Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

news.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 162 posts

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#131

Post by CWuestefeld »

artsrc wrote: post #102
javert wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

batista, I think you have a penchant for arguing with me :-) I think the right way to go is a constitutional republic, in which the "way the country is run" is strictly defined ahead of time. Then, the elected representatives have to act within those strict parameters. You could call the constitution an "intermediary that dilutes the majority's will" if you want. I certainly belive that individual rights have to be p…

Working forwards we see that more 'minorities', such as slaves, women, and homosexuals have had their rights protected over time. So working backwards you can see that the system failed to protect the rights of minorities.

So working backwards you can see that the system failed to protect the rights of minorities.

I think you mean that it failed to protect the rights of some minorities.

But even at that, the system provided a framework through which those deficiencies could be address, while at the same time minimizing "leakage": as much as I complain, it appears that we've gained a lot more in human/civil rights than we've lost over that time.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#132

Post by jpadkins »

3pt14159 wrote: post #15
shingen wrote: post #11

Constitutional Republic yes, Democracy no. Democracy isn't desirable. Mob rule is a terrible system of government. Democracy != voting; Democracy != freedom. America and many other systems have long since proven that freedom through constitutional protections with representative government does flourish. Those systems specifically flourish by protecting the weak from the powerful, the minority from the majority. The…

What about Peter Thiel wanting to make a sea-based libertarian country that doesn't have a democracy because people arn't smart enough to keep it libertarian? (Granted, they could leave by relocating somewhere else, but that is true of most countries anyways.)

the seasteading institute is not only for libertarian countries. The point is to enable experimentation and competition in governments. One group of seasteadders can create a commune, one a voluntary society, one can create a dictatorship...

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#133

Post by javert »

MetaMan wrote: post #122
javert wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This didn't always produce a good democracy. Really? I think the British Empire was a high point in world history (for both the British and their colonies). So I don't see how your point is supported. That said, I think a constitutional republic is the right solution, not democracy.

"high point in world history" hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire. Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.

Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire

Specifically, how they broke things up when they left. In general, wherever they left, things fell apart somewhat. I have talked to several people who believe their country took a turn for the worse when the British left.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#134

Post by joejohnson »

joejohnson wrote: post #73

This is definitely true. Representative Democracy systems (and bodies like the Electoral College in the US) try to ameliorate the stupidity of the average voter, but ultimately add complexity and beauracracy to a simple idea (democracy). Let's say I spend a lot of time prior to an election trying to understand the ballot measures and issues and candidates. Come going day, my decision is weighed just as highly as some…

I wish people would respond to this. Why did someone downvote me?

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#135

Post by toyg »

pdonis wrote: post #101
toyg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". The rest is left as an exercise to the reader.

> In reality, "a customer" is whoever pays the most money for something you are selling. In the modern world, this would be corporations and rich individuals, not "the people". If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't. Also, if it were true, nobody but corporations and rich individuals would be able to buy anything. Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporati…

> If this were true, corporations and rich individuals would own everything. They don't.

Uh, there is very little they don't own or control, to be honest. Even if they didn't, assuming the current trend of privatizing even the most essential services continues, it will be the case in just a couple of decades.

> Are you having trouble buying groceries because corporations and rich individuals have snapped them all up?

Am I having trouble buying some groceries, because rich people have pushed prices so high, or in some cases because corporations buy all of them in order to resell them in a different, more expensive form? Why, yes. But I digress.

> In a true free market, if there are no such customers--because what you're selling isn't worth enough to any of them to pay a price you are willing to accept--then you go out of business.

Do you seriously think a service like TSA is not useful to any corporation? Like franchise shops in airport lounges selling bottles of water at three times the market price...

Also, your reasoning completely ignores forces, like advertising, which are used to create artificial demand. They would still exist in a free market, probably even more so (because competition would be even harder).

> That principle would apply just as well to services like law enforcement, if they were provided in a true free market.

Rich people would enjoy premium protection at premium prices, and poor people would receive little or no protection because they cannot afford more. Wouldn't that be fun, eh? Reminds me of the US healthcare market, that other miracle of the Free Market.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#136

Post by MetaMan »

javert wrote: post #133
MetaMan wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"high point in world history" hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire. Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.

Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire Specifically, how they broke things up when they left. In general, wherever they left, things fell apart somewhat. I have talked to several people who believe their country took a turn for the worse when the British left.

