Modern democracy is a wonderful invention. It offers neat solutions to a number of difficult problems. Ambition is channeled into useful and mostly harmless arenas, like the marketplace. Power is limited and neutralized. Decision making and knowledge gathering is decentralized. Designed in part by intent, in part through evolution, democracy is stable and adaptable. It's suboptimal and messy, but that's often the best we can do with complex problems. It's also good enough, and noone who doesn't appreciate its elegance should be allowed to propose an alternative.

The role of politicians in all of this is the small but vital one of coordinating the public's decision making in that limited area where this is appropriate. They don't personify democracy - you and I do. They don't run society - you and I do. They don't make us wealthy or happy - you and I do. Democracy does not depend on politicians being perfect or very good. It doesn't even require them to be efficient, in fact it's better if they're not. An efficient government, one that accomplishes whatever it wants, is a threat to society.

It's a mistake to identify with our politicians, believe in them, and expect them to be good people. Partly because they rarely are, and partly because their qualities as human beings are unrelated to their qualities as politicians. In fact they're partly incompatible.

Consider what it takes to become a successful politician at the upper levels of a democracy. You need to be likeable. You need to appear honest. You need to appear knowledgeable. You need to appear righteous. You must seem to be in the right all the time. If you're not all of this you'll be handicapped, and unlikely ever to accomplish anything big.

Now consider what it takes to be all these things: To be likeable you can be likeworthy, or, failing that, charismatic. To appear honest you can always tell the truth, or, failing that, lie well, (preferably also to yourself.) To appear knowledgeable you can be well educated, or, failing that, good at repeating the views of others in a convincing tone. To appear righteous you can be an idealist, or, failing that, speak like one. To seem to be in the right all the time, you can be flawless, or, failing that, rewrite history as it suits you.

Which is hardest to be? A likeworthy, well educated idealist who never makes mistakes, or a charismatic liar? The political system is full of idealists, but every level of the pyramid constitutes evolutionary pressure that disfavors anyone but those with the best appearance. And a charismatic liar will usually appear better than a likeworthy, well educated idealist.

So politicians are bad people, or at least more likely to be, the higher up they've climbed. It's at the point of realizing this that some people lose faith in the political process, and in democracy. That's a mistake, one that comes from believing that politicans should be something they're not meant to be.

First, let's remember that few politicians are monsters. It's easier to lie well than to be honest, but the best liars are the ones that deceive themselves, which works best in combination with truth. It's easier to talk like an idealist than to be one, but most people want to think of themselves as good people, and will rationalize their behavior as a step towards improving the world. There are also psychopaths, but that's not a requirement, and is also fairly risky - goodness is hard to fake in its entirety.

Second, politicians are not meant to rewrite the kernel of democracy, but merely to adjust it within constitutional limits. We invest nothing more in them than the responsibility to prod society in the direction we want them to, and the regularity of elections makes it against the self interest of even the purest liar to stray far from their political platform. As long as politicians are held accountable for their actions, as long as the rest of us pay attention, it doesn't matter if they act well because they mean well or because they want to be reelected. Your boss doesn't require you to believe in your work, only that you carry it out well, and we should think of politicians the same way.

There's a paradox here in that what politicians actually do is a lot less glamorous than what they want us to think we've hired them to do. We hire them to solve society's problems, to stand up against evil, and for righteousness. What they actually do is work together with their opponents to find pragmatic solutions that accomplish some good things to a small degree, at the cost of others. The paradox is solved by talking pretty to the voters, retelling their behavior as a story of glamour and heroism. Politicians may believe in this act, because the best liar is a self-deceiver, but it's still an act.

All of this is to explain some of the cynicism I've expressed about the election campaign, and how I combine it with being enthusiastic about democracy. Torbjørn Røe Isaksen, leader of the Conservative Youth party, recently wrote in his blog that for those who are interested in politics, an election is like the World Cup in soccer. Perhaps it is, for some of us, but it shouldn't be. To people who are interested in politics, who regularly pay attention to what politicians do, what they stand for, an election campaign is superflous, like a commercial for a product you already own. An election campaign is a time for facades and pretense. It's a time for worshipping illusions. We need elections, and these illusions aren't fatal, but there's no reason for non-politicians and non-activists to be enthusiastic about them.

What we should do instead is hold politicians accountable for their behavior. Expose their lies, punish them for abusing our trust, not because we believe they could be honest, but because we know they're not, and we need to show them who's in charge. We need to be the boss from hell, distrustful and demanding. Just because we happen to vote for some party doesn't mean we buy their illusions, doesn't mean we forget that they'll deceive us if they can. We know they're not heroes, and their opponents not villains. We also know that they don't personify our democracy. As long as they carry out the platform they ran on we can probably live with their other faults.

A lot of people would interpret your view to be (perhaps) more sceptical to politicians than you seems mean. As I understand you 1) We expect too much of politicians, 2) The politicians have to make themself more important than they are to live up to this expectatitions, 3) Democracy as a continous process is much more important than a campaign.

Isn't we as much to blame for the situation as the politicians? We usually reward politicians for agreeing with us through dishonesty.

I have already voted, my vote went to FRP. The reason for that is freedom. I do not want the state to take care of me, and if I do a criminal offence I want to be punished oppropriatly, this goes hand in hand with freedom.

