tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776277983303719657.post8889534849839302965..comments2011-02-23T01:00:57.812-08:00Comments on Systems and Worlds: Democracy and its PreconditionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15515713869979082119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776277983303719657.post-20303177525191075662011-02-23T01:00:57.812-08:002011-02-23T01:00:57.812-08:00Ok, so *this* is a comment I missed for ages becau...Ok, so *this* is a comment I missed for ages because the software didn't notify me - guilt justified!<br /><br />Anyway, I think democracy controls certain kinds of excess of authoritarianism, especially with regards to succession and so forth. I'm increasingly convinced that the philosopher-king (or for the modern world, philosopher-civil-service) is the ideal goal: the best people doing what they do best. The problem is that selection methods for that are incredibly difficult because power is desirable to all sorts of people who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it. Hereditary succession is pretty worthless and civil disorder around power transfers is disastrous. Furthermore, if you limit transfer-of-power to a certain class (for example the Aztecs, where various elders elected each emperor) then you basically just create a complicated lobbying system where people who want to concentrate their power take control of the system either directly or indirectly.<br /><br />In theory, democracy should produce the best results because everyone gets a say, so you get some negative feedback against the conflation of power and wealth that tends to result in aristocracy, something I've made note of the importance of before.<br /><br />But that's where my post comes in: it all falls apart if you do start developing an aristocracy, because they'll realize that the only way to keep power is to make sure the masses don't get the kind of education they'd need to realize they should under no circumstances vote for the aristocrats.<br /><br />Once you get to that point, you're better served with some other method of selecting a leader benevolent and smart enough to get you out of the spiral; within a generation or two you'd be in shape to write a reasonable constitution and go back.<br /><br />(I'm also actually pretty sure term limits and super-frequent elections are an awful idea because they lead to this cycle of campaigning where everyone's always waging the next election; good in theory, bad in practice. Much better would be longer terms with easier votes of no confidence IMO, but that ties in to a post I still plan to make sometime about what I'd like to see in a government, rather than what I don't like to see. I just find the "what's wrong -> what would be right" structure nice and elegant.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15515713869979082119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5776277983303719657.post-41764620039764287652010-12-10T10:43:50.391-08:002010-12-10T10:43:50.391-08:00Nice post Niko - I'm wondering though, lately,...Nice post Niko - I'm wondering though, lately, if there isn't a good argument for state authoritarianism on the grounds of effective, decisive decision making capability. Of course, that may just be a question of the specifics of our malfunctioning democracy vs. a well functioning authoritarian state. China's doing well now, e.g. but 40 years ago during the cultural revolution it looked like a terrible idea... So I'm interested in the fundamental question about why is democracy a good idea... and somewhat related, the question of efficiency and decisiveness in a world of increasing complexity, accelerating change, and large scale environmental/resource constraints.<br /><br />Also, "First."sethzerenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15104543092448767019noreply@blogger.com