quantifying moral responsibility

[Sava]

i meant very little difference.

perhaps

[kentonio]

presumably you don't mean yourself here, but rather it's those other people that can't be trusted.

don't feel bad, this is a very common rationalisation for accepting and supporting an authoritarian system.

Completely depends on the topic. The problem with direct democracy is not only that a lot of people are stupid and easily led, but that a large majority of people are both unable to consider complex issues within the larger context of national governance, and to display pragmatism around emotive subjects. Add to all that that a large majority simply are not interested in the vast bulk of issues that make up the actual running of a country, and direct democracy would end up with a complete mess whereby most of the vital issues received next to no attention, and the country was sent into chaos by a small number of emotive issues being voted on for populist and/or unrealistic reasons or lack of basic understanding of the topic.

You might want to look up California and tax if you want to see the complete insanity that direct democracy can lead to. We might (often rightly) rage against the 'political elite' and the idea of sending a representative to speak on our behalf, but those people dedicate their time (or should be dedicating their time) to actually studying the topics they are voting on, and seeing the bigger picture. There's certainly an argument for more transparency and more accountability amongst our representatives, but direct democracy is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

[loinburger]

Sure. We have many smart people here. It wouldn't surprise me if around that many of us were actually in the 99th percentile, overall.

The poll was to rate your intelligence compared to the posters on Apolyton, not to the world's population. It's impossible for 91% of the people on Apolyton to be smarter than 50% of the people on Apolyton.

[Sava]

The poll was to rate your intelligence compared to the posters on Apolyton, not to the world's population. It's impossible for 91% of the people on Apolyton to be smarter than 50% of the people on Apolyton.

Yes.

My point being... it's not unreasonable to assume, necessarily, that after a lifetime of being told you are the smartest person around, that some people might think that... despite being around other smart(er) people.

[Ben Kenobi]

I voted as one of those 8 btw who said they were under 50 percent.

[Sava]

I'd be disappointed if you weren't

[Lorizael]

The poll was to rate your intelligence compared to the posters on Apolyton, not to the world's population. It's impossible for 91% of the people on Apolyton to be smarter than 50% of the people on Apolyton.

Literally, yes. But maybe most posters on Apolyton are DLs. If that's the case, then it'd be possible for 91% of Apolyton posters to be smarter than 50% of people on Apolyton.

[C0ckney]

Completely depends on the topic. The problem with direct democracy is not only that a lot of people are stupid and easily led, but that a large majority of people are both unable to consider complex issues within the larger context of national governance, and to display pragmatism around emotive subjects. Add to all that that a large majority simply are not interested in the vast bulk of issues that make up the actual running of a country, and direct democracy would end up with a complete mess whereby most of the vital issues received next to no attention, and the country was sent into chaos by a small number of emotive issues being voted on for populist and/or unrealistic reasons or lack of basic understanding of the topic.

You might want to look up California and tax if you want to see the complete insanity that direct democracy can lead to. We might (often rightly) rage against the 'political elite' and the idea of sending a representative to speak on our behalf, but those people dedicate their time (or should be dedicating their time) to actually studying the topics they are voting on, and seeing the bigger picture. There's certainly an argument for more transparency and more accountability amongst our representatives, but direct democracy is nothing short of a recipe for disaster.

well the problem with places like california is that they have a little bit of democracy grafted on top of the representative system. the power relationships, the way things are organised, remain unchanged. likewise what you have assumed is some kind of direct democracy would be grafted on to the existing system (the country, the state, the capitalist system etc.) and that somehow those power relationships would remain unchanged, and then gone on to say it that wouldn't work. i agree that it wouldn't, that it couldn't in fact.

direct democracy (anarchy if you will) is rejection of the national narrative, of private property and the state which protects it. it means direct democratic decision making over every aspect of our lives, at the most local level possible; it means controlling resources socially to meet everyone's needs; it means people taking responsibility, not in the narrow sense that the right peddle, where 'responsibility' means 'financial self-sufficiency' and errr..that's it, but in the real sense of coming together and taking part in the communities that shape our lives. the idea is not to somehow graft this onto to the present system, it is to replace that system; not find some accommodation with the existing social and economic arrangements, but to make them anew etc. etc.

[Lorizael]

The most obvious flaw in such a system is part of why the Founding Fathers went down the checks and balances route: tyranny of the majority. It's quite possible for a direct democracy to decide that Bob has too few letters in his name and must, obviously and consequently, be stoned to death to curb the country's disastrous slide into letter deficiency.

[kentonio]

well the problem with places like california is that they have a little bit of democracy grafted on top of the representative system. the power relationships, the way things are organised, remain unchanged. likewise what you have assumed is some kind of direct democracy would be grafted on to the existing system (the country, the state, the capitalist system etc.) and that somehow those power relationships would remain unchanged, and then gone on to say it that wouldn't work. i agree that it wouldn't, that it couldn't in fact.

direct democracy (anarchy if you will) is rejection of the national narrative, of private property and the state which protects it. it means direct democratic decision making over every aspect of our lives, at the most local level possible; it means controlling resources socially to meet everyone's needs; it means people taking responsibility, not in the narrow sense that the right peddle, where 'responsibility' means 'financial self-sufficiency' and errr..that's it, but in the real sense of coming together and taking part in the communities that shape our lives. the idea is not to somehow graft this onto to the present system, it is to replace that system; not find some accommodation with the existing social and economic arrangements, but to make them anew etc. etc.