It would be tempting to highlight the differenses between the progress(ive) party and the rest of the socialist (my personal deffinision) block of parety's. What is FRP's stance with regards to the psykiatric system? I do not whach tv anymore but the debates I have seen through the years, FRP have not partisipated in the discussions. Or is it my memory who is playing tricks whith me? If I'm mistaken I would appreciate it if someone cerrected me.

Tor Andre: As I understand you 1) We expect too much of politicians, 2) The politicians have to make themself more important than they are to live up to this expectatitions

But it's not just making themselves important. A successful politician has to live a lie, has to make small lies continously and about nearly everything throughout their entire career. You sit on a talk show and blame your opponent for a bad thing, but if you were an impartial observer would you really reach that conclusion? A party colleague says or does something stupid, something you believe is wrong, but you make an excuse because comrades must stick together, right? You join a youth party at a whim when you're 15, and 20 years down the road, cameras in your face, you still happen, by mere coincidence, to sincerely believe that this same party represents the best hope for our country's future?

Everyone lies, but a politician makes it into a profession. We focus so much on the rare big lies they tell that we forget the continous stream of smaller ones: half-truths, omissions, unfair tactics. Maybe they deceive themselves, or maybe they know they're lying, and if they do maybe they tell themselves it's for a good cause. Whatever it is we're looking at the qualities of a deeply flawed person, things we would be ashamed of in ourselves, or at least pretend to be, and we should certainly not idolize them. Not even the idealists - and the same goes for independent activists. The whole concept of selling yourself and your ideas to the public on a daily basis depends on dishonesty.

3) Democracy as a continous process is much more important than a campaign.

I used democracy in the broad sense that includes, for instance, what you and I are doing right now, exchanging political opinions. By analyzing democracy and criticizing our politicians we're taking part in the decentralized decision making process that politicians are at the top of. We're as much part of this as they are, just at a different level. And there are more of us - writing, talking, paying attention - than there are of them, we just don't get paid for it.

Isn't we as much to blame for the situation as the politicians? We usually reward politicians for agreeing with us through dishonesty.

We're to blame if we don't hold politicians accountable for the job they do. But that's different from making them honest and good people, because you can be a bad person and a good politician at the same time. A lack of accountability is something we can solve, if we work hard at it. But dishonesty is a byproduct of the political structure itself. We should expose it when we can, (or they'll try to get away with more), but it will always be there.

[**Off-topic comment about You-Know-What deleted. -BS 21/8]

Cynical optimism. I love it.

Judging from my own recent experience of the inner workings of a political party, I think you underestimate one aspect of the function of the party. Namely, that most political systems are such that the number of viable parties is severely limited, to up to a handful usually, in the sense that these parties reach representation in parliament. However the number of possible different political platforms is much larger. Therefore each party acts a filter of potential political platforms to determine the one it will represent in a certain period, and that it will offer to the electorate. Will the Conservatives propose to lower taxes on high incomes? Will the Socialdemocrats propose to raise them? In practice, voters cannot define platforms, they only select among the handful of platforms that are clearly visible to them. (Most voters ignore the platforms of tiny fringe parties with little marketing muscle.) The definition of the platform is the function of the party hierarchy. Platform definition should be, but is not necessarily a democratic process itself. Once the party hierarchy has defined its platform, it follows naturally that it will attempt to convince the electorate of the merits of this particular platform over all others that the party has ultimately rejected internally, if only to justify its own selection of this particular platform. In this model, the voters do need many good politicians so that the party hierarchies will come up with electoral platforms that are at the height of social and academic debate. Otherwise, you're probably right about what happens once the different platforms are in place.

It's a mistake to identify with our politicians, believe in them, and expect them to be good people.

A political system that only works when good and decent people are running it is a political system that doesn't work.

I don't know how many of you across the pond are familiar with the Federalist Papers, but Federalist 10 - James Madison's essay on domestic faction - should be required reading for anyone discussing political arrangements.

[**Off-topic comment about You-Know-What deleted. -BS 24/8]

Yes, we are ultimately as much to blame for our problems as our politicians. We're stupid, we keep reelecting them. Europe won't be able to clean up its mess until the majority of the populace are willing to do the sacrifices that are necessary.

In a few decades, we'll be able to turn government over to the giant computer brain running the web. It will be the best of all possible worlds.

This is OT, but, some here might want to start following the Able Danger investigation. Might be something to Atta/Iraq Intelligence link, might not.

And if there is fire where there is smoke.....

Bjorn,

I understand and agree with what you're saying but part of
what you describe as 'democracy' can't really be attributed
to democracy.

Quote:

Ambition is channeled into useful and mostly harmless arenas, like
the marketplace. Power is limited and neutralized. Decision making
and knowledge gathering is decentralized.

End quote.

We could imagine a state where most things where done through
government agencies rather than a market and where these agencies
were nominally controlled by politicians elected by the
general population. And such a system would be a democracy
but none of these statements above would be true.

Democracy by western standards is a total failiure, it creates the impression that the people are really free from the slavery of capitalism, credit debt, long work hours, and the illusion that a vote counts.

The votes in western countries are distributed among greedy power-hungry entrepeneurs who crave power, through coalitions made from lies, compromises and always in the interest of the forces behind consumerism and to control the masses in their consumption of resources, enforcement of taxes.

