republic?

[BaalChatzaf]

Naomi,

Yup.

Government by many is vastly superior when there are many individuals in power who collide against each other all the time (without violence).

Michael

Then remind me again why a direct democracy is worse than a representative republic?

Direct Democracy is mob rule. Kiss your basic rights good-bye.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Then remind me again why a direct democracy is worse than a representative republic?

Naomi,

Would you be interested in learning some things about crowd psychology? I can point you in some very good directions if you are.

But here is a simple case just to get a gist.

A lynch mob that hangs a person is a direct democracy. What's worse is that many people who get caught up in a lynching would never do anything like that when they are by themselves or even in a crowd when passions are low.

Humans have mirror neurons and a bunch of psychological biases that charismatic people know how to manipulate. They can lather up a crowd, get the emotions running high, and induce it to do some really stupid things.

As I like to point out, the aware part of our brain processes about 40 sensory inputs per second. The unaware part processes about 11 to 20 million, depending on who you read. Regardless, the difference is HUGE. The charismatic people know how to speak to the brain's underbelly and get people to turn off their critical thinking--for a while.

And speaking of critical, it's that "while" that is a critical stopgap between the people in a crowd thinking about doing something stupid and actually doing it. Without the "while," it's pretty easy (for one who knows how) to get crowds to do things instantly--all kinds of things.

With a representative government and the exercise of power purposely slowed down by a system of checks and balances (and let's not forget an enumeration of some individual rights), even when the most charismatic person emerges, he or she cannot lather up the majority to act short-term. In practical terms, this opens a time gap where the emotions of the people in the crowd (or majority) can cool off and opposing views can make their case to the public--where other charismatic people can say, "Wait a minute. Have you thought this through? Here's what I think..."

This is not perfect, but it does keep a lot of bad things from happening.

Below is a very good video that has direct bearing on this point, albeit my argument above focuses on the psychological part of human nature, not rights. The video gives the fundamentals in the different kinds of government based on a spectrum of power.

Michael

[moralist]

Does it matter that you're being ruled by one person or many?

Naomi,

Yup.

Government by many is vastly superior when there are many individuals in power who collide against each other all the time (without violence).

Michael

Yes, it is.

The only good government is a gridlocked government,

because it is human nature turned against itself.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Does it matter that you're being ruled by one person or many?

Yup.

Government by many is vastly superior when there are many individuals in power who collide against each other all the time (without violence).

Michael

Yes, it is.

The only good government is a gridlocked government,

because it is human nature turned against itself.

Greg

How does the Dept. of Agriculture "collide" with the Dept. of Justice collide with the Defense Dept.?

--Brant

When Worlds Collide (get off the planet?)

[SoAMadDeathWish]

A lynch mob that hangs a person is a direct democracy. What's worse is that many people who get caught up in a lynching would never do anything like that when they are by themselves or even in a crowd when passions are low.

With a representative government and the exercise of power purposely slowed down by a system of checks and balances (and let's not forget an enumeration of some individual rights), even when the most charismatic person emerges, he or she cannot lather up the majority to act short-term. In practical terms, this opens a time gap where the emotions of the people in the crowd (or majority) can cool off and opposing views can make their case to the public--where other charismatic people can say, "Wait a minute. Have you thought this through? Here's what I think..."

Michael,

At first you said that the reason a republic is better is that a system of checks and balances distributes power across many people. Now you're saying that, really, it's that checks and balances slow down the exercise of power. Well, which is it really? Is it both?

[moralist]

Does it matter that you're being ruled by one person or many?

Yup.

Government by many is vastly superior when there are many individuals in power who collide against each other all the time (without violence).

Michael

Yes, it is.

The only good government is a gridlocked government,

because it is human nature turned against itself.

Greg

How does the Dept. of Agriculture "collide" with the Dept. of Justice collide with the Defense Dept.?

When the bureaucrats within each department collide. Never underestimate the power of internal friction grinding bureaucracies down to a crawl. And the bigger they get the more they grind.

--Brant

When Worlds Collide (get off the planet?)

