News Is Democracy Sustainable in the Face of Human Nature?

[tedbradly]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

0.000416383 per 1,000 people

Wow, I wish the US chopped off the hands of thieves.

The problem with democracy is everyone turns into a kitty, incapable of enforcing a bit of brutality to realize an overall better society.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

And I also wish we executed rapists. I just cannot understand any other punishment for such a horrible (and alluring) crime.

The US has 100 times the rape per 1000 citizens and 17000 times the burglary per 1000 citizens as Saudi Arabia.

edit: For reference, I'd chop off a few innocent peoples' hands to achieve 17000 times less burglary.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The campaign process was never intended to be a government regulated process at all. Any limits imposed by government on private campaigns for public office are undemocratic.

Just an interesting factoid, the budget for campaigns in the UK is heavily regulated and balanced between parties to ensure that richer parties cannot just buy their way in. Compared to the US the total cost of the entire General Election is less than that of the cheapest Senator in the US!

 

[WhoWee]

Do you mean a plan that extends beyond the current and next fiscal year? What an outrageously Chinese suggestion!

Exactly - ever try asking a bank for a $10,000 business loan without a plan.

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

0.000416383 per 1,000 people

Wow, I wish the US chopped off the hands of thieves.

The problem with democracy is everyone turns into a kitty, incapable of enforcing a bit of brutality to realize an overall better society.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

And I also wish we executed rapists. I just cannot understand any other punishment for such a horrible (and alluring) crime.

The US has 100 times the rape per 1000 citizens and 17000 times the burglary per 1000 citizens as Saudi Arabia.

edit: For reference, I'd chop off a few innocent peoples' hands to achieve 17000 times less burglary.

Do you have any idea how much it would cost in lifetime Government benefits as a result of chopping the hands off a 20 year old?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita

0.000416383 per 1,000 people

Wow, I wish the US chopped off the hands of thieves.

The problem with democracy is everyone turns into a kitty, incapable of enforcing a bit of brutality to realize an overall better society.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

And I also wish we executed rapists. I just cannot understand any other punishment for such a horrible (and alluring) crime.

The US has 100 times the rape per 1000 citizens and 17000 times the burglary per 1000 citizens as Saudi Arabia.

edit: For reference, I'd chop off a few innocent peoples' hands to achieve 17000 times less burglary.

Lol, why don't you go and chop your own hands off and then wave them at people as a deterrent?

EDIT: I also wouldn't trust any statistic coming out of Saudi Arabia over any crime, least of all rape http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/11/15/saudi-arabia-rape-victim-punished-speaking-out

 

[drankin]

The problem with democracy is everyone turns into a kitty, incapable of enforcing a bit of brutality to realize an overall better society.

IMO, Another problem with Democracy. The erosion of masculine identity and personal responsibility.

 

[tedbradly]

Do you have any idea how much it would cost in lifetime Government benefits as a result of chopping the hands off a 20 year old?

The simple solution is to make void any government benefits after caught thieving. Let him die.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I ignored it because it makes no sense. It's like asking how to reduce someone's rat poison intake without sacrificing their health.

This suggests to me that you have no idea that a connection exists. What would happen if we yanked 4 trillion from the economy over the next ten years? If you can't tell me the answer, then you have no business defending such legislation.

That depends on what is meant by understanding. I'm certainly capable of understanding many issues to a large extent, even if not fully.

Could you do Geithner's job?

I agree with that for non-political issues, but for political issues it just ignores reality. It's like trusting a car salesman because he's an expert about cars. Far too much power is at stake with political issues to just take any expert at his word about anything. Experts are inherently biased, even if not dishonest, and power and money are motive enough to cause both.

That may be true, but non-experts are still essentially clueless.

I'm not an expert in physics, but I have a good enough general knowledge to recognize that someone is lying, if they are lying at a level below my level of knowledge, such as a claim that a 1 square meter solar panel on a car's roof could generate 100 HP. As silly as that sounds, it's fairly analogous to the claims of many politicians and economics "experts" about economics issues.

This assumption is false because you have no way to know what you don't know. You are assuming you can make sense of complex issue for which you have little or no training. This is no different than claiming String Theory is wrong because you don't understand it. It may be wrong, but neither you or I are qualified to even guess why.

Meaning that a good general understanding of an issue is enough to recognize fraud, if the fraud is designed to fool only those without a general understanding. The economic fraud of the left is a perfect example of that.

So then you don't think our problems are complex and beyond the understanding of the average person, it is all just a matter of fraud? Forgive me for being blunt, but that is incredibly naive.

 

[Al68]

This suggests to me that you have no idea that a connection exists.

To the contrary, as was obvious by my response, a connection certainly exists. Government spending in general is harmful to the economy.

What would happen if we yanked 4 trillion from the economy over the next ten years? If you can't tell me the answer, then you have no business defending such legislation.

Is it opposite day? I have been opposing such legislation while you have been defending it. Government taxation and spending comes from the economy.

Could you do Geithner's job?

Of course not. Mass fraud and pillage require special talent, and a moral code (referenced in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3323950&postcount=4") that I reject.

This assumption is false because you have no way to know what you don't know.

I most certainly have a way to know that a claim of a 1 square meter solar panel generating 100 HP would be a false claim, despite not being a solar power expert. That was my point. It takes only a basic understanding of physics, not solar cell expertise, to recognize such fraud.

You are assuming you can make sense of complex issue for which you have little or no training. This is no different than claiming String Theory is wrong because you don't understand it. It may be wrong, but neither you or I are qualified to even guess why.

That's a pretty bad example, since no one on the planet knows enough about string theory to know if it's wrong or right. I know enough about it to know that it's empirically untestable as it currently stands.