The western economy dictates the need for continued consumption of things. This materialistic and individualistic lifestyle translates into how the westerners define democracy, hence the need for "individual choice" based on a candidate's persona, to match the individual's desire to find his identity through branding.

Indeed western democracy is a business, and the politicians themselves becomes products, identities, which you can buy by voting for them, or buy in other ways, by means of a pressure or lobby group.

The original meaning of democracy is now lost, because the will of the people is surpressed by the idea that individual thought is real, and thus must be the only truth, while in fact in this world nobody is original or individual.

"free from the slavery of capitalism"

Capitalism is the only economic system that is consistent with a free society, because it is the only economic system in which individuals are free to make their own decisions.

Complaints about "the slavery of capitalism", in essence, are whines about the inability of the whiner to force other people to do what he wants.

The fundamental truth of capitalism is that you get what you want by providing what someone else wants, and he gets what he wants by providing what you want.

It's a system built on serving the needs of others.

But yes, there are some people who believe that they are sufficiently privileged that others should supply them with what the want, without the burden of providing anything of value in exchange. And there are a few who are so enamoured of their own intellect that they are convinced that they are better suited to determine what we need than we are.

Most of them are children. Some are adults who never grew up.

Neither have arguments that are worth listening to.

This discussion is about democracy and not capitalism. However since I brought it up, I'll briefly explain: Nobody said that equivalent trade or the exchange of goods and services are somehow evil, or that even individual initiative and freedom are bad things. I never implied that.

What strikes me is that people believe that capitalism and democracy are so compatible. Think again.

Capitalism is by definition unfair, because a few rich owners own the means of production while the worker produces the same stuff he needs to go buy later in order to keep the consumer-based economy flowing. My point is we buy more crap than we need, and most people are not rich and don't own their house, it is owned by the bank until you payed your loan. If you cannot afford to buy a house, or your credit is bad, you must rent and pay to the rich landlord, losing even more money and with it the opportinuty to prosper.

The fundamental truth of capitalism is not equivalent trade, but the UN-equivalent trade, hence the rise of imperialism and robbing the 3rd world of its resources, wars, disputes and aggression.

Democracy in the west is unfair, because it strives to preserve a system where people have to work, take up loans, and vote, but their lives are without ambition or interest except on how to rise in their carreer or material wealth. There are exceptions, the people who believe in the system, that "free trade" is to buy 200$ Nike shoes which were made in a sweatshop in China for the cost of 20 cents.

Democracy, my friends, is a dream. Real democracy can never exist unless the whole people are single-heartedly united and selfishlessly determined to pull in the same direction to advance a society not based on materialism.

Bjornor Simonsen,

I take it you are a marxist because there's something marxist-like
about your comments and because when I click on your name I find
myself at a website promoting North Korea -- I assume only a marxist
would wish to associate themselves with North Korea. As such
I have some questions for you.

I find Karl Marx to be absolutely terrible writer who labours
to put one word after another and even then more often than
not succeeds in creating a mystery as to what is meant rather
than any clarity of communication. And then when I do, after
some effort decipher what is meant, surprisingly often feel
like I've fallen into a latrine.

But clearly you do not feel this way.

I have read and struggled over Marx's "On the Jewish Question"
(see http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/)
and think that it can be boiled down to at heart a very simple
philosophy and plan of action.

Paraphrasing, Marx asserts that selfishness and individualism are
the root of human misery and that socialists are neither selfish
nor individualists, in fact Marx goes so far as to assert that
true socialists can be recognized because they all think exactly
alike. Bjorner, I think I see an echo of this in your comment:
"...the will of the people is surpressed by the idea that individual
thought is real, and thus must be the only truth, while in fact
in this world nobody is original or individual." I take it
that you fully embrace Marx's thinking and that if you are a true
socialist you are neither selfish nor an individual and that
further that being a true socialist your response will be the
stock one that all true socialists would make?

Moving on, Marx's basic plan is to kill all the selfish people
and all the individualists. Marx divides the selfish individualists
into two categories: those who could conceiveably be reeducated
and those who are hopelessly, genetically evil. In the case of
those who might be conceiveable reeducated, Marx recommends one
or perhaps several attempts to get them to correct the error in
their thinking. If this unfortunately does not work, they will
have to be killed.

The genetically evil though have to be killed without mercy. In
fact according to Marx the worst of the genetically evil are those
that pretend not be selfish and individualist. Marx names the
Jews as an example of a people that are genetically evil. He
asserts that as long as there is one jew alive anywhere in the
world, the rest of mankind is enslaved and socialism cannot be
attained.

After all the selfish individualists have been killed and only
true socialists who think exactly alike remain an almost
unimaginable state of harmony, prosperity and human freedom will
be attained.

Bjorner, do you dispute this reading or embrace it? And do you
feel yourself to be a true socialist?

Bjørnar and Mark, I don't want a pro/anti-capitalism/marxism discussion here. It's way way off-topic, not to mention inflammable and neverending.

Bjorn,

I'll honor your request and not respond to Bjornar further on
this thread. But will you please leave what I wrote up? As
it seems to me that it does cover new ground (or rather issues rarely
explored) and in fact needs to be said.

Offtopic:

I know you've read at least some of Marx writings. Do you think
I'm being fair in what I've said? Is it an accurate representation
as far as it goes?

Bjørn,

I shall follow your indication and thus I shall end my part of the discussion here.