In other words, its a dream that couldn't ever come to reality because it'd require people to act in a way that runs completely contrary to their natures. As much as you'd like to think otherwise, the vast majority of people do not care about building some great utopian community, they just want to do their jobs, look after their families and have a few laughs. This is exactly why I said to you that the Scottish independance vote would go the way it did, because eventually all politics is local. If you said to people that they could have a whole new fairer, more just system but it'd require 20 years of reduced economic circumstances and hardship, you'd lose that vote. People think in the fairly short term, almost unanimously put their own families welfare ahead of any greater good and will usually not vote for anything that risks their own economic security. The only way you can overcome those natural inclinations is to engage in seriously hardcore progagandizing that persuades people to look at the wider picture, and that almost always requires the kind of 'great leader' representative that you are arguing against. To achieve what you want, you basically need to square that circle, and I'm damned if I can see a way to achieve that.

As for direct democracy being involves in every aspect of life, that's exactly what I was arguing against above. Some of the most pivotal decisions taken nationally involve extremely dense and boring subjects, yet have the greatest impact on peoples actual lives. How do you suggest getting your average voter to spend the months or years it would require to study each of the topics to a level that would allow them to actually be able to make an informed vote? Politicians certainly don't for the most part, they rely on the studies and recommendations cariied out by professionals in those fields, and even then you either just carry out the recommendations of others (moving the responsibility for the actual decision making onto an unelected few) or you still have to learn enough about each topic to weigh the evidence of the recommendations and consider the impact of any decision on the wider national context. How exactly do you suggest getting every citizen to devote themselves to vast amounts of study and avoid them just voting for whatever the favourite speaker of the moment happens to tell them is for the best?

[C0ckney]

The most obvious flaw in such a system is part of why the Founding Fathers went down the checks and balances route: tyranny of the majority. It's quite possible for a direct democracy to decide that Bob has too few letters in his name and must, obviously and consequently, be stoned to death to curb the country's disastrous slide into letter deficiency.

well under such a system there wouldn't be a country; people organising themselves at a local level would soon see how superfluous one was, how utterly unreal and disconnected it is from their lives. however, i suppose your objection is really about protecting people from stupid or harmful decisions. i would say that firstly: this is rather like kentonio's objection (i am sensible and rational - but i shudder to think what those other people would do, if left to their own devices...); secondly: that people are likely to act in their own interests when they have the power to do so, and as our interests are most often served by good relationships and co-operation, this is the most likely result.

[Lorizael]

I am not arguing that I am more rational than other humans. (Take a look at my depression thread if you think I think I make good decisions.) I'm arguing that humans in general are irrational and that large groups of humans can act severely irrationally with the right stimulus. This isn't me being egotistical--it's just me reporting the results of psychological research done over the past century. Humans will make objectively bad decisions, not just for themselves, but for others. We can just hope that people will decide to make the right decisions, or we can institute some check on the power of people that prevents them from making egregiously bad decisions.

[kentonio]

well under such a system there wouldn't be a country; people organising themselves at a local level would soon see how superfluous one was, how utterly unreal and disconnected it is from their lives.

Countries exist for a reason, and it astounds me that you fail to see that. There's an argument there for abolishing national boundaries in favour of larger entities, but wanting to return to tiny local social groups is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start.

i would say that firstly: this is rather like kentonio's objection (i am sensible and rational - but i shudder to think what those other people would do, if left to their own devices...);

Simple fact: people are not equally intelligent or rational. I know by a combination of my education, field of employment and study and general experiences of other people generally that I both more intelligent and more rational than the vast majority of other people. This doesn't mean I want to make decisions for society as a whole, but it does mean that I'm able to recognize that the majority of people will not understand a lot of complex issues, will not spend the time trying to understand them, and will be easily led by any figure they come to trust as an 'expert' or even just trust generally. You can paint that as arrogance until you're blue in the face, but it also aligns with everything we see in society now and historically.

secondly: that people are likely to act in their own interests when they have the power to do so, and as our interests are most often served by good relationships and co-operation, this is the most likely result.

Nice little circular line of reasoning.

[Ben Kenobi]

The most obvious flaw in such a system is part of why the Founding Fathers went down the checks and balances route: tyranny of the majority. It's quite possible for a direct democracy to decide that Bob has too few letters in his name and must, obviously and consequently, be stoned to death to curb the country's disastrous slide into letter deficiency.

Yes, and restraints on executive privilege prevent one man from making himself dictator. It works both ways.

[Sava]

great discussion guys