Yes.

When you know that worlds are going to collide,

instead of becoming collateral damage,

why not build Galt's Gulch?

Greg (Noah)

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Direct Democracy is mob rule. Kiss your basic rights good-bye.

Ba'al Chatzaf

History has shown time and time again that you can "kiss your basic rights good-bye" regardless of the political system in place.

[moralist]

Direct Democracy is mob rule. Kiss your basic rights good-bye.

Ba'al Chatzaf

History has shown time and time again that you can "kiss your basic rights good-bye" regardless of the political system in place.

In America today, you are the only one who can piss your basic rights away.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, which is it really? Is it both?

Naomi,

Yup.

One causes the other.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

In America today, you are the only one who can piss your basic rights away.

Greg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_theory

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

Yup.

One causes the other.

Michael

If that's the case, then, clearly, a constitutional democracy would be best, right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Naomi,

Here's something for you to observe in the practical political realm of how checks and balances works.

When the minority power has a voice, it always extols the virtues of checks and balances. See Obama's speeches before he was elected, for example.

After the minority gets power, it starts complaining about the obstructionism of the other party. See Obama saying, for example, that he has a pen and telephone and he needs to "get things done.

This will work the same, but on the opposite side, once the pendulum swings back.

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Michael,

I don't see how that is relevant to what I said.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If that's the case, then, clearly, a constitutional democracy would be best, right?

Naomi,

The democracy part is to elect people, not principles.

The republic part is to enshrine unchanging (or difficult to change) principles and rights, like right to life, free speech, etc.

This means what the elected people can and cannot do is limited, not subject to majority rule.

The constitution is merely a document that gives the rules for both.

I get the feeling you are struggling with this because it doesn't work like an on-off switch. There is a democracy part to our government, but the only thing that can be done INSTANTLY by majority rule is change the person in power (who only has a small slice of power, at that). In order to get something major changed, an enormous amount of "majority rules" need to happen, in addition to judicial review and maybe a few other monkey-wrenches, like the power of the press to sway public opinion, thrown in for good measure.

Our system makes it easy for anyone to get some power (just follow the rules and run for election), or get friendly with someone in power who can appoint you to an unelected position, but hard as hell to expand on that power or use it beyond what is assigned to that slice.

The simple fact is if you have some power and want more, you have to take it from someone who feels just like you do. Not a pretty picture when it plays out.

I think the Founding Fathers were geniuses to have come up with this.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't see how that is relevant to what I said.

Naomi,

You have a good head.

I'm sure you will over time.

I believe in you.

Michael

[moralist]

In America today, you are the only one who can piss your basic rights away.

Greg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_theory

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Evidently those truths are not self-evident to you.

Greg

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

The democracy part is to elect people, not principles.

The republic part is to enshrine unchanging (or difficult to change) principles and rights, like right to life, free speech, etc.

This means what the elected people can and cannot do is limited, not subject to majority rule.

The constitution is merely a document that gives the rules for both.

The only difference between this and a constitutional direct democracy, then, is that, in a constitutional direct democracy, the people themselves are always already elected. Each person is his own best representative in government.

Now, according to the criteria you gave above, this is clearly superior because, not only does it retain all of the advantages of checks and balances, but it also has the added benefit of making it even harder to concentrate power to a single individual.

Am I not right?

[SoAMadDeathWish]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Evidently those truths are not self-evident to you.

Greg

No "truths" (besides tautologies and axioms) are "self-evident" to me.

Just because Saint Jefferson said something in the Holy Scripture, that doesn't make it so.

[Brant Gaede]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Evidently those truths are not self-evident to you.

Greg

No "truths" (besides tautologies and axioms) are "self-evident" to me.

Just because Saint Jefferson said something in the Holy Scripture, that doesn't make it so.

Great rhetoric, but Naomi is right. The "self-evident" shouldn't be hard to figure out, however. Essentially "Saint Jefferson" was bitch-slapping George III and helping gird up the loins of American lions for war.

--Brant

[moralist]

Great rhetoric, but Naomi is right. The "self-evident" shouldn't be hard to figure out

It isn't... for those to whom those truths are self-evident.