Mark,

Questions about my political orientation will go unanswered since this is not the correct forum for such questions. Suffice it to say I never read anything by Marx.

Until next time,

Thank you for a well thought out and original post. Though I agree with much you have written, I will respectfully express a contrarian viewpoint on the following:

"Consider what it takes to become a successful politician at the upper levels of a democracy. You need to be likeable. You need to appear honest. You need to appear knowledgeable. You need to appear righteous. You must seem to be in the right all the time. If you're not all of this you'll be handicapped, and unlikely ever to accomplish anything big."

Let's take George W Bush, and throw in Dick Cheney too as a test case. Hmmm, they don't seem to be able to pass more than one of the tests. In a democracy, all you need is to be handsomely funded by the elites to get favorable print and airtime, the right connections, and a matching agenda to appeal to the elites, the nationalists (xenophobes), and the evangelical base, and you stand a great chance of capturing alot of votes.

Democracy's weakness is that it takes money to become noticed, and the price of that money is providing a return on investment to the donor.

Erik: In a democracy, all you need is to be handsomely funded by the elites to get favorable print and airtime, the right connections, and a matching agenda to appeal to the elites, the nationalists (xenophobes), and the evangelical base, and you stand a great chance of capturing alot of votes.

First, money doesn't play a vital role in all democracies. It's much less important in Norway than for instance in the US. Same goes for xenophobes and evangelicals - I don't believe there's a significant xenophobic base in the US to appeal to, but if there is it's a national phenomenon, and doesn't apply to democracy in general. Also, about money, the economist Steven Levitt has done research that goes against the belief that money can buy political power.

Second, your beliefs about Bush and Cheney were clearly not shared by the people who voted for him. This may seem strange for someone so obviously on the other side of the American political spectrum, but there are a lot of Americans who find Bush likeable, honest, knowledgeable, righteous, and right. Not everyone who voted for him, but enough that he couldn't have won his elections without being perceived as having such qualities.

Thank you for your rebuttal, Bjorn. In response, I will counter that every society has a statistically predictable xenophobic base. Europeans (a minority or at least not a majority, granted, but a strong voting bloc if exploited) fear the infiltration of Muslims, Africans and poor Eastern Europeans. The Latin Americans fear the influence of Yankees and Gringos, the Chinese and Japanese are very mono-cultural, and the US Americans fear immigration by Latin Americans, Muslims and Africans, so much so that it's nearly impossible for many to even obtain a visa to visit.

Secondly, I'll agree with you that Bush couldn't have won his second election without being perceived as being likeable, honest, knowledgeable, righteous and right, but I will maintain that this perception is a result of a massive media campaign, the likes of which are not affordable by 99% of the population. Personally, I didn't care much for his media sponsored opponent either. Time Warner, I believe was one of the top ten corporate supporters for both candidates, who had, coincidentally or not, strikingly similar economic and foreign policy platforms.

I appreciate and will check out your literary reference and would likewise encourge you to check out Antony Beevor's "The Spanish Civil War" to further expore the political dynamics that shape democracies and the world even today.

Highly stimulating and original, Bjorn. Made me remeber paragraphs I recently read in the wonderful book "The Company of Stangers", by American economist Paul Seabright (highly recommended, tons of sharp observations and hypothesis, most probably less in jest than this).
In an early chapter, Seabright discusses how and why our forebears on the African savannah developed the ability to signal peaceful intentions in order to conduct mutually beneficial transactions with strangers, instead of either running or attacking. By smiling.
Thereafter, he speculates how these skills, which became genetical traits, might have evolved.
I quote at length:
"...no sooner had smiling become reasonably well established as a reliable signal of trustworthiness than it also became adaptive to be able to counterfeit smiles. Smiles that are under deliberate control are knownw to use a different set of neural circuitry than spontaneous smiles...Not everyone can fake smiles successfully - indeed, politiccians are predominantly drawn from among those human beings that can. Many people (myself included) are effectively barred from political careers by their inability to produce convincing smiles to order for camera. But enough people can do so to suggest that the evolution of smile mimicry has proceeded quite far in the human species."

Well, well more nuggets of indisputable truisms spewed forth from soft underbelly of the upholder of rightheous Norway, Mr BS himsellf. This is a strange muddled and downright silly piece.

What you seem to be arguing for is anarchy. nothing wrong about that per se but silly nontheless. But this debauchery of prosaic indulgence there are still some usefullness (there's a redeeming quality to all aspects of life).

It is quite obvious that the couch electorate DOES decrease the value of democracy, in fact they increase the marginal impact of the people who DO vote. As such it would be a good strategy for people with a political interest to make as many as possible ignore the election.

On the concept of stochastic voting, if we accept that a well diversified portfolio will minimise the risk of an investment (ignoring the equity premium puzzle, such that the pricing kernel is operational, ie we are NOT talking behavioural finance here) the same principle should be applicable to the voting process. If we assume that the voting behaviour of the stochastic voter is distributed with mean mu and variance sigma (and non-explosive fourth moments) then the Lindberg-Levy CLT holds. As such voting behaviour goes to the standard normal in the long run.

Now, using the diversification principle, we make the innocous assumption that what's best for society is the middleground (in a unidimensional election space) then it's obvious that these voters will in fact do what is best for society by voting even if their vote is decided by the die. Note: the above principle relies on a continous choice variable, which of course is not true for the political process.

