News Is Democracy Sustainable in the Face of Human Nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter drankin
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of a government determined by the people, highlighting human nature's tendency to seek benefits while shifting costs, which can undermine liberties. Concerns are raised about the potential for a larger voting group to exploit the system at the expense of a smaller one, leading to a cycle of dependency. Suggestions include restricting voting rights to taxpayers or implementing a weighted voting system based on tax contributions, which some argue could lead to an aristocratic structure. Critics warn that such measures could disenfranchise the poor and exacerbate inequality, while others advocate for a standard that ties voting rights to financial contribution to government funds. The conversation ultimately questions the balance between democratic principles and the need for informed governance.
  • #61
Democracy; Two wolves and one lamb voting on what's for dinner ..
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
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.
 
  • #64
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
 
  • #65
alt said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
Al68 said:
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 ?
 
  • #67
alt said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
Al68 said:
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.
 
  • #69
alt said:
.. 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. "
 
  • #70
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...
 
  • #71
zooxanthellae said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K