Those to whom they are not... will never enjoy those rights.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The only difference between this and a constitutional direct democracy, then, is that, in a constitutional direct democracy, the people themselves are always already elected.

Naomi,

It's actually better to have some positions subject to appointment and not able to be changed in the next election cycle. That keeps the constraints on power varied and harder to game.

One of the mains villains is the sudden popularity of a cause, like a crisis, where a charismatic person can get the public to do something really stupid.

Even with our system, look what happened with 9/11. Bush managed to get the Patriot Act passed and essentially buried the idea of habeas corpus for decades. He did that within the system of checks and balances. Imagine what he could have done with no restraints and just mob rule.

It's going to take a major headache to block the creep of government that has unfolded since and restore that right.

btw - Obama loves that encroachment. He has extended the circumvention of habeas corpus to outright killing American citizens without judge and jury, not just imprisoning them.

Now imagine if we get someone really bloodthirsty in power after another crisis. (People tend to favor bloodthirsty leaders to make a crisis stop and go away.)

In a direct election process, he would simply get the majority population centers lathered up, get himself and oodles of people on his team elected (especially those who imagine they will have more power with him than with the system on their own, and who have more loyalty to him than to the constitution), then abolish direct elections altogether.

In modern times they call this an "enabling act." Ever hear of it? How many times in history does something like this have to happen before people think there might be a cause and effect going on here?

One giant named George Washington did the contrary. He stepped down and submitted to the law, the republic, when he had people clamoring for him to stay and throw out the republic.

How many since have done that? None I can think of. And how many would do that in a "constitutional democracy" like what you seem to be proposing? Let history show what the tendency is.

George Washington's one small step is reverberating throughout the world even today. That was truly, "... one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

Michael

[moralist]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Evidently those truths are not self-evident to you.

Greg

No "truths" (besides tautologies and axioms) are "self-evident" to me.

Just because Saint Jefferson said something in the Holy Scripture, that doesn't make it so.

...only to those for whom those truths are not self-evident. Those self-evident truths exist beyond the boundaries of your own life because they are moral truths.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Great rhetoric, but Naomi is right. The "self-evident" shouldn't be hard to figure out

It isn't... for those to whom those truths are self-evident.

Those to whom they are not... will never enjoy those rights.

Greg

Are you putting the cart before the horse? Back then it was "self evident" because the brain work had already been done. The same as for today for those (few) who have done the brainwork. That is, no need to think it out and through time and again. "Self evident" is when you are talking to people who have already done the same brainwork creating an artificial tautology. The question is has Naomi done any of this brainwork or is she taking intellectual refuge by claiming a fallacy then shutting up? If the latter, there's not much excuse for a failure to have properly examined the core rhetorical-intellectual propaganda on which this country was founded.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Naomi,

It's actually better to have some positions subject to appointment and not able to be changed in the next election cycle. That keeps the constraints on power varied and harder to game.

One of the mains villains is the sudden popularity of a cause, like a crisis, where a charismatic person can get the public to do something really stupid.

Even with our system, look what happened with 9/11. Bush managed to get the Patriot Act passed and essentially buried the idea of habeas corpus for decades. He did that within the system of checks and balances. Imagine what he could have done with no restraints and just mob rule.

That is an irrelevant consideration. We're talking about a direct democracy with checks and balances, not one without.

Now imagine if we get someone really bloodthirsty in power after another crisis. (People tend to favor bloodthirsty leaders to make a crisis stop and go away.)

In a direct election process, he would simply get the majority population centers lathered up, get himself and oodles of people on his team elected (especially those who imagine they will have more power with him than with the system on their own, and who have more loyalty to him than to the constitution), then abolish direct elections altogether.

If checks and balances cannot prevent this from happening in a constitutional direct democracy, then the problem is even worse for a constitutional republic.

If your claims about checks and balances are to be believed, then a direct democracy should be better at distributing power than a republic. If this is not the case, then checks and balances don't actually work, contradicting your original claims.