However, consider the deterministic, perfect foresight economy where all voters optimise a intertemporally separable C2 utility function with arguments freedom and welfare (in the political sense). Then we may invoke Arrow's impossibility principle. Since the outcome will in fact not be soially optimal (from the point of view of a benevolent social planner) since coordination is impossible. If we rather model the voting process as a game between the electorate and the govenrment, then invoking the folk theorem , it is possible to cordinate. But no result is known for dimension>2. (See Arrow). Thus, it may in fact be that the stochatic economy does better than the non-stochastic.

So go ahead distrust the politicians, they don't care anyway. And finally, you say: "Ambition is channeled into useful and mostly harmless arenas, like the marketplace". Que? mostly harmless? by which standard? markets are perfectly harmless iff there is no scope for negative externalities. But nevertheless, in societies with heterogenous agents, the planner optimum is ALWAYS pareto optimal whereas the same is not true for the laissez faire outcome. Markets are more ideology fuelled than true saviours, any model where you introduce market rigidities will tell you this.

Wise up, our old friend Hayek is not ALWAYS right.

Hello~

accidentally dropped by here...

today is blog day so I recommended your blog in my post...
http://www.wretch.cc/blog/scent&article_id=2878951

cheers.

aftering leaving the comment, realized that you may think the previous message is a spam so I think I'd better to describe in detail.

The activity of the blog day is to introduce five more blogs around the world to the friends in your own blog.

I searched the blog & culture so I found this one, and I think it's quiet nice...

cheers.

Collectively, we who elect the politician do indeed share some of the responsibility for undesirable situations. The problem is, we can’t even agree on what is desirable.

Bjorn’s caption for this discussion is “democracy, anti-politician”. By definition democracy means majority rule, which we assume means the majority of like-minded people cast the deciding votes. However, in reality it is the majority of those in power who make the decisions. Considerably different then the perception we are taught. And there's the rub. Founding fathers of the United States opted for a republic...a form of government ruled by a constitution that CAN NOT be changed, with a Bill of Rights, statutes, and laws, that statesmen and judges are to uphold.

We have precious few statesmen in government, and have allowed career politicians to become our policy makers partly due to dumbing-down each successive generation by teaching new-age political correctness. We busy ourselves concentrating on the everyday processes of survival vs. a collective and cohesive effort to maintain those principles that will insure we remains freemen...called getting involved. If this doesn’t make sense, then you’re a victim of the dumbing-down process. The word democracy never appears anywhere in the goverance of a republic, i.e., in the United States because they are incompatible.

Lyn Nofziger wrote the following comment that is overwhelmingly impossible to dispute.

"The most important thing to almost all politicians is to get reelected. For term-limited governors and presidents it's to leave behind a legacy. These are more important than principles or promises. When you see a governor or president flip-flopping on a major issue it's because he thinks it's to his political advantage to do so. It makes no difference if he's wrong if he thinks he's right. It makes no difference if he breaks your heart or a few others if he thinks it's for his long term good. You think what he's doing is stupid; you know it's dishonest. Maybe so. But will it help get him re-elected? Will it send him into the history books as a great man? Nothing else matters. Which is why you and I and others who care and believe are left frustrated and in tears. Regardless, this is and always will be life in a political democracy and anyone who expects anything different is living in a dream world."

This should be eye-opener for some of you youngsters.

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983) defines POLITICIAN as: a person engaged in party politics as a profession; a person primarily interested in political offices as a profession; a person primarily interested in political office s from a selfish or other narrow use.

The same Webster Dictionary defines STATESMAN as; one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies; one who exercises political leadership wisely and with narrow partisanship.

How often have you been given the opportunity to vote for a statesman vs. politician. My guess is precious few opportunities exist, and when they do, the politicians are either directly or indirectly involved in a smear campaign to render the statesman inept. This we call “politics as usual” and we walk away hoping the situation will correct itself, and it never does.

Geronimo said,

"Founding fathers of the United States opted for a republic...a form of
government ruled by a constitution that CAN NOT be changed..."

and this is simply not true. Basic to the constitution is a
procedure for changing the constitution called the 'amendment'.
Anyone can propose an amendment but to pass it two-thirds of the senators
have to vote for it and three-fourths of the states have to pass it
(via a simple majority vote). It's not easy to pass an amendment
but a number of amendments have and many more could have been. The
biggest obstacle to passing an amendment is the two-thirds approval
required in the senate. Having three-fourths of the states approve
an amendment basically boils down to a majority of the people of the
country wanting it, and if a majority of the people don't want it why
in the world should it pass? The two-thirds requirement in the Senate
is often more difficult since for various reasons Senators are relatively
independent of the people they supposedly represent.

Unfortunately the U.S. Constitution is becoming more and more a moot
point. Increasingly laws and policies in the U.S. are determined not
by elected officials but by judges and government employees who claim
that the Constitution means what they say it means and they are extraordinarily
free in their interpretation.

Congress has the authority to remove judges and government employees
but in practice this rarely happens, probably because Congress is
usually divided and however removed from constitutional basis an act
of a judge or civil servant may be there's probably a significant fraction
of senators and representatives to support it.

People who believe in a constitutional government are labeled 'right-wing"
and are more and more considered unfit for employment in academia by
other acadmics, or unfit to be judges by legal associations and the
Democratic Party.