So then you don't think our problems are complex and beyond the understanding of the average person, it is all just a matter of fraud? Forgive me for being blunt, but that is incredibly naive.

How on Earth could you misread my post so bizarrely? I have said specifically and repeatedly that the reason the left can get by with their fraud is specifically because economics is beyond the understanding of the average person. And forgive me for being blunt, but: Duh!

Try reading the posts you respond to. It would certainly save a lot of trouble and completely useless posts.

 

[Tosh5457]

In democracy most people vote on who the media tells them to vote. People also vote on people who gives them the most benefits, and people who have good carisma/looks. It has nothing to do with rationality. Then we put our own faith on hands of politicians, and most are incompetent. That's democracy

However it seems to work. People from Europe, USA and Japan can't complain, we have very good living standards. There are many problems with democracy, but anything different than democracy would lead to much more corruption and less benefits to the majority of the population. Or not, maybe some other well-thought system could be better than democracy.

The most important thing that countries need to do is to unite and promote global environment and resources sustainability, and to stop global warming. Those are the issues to address in politics that nobody wants to talk about. I refuse to worry about superficial things in politics until solutions to these problems are given.

 

[alt]

Democracy; Two wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner ..

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure the liberals in this forum will go for an analogy that has the rich people being lambs and the poor people wolves, but I'm onboard with it.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not sure the liberals in this forum will go for an analogy that has the rich people being lambs and the poor people wolves, but I'm onboard with it.

Since we're having fun - not wolves - hyena's.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...dsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:131&biw=1135&bih=841

 

[alt]

OK then - I suppose we'll have to settle for Anarcho Capitalism ..

According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

 

[Al68]

OK then - I suppose we'll have to settle for Anarcho Capitalism ..

According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

That's essentially equivalent to libertariansm, except that laws are made and enforced by a government instead of a private institution. The actual scope of the authorized legitimate use of force is virtually the same either way.

One could also argue that an anarcho-capitalist private law making and enforcement institution is a defacto government by definition, rendering the distinction completely semantic.

 

[alt]

That's essentially equivalent to libertariansm, except that laws are made and enforced by a government instead of a private institution. The actual scope of the authorized legitimate use of force is virtually the same either way.

One could also argue that an anarcho-capitalist private law making and enforcement institution is a defacto government by definition, rendering the distinction completely semantic.

Yes, interesting observation in your 2nd para.

I shy away from labels usually, because they are, or rather peoples use of them is, often quite fluid.

I wonder though, what label would one ascribe to those in A Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' gulch ? Anarcho capitalism probably ?

 

[Al68]

Yes, interesting observation in your 2nd para.

I shy away from labels usually, because they are, or rather peoples use of them is, often quite fluid.

I wonder though, what label would one ascribe to those in A Rands 'Atlas Shrugged' gulch ? Anarcho capitalism probably ?

Probably as a label for the community, I agree. But I wouldn't label the characters themselves as anarcho-capitalist, just because there is no suggestion in Atlas Shrugged that any of them opposed government in general. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government.

I would call them libertarians, or classical liberals, myself, in the absence of any reason to think they, or Rand herself, opposed legitimate (classically liberal) government.

 

[alt]

Probably as a label for the community, I agree. But I wouldn't label the characters themselves as anarcho-capitalist, just because there is no suggestion in Atlas Shrugged that any of them opposed government in general. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government.

I would call them libertarians, or classical liberals, myself, in the absence of any reason to think they, or Rand herself, opposed legitimate (classically liberal) government.

.. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government ..

Ah! I didn't twig to that. That's the point I was missing. Thanks for the clear and succinct clarification.

 

[WhoWee]

.. They were "anti-looter government", not anti-government ..

Ah! I didn't twig to that. That's the point I was missing. Thanks for the clear and succinct clarification.

Anyone up for a case study? Community organizers and bank reform - what a mix:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54290.html

"Wall Street reform was supposed to reduce the massive risks taken by too-big-to-fail institutions such as Citigroup and Bank of America. And consumers were supposed to get protection from swindlers involved in predatory lending practices in the housing market.

The Dodd-Frank Act tackles these problems in the traditional way: It creates new bureaucracies and gives them huge budgets and broad powers to make new regulations. "

 

[zooxanthellae]

As someone (I think Ivan Seeking) pointed out earlier, the problems of democracy are in part because our base of human knowledge has gotten so incredibly huge/specialization is rampant. I'm reminded of something that a frustrated John von Neumann said at some point about the state of pure math (loosely paraphrased): "Right now it's impossible for anyone person to know more than about 1/4 of what's out there." And this was von Neumann, probably the guy who knew that 1/4! What hope does someone who works 8 hours a day have of being a truly informed voter?

This is why I think Ivan's strategy is a pretty decent one. Our best bet in this system is to elect people who seem sane and hard-working.

Yet I have to admit, in the face of events like today's Diamond withdrawal due to (IMO very stupid and childish) Republican opposition, I almost wish for the return of the philosopher-king...

 

[Al68]

I'm reminded of something that a frustrated John von Neumann said at some point about the state of pure math...

Reminds me of a Beavis and Butthead quote: "I hate numbers. There's..like..too many of them and stuff."

This is why I think Ivan's strategy is a pretty decent one. Our best bet in this system is to elect people who seem sane and hard-working.

As was pointed out earlier, the problem with that is that a politician being sane and hard working is a disadvantage if the politician is working against, instead of for, your interests. From my libertarian point of view, I only wish those politicians who have advocated authoritarian laws were less sane and hardworking, so they wouldn't have accomplished so much of their agenda.

The last politician I would ever want to vote for is a competent hardworking politician with an agenda I oppose.