The standard operating procedure of the British Empire was "divide and conquer". In order to rule a minority was usually put in a privileged position. It should be no surprise to anyone that when the British left things often become a mess as the minority tries to hold onto power and those previously excluded fight to gain power.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#137

Post by swalsh »

synor wrote: post #61
pnathan wrote: post #3

One thing that I am reminded of in the current zeitgeist with respect to capitalism and democracy is the 1930s and its condemnation of democracy as outdated and how fascism was the progressive way forward.

Also, that time gave rise to the Technocracy Movement, which proposed an allegedly new way to run society other than by dictatorship or democracy.

From this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy#Technocracy_movemen...

The idea of currency based on energy units is quite intriguing. It makes me wonder how our world would change.

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#138

Post by danmaz74 »

rbarooah wrote: post #128
danmaz74 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that with our vote we don't select our leaders - I'm saying that the reason why we have democracies isn't to ensure the selection of the best leaders (as the article was implying) but to freely express our self determination in legislative and governmental matters by way of choosing our leaders, using whatever criterium, reason, justification we please, just as we do with our personal matters.

That's fair enough but it doesn't render the whole issue void. For example, a vast majority of the people might share the wish to select a leader best equipped to improve the countries economic prospects. If that is what the overwhelming majority wants, but the system doesn't enable that outcome, then I think you can argue that self-determination hasn't been expressed.

If that was the case, would it mean that self-determination hasn't been expressed, or that its expression didn't reach the intended goal of those who expressed it?

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#139

Post by toyg »

javert wrote: post #110
saraid216 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from America or most other modern democracies?

"Democracy" just means "majority rule." In a democracy, the majority can trample the rights of the minorities. In a constitutional republic, those rights are protected by a constitution that is very difficult to amend. America today is somewhere between a true democracy and a true constitutional republic. Officially, it is a constitutional republic, and most of the key individual rights are protected (free speech, et…

This split between "democracy" and "constitutional republic" is something being pushed more and more, but it's really a fantasy peddled by some US-based politicos with vested interests in devaluing the concept of democracy and making you accept the fact that you should be happy without it.

A "constitutional republic" is something defined by a set of laws with certain specific elements in common: having a constitution and being a republic (which is also quite a loose term, used to define "anything that is not a monarchy" -- Iran is also a constitutional republic, for example, albeit a theocratic one).

A "democracy" is not a comparable entity. Can you please point out any country who defines itself, in official terms, as a "Democracy"? Even classic Athens didn't call itself such a thing. This is because democracy is not a set of laws: it's a declaration of principles, an abstract utopia of where your laws should come from (i.e. "the people"), traditionally associated with some sort of voting system. On the formal level, there is no clear definition of a complete form of government called a "democracy"; it's commonly assumed such a thing involves some sort of voting rights (better if universal), but that's about it. The term is used to indicate the utopic state where government is carried out "by the people" in its totality. There has been no such perfect government throughout history and probably there never will be, but it's an utopia from which real forms of government can find justification and inspiration.

You can compare a "constitutional republic" to a "constitutional monarchy" or an "absolute monarchy": they are all specific forms of government with very specific common formal traits. A "democracy" is a completely different concept. You live in a constitutional republic based on democratic principles, i.e. a democracy... albeit a flawed one, like all of them are. You should strive to make your republic as genuinely democratic as possible, not renounce your rights "because after all we've never been a democracy".

Re: People Aren't Smart Enough for Democracy to Flourish, Scientists Say

#140

Post by rbarooah »

danmaz74 wrote: post #138
rbarooah wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fair enough but it doesn't render the whole issue void. For example, a vast majority of the people might share the wish to select a leader best equipped to improve the countries economic prospects. If that is what the overwhelming majority wants, but the system doesn't enable that outcome, then I think you can argue that self-determination hasn't been expressed.

If that was the case, would it mean that self-determination hasn't been expressed, or that its expression didn't reach the intended goal of those who expressed it?

I'd say that the article is criticizing the ability of democracy to deliver the latter, and that in a representative system the two can't be neatly separated.

If the system in aggregate produces candidates who can't execute what the people want, but yet each individual determines their own choice of vote amongst the poor choices, can this really be said to be self-determination?

Post reply on HN