Mark Ameraman,
You are absolutely corret. However, the process of amendmenting the constitution was meant to clairify, not change. The "not change" referene is based on the intent and premise of a document unlike any other written in it's time, and likely will never be duplicate in any cultuire in the future.

Compliments on a good analysis of democracy.

"An efficient government, one that accomplishes whatever it wants, is a threat to society."

50, even 20 years ago, I would probably agree with the quote above, but i dont now. I have enough confidence in our modern science and philosophy, and i dont think a thinkers government will pose a larger threat to the world and its inhabitants than democracy does today.

I am against democracy for a lot of reasons, most of which are related to our steepening course of self-destruction. Democracy is nearsighted and has very slow reflexes, this is no time for it.

Long-term solution: International monopoly of violence, dissolution of nations, establishing of autonomous regions within the political borders set by the international government (regions which are free to be democracies, of course).

Short-term solution: Coup d'état in Norway by an intellectual elite, spending of "our" oil wealth to help the UN on its feet; to finance an organization of African countries and their economic interests to put an end to international exploitation; experimenting with political organization inside Norway (preparing and adjusting for international politics), especially interesting here is giving the Sami people autonomy, guaranteed for and protected by the norwegian state.

Norway is in a truly unique situation with our huge budget surplus, and we can use it to start taking the blindfolds off humanity (aka "taking a bullet"!...).

Id love to read your (or anyone elses) views on this. I kept it very short, can elaborate if anyones interested.

(It feels very illegal to be against democracy...)

"Coup d'état in Norway by an intellectual elite"

Who gets to be part of the elite? Who decides? Can I join? If so, I won't support your UN plan. And are you sure you'll be allowed to join?

There's a difference between having faith in science and philosophy in the democratic context in which we've made them work, and believing that they'll help us in contexts we already know they won't work in.

A wealthy and functioning non-democracy is an intractable problem. Give it up.

Gorm,

My goodness, think. Wake up and study some history. Power corrupts. I feel like I'm speaking with my 4 year old. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Democracy is but a slim protection against it, that barely works. You support tyranny. You would take away what little protection we have. In reality, the most ruthless would be in power, and they would kill the intellectual elite first.

Of course, at this point (2005), anyone against democracy can no longer be considered innocent and naive.

"Long-term solution: International monopoly of violence, dissolution of nations, establishing of autonomous regions within the political borders set by the international government (regions which are free to be democracies, of course)."

Giving anyone - even the government - a monopoly on the use of force is a mistake you only get to make once.

The problems of differentiation are the main cause of democracy. In this respect democracy is decadence. Its the easy way out.

I have two suggestions to how to differentiate. 1) Demand a 'voters licence' of voters, meaning they would have to take an exam in politics and philosophy. 2) Create 'power faculties' in the larger cities with a structure similar to a university, and tightly cooperating with the universities. A 'professor of power' has more votes than a bachelor.

You can join both these elites, Bjørn, if you want to and are capable, so can i. And i want to, although i do not think that i at this point am qualified for either of the elites. Its very entertaining that everyone ive ever presented my views to, indicate the same thing you do, Bjørn, that i somehow am defining the elite around myself. But im not sick of being powerless, im sick of stupidity, or more precisely, of politics being run by the demands of stupidity.

It seems you all think that i want to abolish everything associated with democracy (which is everything that 'the we' think is good), like freedom of opinion. I dont. A minority-ruled commonwealth is no oxymoron. A piece of mediocre rhetoric: Are the people the best judge of what is best for the people in the very long run?

Gunnar, do you subscribe to a dualism democracy/tyranny? A minority government can have a constitution (as a protection), a watchful political press and a system of representatives in power for short periods and/or other safety systems necessary.

Jeff Dege, im referring to Webers definition of the state. So what i am saying is that i want a global state.

Are the people the best judge of what is best for the people in the very long run?

Which is why it is critical to keep the scope of government drawn narrowly, and the scope of individual action as widely as possible.

The 'global state' i envision, sets the outer limits of politics. Making some things apolitical for the lower 'regions', like environment control, nuclear control, small steps towards a balance of international rescourses etc.

Socialism or liberalism is not a question at this highest political level, the global state, its a question for the local levels: Every region is free to choose its own local government, as long as its politics does not violate the global decitions. I dont see anything wrong with allowing everything from theocracies like Iran or plutocracies like the US.

I suspect you have some obsession with theoretical freedom, if youre such, a paranoid aynrandroid, you would probably have to live in a state of constant irritation over having limits, however rational these limits, but that is a price im willing (for you) to pay.

The 'global state' i envision, sets the outer limits of politics. Making some things apolitical for the lower 'regions', like environment control, nuclear control, small steps towards a balance of international rescourses etc.

And how would you keep it that way?

What mechanism would prevent the global government from interfering in areas where it wasn't intended to?

Who would decide where it would be appropriate for the global government to act, and where it would not be? The global government itself?

You can't pretend to believe that you could set up some sort of structure and have it, in perpetuity, voluntarily behave in the way that you believe that it should.

Gorm,

The only proper purpose of government is to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and property. Any government injurious to these ends should be overthrown, attacked, impeded, and/or critized, to the extent possible.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe, the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans, born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F Kennedy

My goodness, think. Wake up and study some history. Power corrupts. I feel like I'm speaking with my 4 year old. The world is governed by the aggressive use of force. Democracy is but a slim protection against it, that barely works. You support tyranny. You would take away what little protection we have. In reality, the most ruthless would be in power, and they would kill the intellectual elite first.

