From: I William Wiser (will@wiserlife.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 13:59:00 MDT
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Since when is democracy an Extropian principle, or even a worthy goal?
> Extropy seeks free and open society; if something like democracy
> supports that goal, then it might be useful. But if it doesn't--and
> personally, I think democracy actively opposes that goal--then to hell
> with it. We can, and should, do better.
What would you suggest instead of democracy?
I ask this as someone who sort of agrees with you but has not figured
out what sort of system I would support.
Obviously the best system is me and my friends in charge with
input from everybody else and delegation to experts but I don't
know that I could easily get others to buy into that system.
The virtue of democracy seems to be that it is better than
civil war. If you can convince enough people of something
you probably would also win a contest of arms. This does
not say who is right but it tells you who is going to get their
way and avoids some bloodshed. Democracy as currently
implemented is not really democracy and has many flaws but
it does lessen the cost of strong disagreements.
One improvement I see to democracy is to make it harder to
pass laws. If all laws were as hard as constitutional
amendments I think we would have the important laws and
get rid of a lot of red tape. If I could convince a majority of
that it could happen. Say 90% of congress to pass a law
and 75% to keep one going. Of course some things require
a decision, so a 90% vote could decide to decide a given
question by majority. But for some people the difficulty of
getting a law passed is the "red tape". Some people think
more laws and more government is the way to go.
Actually, I get the impression it's already pretty hard to get
laws passed in the US A lots of the problems may come
from lack of representation. People no longer group by
city or state. We group much more by common interests
and ethics (favorite sport or TV show). A third house
of congress based on special interests and values, and
designed for serious debate might be good.
Anyway, people can always resort to force of arms to resolve
disputes it's just highly biased against in modern cultures. Usually
someone who can win by force (these days) could more easily
have their way by other means.
I am all for a society composed of well educated, reasonable
people who decide things based on high principle. People who
learn about the issues most important to them and don't take
their own opinions to seriously when they are ignorant on a
subject. In such a society democracy or a republic could work
wonderfully. We are nowhere near that now but it's probably
easier to manipulate the political system in one's favor than to
have a civil war or create an aristocracy of our friends.
Lee, I think you are saying that principles or results are more
important than the system. But how do people decide which
principles and what results. Logic is a good answer but how
does one decide whose logic is correct. I'm only right 70%
of the time on controversial issues. If you are sure enough
and an issue is important enough you fight. But for lesser
issues some means of compromise seems wise.
There are a few of my ideas. I suppose many of us have ideas
about how to improve government and what results we want.
Few of us are willing to do the work to change other people's
minds though. It's hard enough to convince a majority of people
on this list of something. Anyway, I'm busy studying nutrition
and such but I do want to make a hobby of politics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 14:13:12 MDT