Democracy: Success or Failure

[Whaleboy]

Azazel:

[Az]

Why thank you, Whaleboy.

some good reading on the subject.

http://www.technocracyinc.org/MainIndex.htm

[C0ckney]

it's all pie in the sky though, it sounds good but completely ignores the world we live in.

coming back to spiffor's point, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying. you can't give everyone a right to vote on every issue directly, we're not in ancient athens. so how would give people more of a say in what our leaders do?

[Whaleboy]

The world we live in sucks, and the best we can do is to ignore it!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

I'd trust the common sense of a layman anytime before an economist if I was to take an economic decision. Are you acquainted with economic science? It is a purely theoretical model that is not comparable to reality, but the economists grow to believe it has value for the real world.

From a purely technical point of view, the two worst atrocities comitted by economic science are:
- the general premise that people are rational. People's irrationality is marginally taken into account (in the preferences), but the mechanics of economy remain 'pure' once the irrationality has been put in its box .
- the absolute causalities. In any serious soft science, the "laws" are probabilistic, and do not pretend to predict every conduct. In economy, OTOH, effect A will trigger effect B, and then effect C with a 100% certitude

A layman has an infinitely better grasp of reality than the average economist, and the common man would be better of not to have economists decide his fate. The only thing economists are good for is statistics.

[Az]

I agree with Spiffor. But just because the science of Economics is flawed, it doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. It will be fixed. We all know economists are very often wrong. But once economics will be approached as a technological field, a field that is constructive in it's essence, rather than observatory, then will the change come.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
coming back to spiffor's point, i'm not exactly sure what you are saying. you can't give everyone a right to vote on every issue directly, we're not in ancient athens. so how would give people more of a say in what our leaders do?

There are two ways for making it realistic.
We're not in ancient Athens, and that's precisely why we can't have the agora anymore (where everybody gets a lengthy say about each issue), and we must organise so that decision making can be swift, efficient, and close to the wishes of the people. Of course, this means we can't have everybody debate and vote on each issue.

I have interned in the European Parliament, and I can tell with experience that voting on issues is a real full-time job. Even though we were 3 in my Rep's team, we simply had no time to have an informed opinion of each and every issue that was put to vote. Most often, we trusted the opinion of the party (more precisely, of the person in the party dealing with the issue).
We can't even imagine asking the people to do such a time-eating job. To delegate power is completely needed in any modern country; however, in our democracies, we delegate almost all of the power, which is too much.

I fundamentally think we should not be stripped of our right to decide the more important things. Sovereignty transfer to the EU? 35 hours workweek? Involvement in the Iraqi war? Abortion and gay marriage? I think all these decisions should be taken by the people directly, more than by only a tiny part of it.
OTOH, problems like max size of sewer pipes, max concentration of fats in chocolate, or taxation of videogames are the kind of deadly decisions that should be taken by our representatives, i.e. the specialists of decision making.

There are two ways to achieve this hope:
- To bind the winner of an election to his programme. If he ignores his campaign promises, he should be ousted (some rules, and a judiciary to enforce them, would be obviously needed to avoid mob control)
- To make a more massive use of referenda. Everybody says the Swiss model of referenda is broken, that nobody participates. This is a misconception. All those that are actually interested in the issue put to vote get to say their opinion. And that's what counts

These are two possible ways of strongly associating the people with their fate. It merely means that electing delegates is not the be-all end-all of democracy. Delegates are a necessary convenience in highly populated countries. But they are not the spirit of democracy

[Spiffor]

Azazel:
Economics may be redeemed if we purify it by fire

More seriously, this discipline is a massive one. It started on false premises, but muuuuuuuuch has been built on them. What you say is similar to: "We can make current religions useful if we can let them accept they started on the false premise of the existence of God"

Economics need a revolution, namely, not to be economics but rather an encompassing social science that extends the analysis of society to the specifics of the economical field. To put it bluntly, today's economics are full of ivory tower mathematicians - it should be full of actual observers/analysts.

[Az]

Nah. This is far from being correct. Today's economics departments are filled with behavioral psychologists, etc.

I don't like this.

The whole thing is based on private enterprise. People build factories with their money, WHILE WE WATCH.

The field of actually BUILDING an entire economy, it's extremely lacking.

Basically, it's has free market ideology as it's basis, and thus cannot be called a science.

A true economic science must fully understand proccesses, and be able to serve the needs of each and every way the society behaves: free enterprise, planned economy, etc.

[Whaleboy]

@Spiffor

I should add some degree of philosophy in there too, just like ethics and medicine

[C0ckney]

thanks for clarifying that spiffor

the problem(s) as i see it with what you say about referenda is how do you decide what issues get put before a direct vote. personally i would only want things which change the way we are governed (e.g. european constitution, house of lords reform etc.) to be put to a direct vote. putting things like foreign or economic policy directly to the people is just asking for trouble. what if an emergency arises, and dealing with it requires swift action on the part of the government. what if they are bound to hold a referendum on the issue before they can act?

i also think that switzerland is simply unique amoung nation states and that what works for them may not work for anyone else.

i would also be very much against legally binding a government to its promises, again what if an emergency arises which requires the breaking of a promise, what happens then? it's just too rigid. the best way of holding a government to account is and always will be through the ballot box.

don't get me wrong, i'm not saying any system is perfect but it needs fine tuning rather than a complete overhaul.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Diss:
Technocracy is a regime where unelected people get to power through passing tests. What is required is not being elected by the people, but to have the skills deemed necessary to rule a country.

As a matter of fact, the only blatant technocracy that I'm aware of (the EU) is stringent on human rights.

What test did that weirdo Chirac pass? Advanced Underwater Basketweaving?

[Az]

Spiffor: The EU isn't a technocracy.

[Drogue]

It is in some senses. The EU representatives with any power are all picked by their governments, not the people. The MEPs have little power.

Ghengis: He was talking about the EU, not individual member nations. EU representatives have been chosen by the government, not necessarily the people.

[Zevico]

Perhaps, Whaleboy, you should live in Syria and see how succesful other forms of government can be.
Technocracy sounds to me as if it can too easily be made into a dictatorship by just about anyone who reaches the 1st position of office.