Of course, at this point (2005), anyone against democracy can no longer be considered innocent and naive.

I do spend quite some time studying history, and I believe the transition to mass democracy is civilizational decline. Our democracy is a better alternative than a lot of what we've seen since World War I. However, in many ways we were freer before the rise of democracy.

Power corrupts? That's from a quote of Lord Acton, who is also known to have said:

It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is worse to be oppressed by a majority. For there is a reserve of latent power in the masses which, if it is called into play, the minority can seldom resist. But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.

>> I am against democracy for a lot of reasons, most of which are related to our steepening course of self-destruction. Democracy is nearsighted and has very slow reflexes, this is no time for it.

What are the reasons? Be more specific about what you mean. You're not making your case if you can't explain what the problem is.

Jeff Dege: "Who would decide where it would be appropriate for the global government to act, and where it would not be? The global government itself?"

Is the problem here a governments globality or non-democracity? (am i making up words?) Globality i dont think is a big problem; the outer balances of power are then replaced with inner. When it comes to aristocracity, i guess that you think of it as more cut off from the rest of society than i think is realistic. An aristocracy cant excape the modern media reality. Hopefully it can gain the trust of the media over some time though, if not it might be doomed. What im saying is that the media part of democracy will still play a large part, and some of the inherent democratic slowness follows. This probably satisfies your demand for watching the watchmen, but is at the same time a great infringement of the governments freedom of action. Its a balance i guess, and i dont know what i think of it yet.

Gunnar, MD: "we shall ... oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

Correct me if this quote is beside your point. If its not: Are you saying that you want the freedom for your economic system to pervert into something harmful (as if it hasnt already)? Lets focus on the environment, cause thats a no-brainer. Do you think that an international "roof" of the allowed pollution level is a "foe" to "oppose to assure the survival ... of liberty"? Wouldnt trespassing the earths limits for surplus (human) pollution mean that liberty is unsuccessful?

Tomorrow it is election day in Norway, which means weve been reminded of the ignorance of the people for months now. It seems that people dont care about politics, but maybe they own a car and would like cheaper gas, so they vote for the party that denies human influence on the envirnoment... The majority of the people just want to get wealthier (even in Norway), second only to getting laid. But election campaign brothel tents of the literal kind are probably still some years into the future.

Ill get back to this in another post where ill try to cover some reasons for being against democracy.

Jeff Dege: "Who would decide where it would be appropriate for the global government to act, and where it would not be? The global government itself?"

Gorm: Is the problem here a governments globality or non-democracity? (am i making up words?) Globality i dont think is a big problem; the outer balances of power are then replaced with inner.

But you've not talked about the inner balances of power - and they are essential.

As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

- James Madison, Federalist 10

Gunnar, MD: "we shall ... oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

>> Correct me if this quote is beside your point.

No, it's not.

>> If its not: Are you saying that you want the freedom for your economic system to pervert into something harmful (as if it hasnt already)?

I don't accept your premises. In reality, humans have an inalienable RIGHT to life, liberty and property. These rights cannot be separated. Therefore, you can't speak of "economic system" as a separate independent variable.

>> Lets focus on the environment, cause thats a no-brainer. Do you think that an international "roof" of the allowed pollution level is a "foe" to "oppose to assure the survival ... of liberty"?

It's a no brainer that almost all so called "environmentalist" issues are based on lies and deception. It's not about the "environment", it's about totalitarianism and anti-freedom. Neo-communists realized that the old sales pitch had failed, and decided to turn green. One famous environmental wacko said "the worst thing in the world would be if they found a technological solution".

For example, defining carbon dioxide as a "pollutant" is simply a ludicrous non-sequiter. It's a natural component of air. As anyone with half a brain realizes, there is a saturation point with the greenhouse effect. If you build a glass greenhouse with glass 20 feet thick, will it be any warmer? Of course not.

>> Wouldnt trespassing the earths limits for surplus (human) pollution mean that liberty is unsuccessful?

These are subjective opinions, not established fact. If global warming was happening, the poles would be warming. The last I looked at the raw data, there was no warming. Sun energy variations completely explain short term warming spells.

>> Tomorrow it is election day in Norway, which means weve been reminded of the ignorance of the people for months now

That's the difference between statist, socialist, leftists and freedom, liberty, human rights loving people. The first thinks people are stupid. The second knows that people aren't as stupid as they may appear.

OT:

Woohoo! More Pork for Bjork!

Congrats on your elections, I think.

The following are my current most important reasons for being against democracy.

Politics is a field of knowledge. It requires skill. You wont ask one who knows nothing but politics to decide how to build a computer, because the computer will explode. Asking one who knows nothing but computer hardware to decide how to build your society is ridiculous. Bjørn Stærk claims in the first paragraph that one of the strong points of democracy is that "[p]ower is limited and neutralized". Democracy is a very efficient constraint of power, but not in a harmless way. It arrests the tendency of abuse of power by the leadership, by introducing a tendency of less resolute abuse of power by the people, and consequently, a tendency of abuse of the people by, mostly, a capitalist self-interest (because this interest can afford it). A quote by Alex Carey: "[...] [T]he 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Freedom and equality are supposed to be two core values of democracy. I claim that there are interpretations of these two concepts in use which makes us oblivious of severe violations of the same values. Freedom has become freedom to make money off the human herd instinct (through a priority of "the market", even in politics!). When it comes to the hardly existing international social contract, the same kind of "freedom" is allowing for us to directly exploit the "south", which is possible because they are unorganized. This international use of "freedom" is reinforced by the typical nationalistic effect of egalitarianism. The average person simply wants to better its own conditions. Democracy makes me condemn this naive egoism, because the people are the ones to be held responsible. I really wish i didnt have to condemn them, because not being a political being is really no sin, although democracy makes it one (ill return to this point below). Local interests are very influential in a democracy, in the name of equality, yet it reinforces international inequality (which, beside being inhumane, is destabilizing: leading to war and anarchy, and a strengthening of the force of the population bomb). A certain equality of possibility might be a good goal, but the equality of value, specifically political value, undermines this goal.

Freedom is something that arises from safety, that we are protected from dangers so that we can do what we will (do what thou wilt...). That is why dangerous wills must be prohibited somehow. The "somehow" need comment: Prohibition is a question of balance. We are out of this balance. Where the balance is, needs experimentation. Although we have all of history to learn from, we are in dire need of interpretation of the specifically modern situation. Ill use this opportunity to recommend Paul Virilio (links to a relevant text). I think hes pro-democracy, or even worse (a christian anarchist, but dont take my word for it), so hes no direct backup for my case, but hes got a lot of very good insights as to the modern crisis. Just read and judge for yourself.

The art of balance of prohibition is the foundation of civilization. We would do wise to ensure that we and our neighbours (including our neighbouring country) are prohibited from posing dangers to order somehow, because if else our freedom is bereft us by opportunists. This safety (these constraints) can only be ensured justly by some kind of government. To possibly repeat myself: I think that democracy (and with globalization: nations) poses a severe danger to civilization.

Superficiality. Democratic politics is like media or ads in that it lives off sensationality. Politicians become prostitutes. The people become suspicious and afraid, loose respect for and faith in their leaders. Depth is ignored. Long lines are cut into four year period promises.

Politics must be shielded from the constant and ever more violent war of manipulation and suggestion.

Will you ever accept a reduction of your standard of living? Will the majority of people in your (presumably relatively rich) nation?

It should not be demanded of the people to think as if they where the whole, because 1) their decitions are poor, and 2) it encourages a culture of universalization of personal desires. The hearts desires and the states desires are not equivalent. My contempt for the people stems from they being the ones to be held responsible in a democracy, not so much the leaders. Bjørn Stærks contempt for politicians and my contempt for the people are not at all unrelated. In an aristocracy, i would not have the same contempt for the people, they would be free to be unpolitical. The categorical imperative gives a valuable perspective to this: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." In reality this means that ones own desires are universalized, are seen somehow as truths of human nature or even the world. It means that one judges others on the basis of self-justification. The art of generalization is philosophy. But Kant himself didnt see that he was generalizing his desire for generalization when he postulated the categorical imperative. I want to approve of the people, in spite of their silly or shallow opinions. But when these people have the same amount of votes (1) as Johann Galtung or other wise people, i cant help but detest them for their expressed political carelessness, insensitivity, superficiality. I dont want to be an enemy of the unpolitical people to be a good and reflected political person. It should not be a sin to be philosophically ignorant.

Lastly, were in a hurry, and democracy is, in its nature, unhurried. Im not just impatient. There is really a crisis. The largest one yet, in the history of humanity. And technology will bring us many more. To make a list of the obvious: Our ecosystem is threatened by our consumption; the earths species extincted by among other things, our need for living space; we are depleting natural rescourses, which means there will be more oil wars etc; humanitarian disasters, amplified by our environmental unbalance; the threat of nuclear terrorism, stately or otherwise; and while this is going on, we are narcotizised by games, virtuality, entertainment, drugs and whatever else we can find, decadencies are eating the peoples that can afford it, the demos that have the rescourses and democratic responsibility to invoke a change of course. We need changes of chinese proportions (im thinking of the huge dam they made or are making, destroying the houses of millions of chinese, but probably a very valuable long-term decition), but how is this possible withing democratic boundaries? To democracy, short-term comfort is more important than long-term survival.

Thomas Jefferson said, and i concur: "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." But this "experiment" will need to last a hundred, no, a thousand years or more.

The following are my current most important reasons for being against democracy.

Politics is a field of knowledge. It requires skill. You wont ask one who knows nothing but politics to decide how to build a computer, because the computer will explode. Asking one who knows nothing but computer hardware to decide how to build your society is ridiculous. Bjørn Stærk claims in the first paragraph that one of the strong points of democracy is that "[p]ower is limited and neutralized". Democracy is a very efficient constraint of power, but not in a harmless way. It arrests the tendency of abuse of power by the leadership, by introducing a tendency of less resolute abuse of power by the people, and consequently, a tendency of abuse of the people by, mostly, a capitalist self-interest (because this interest can afford it). A quote by Alex Carey: "[...] [T]he 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Freedom and equality are supposed to be two core values of democracy. I claim that there are interpretations of these two concepts in use which makes us oblivious of severe violations of the same values. Freedom has become freedom to make money off the human herd instinct (through a priority of "the market", even in politics!). When it comes to the hardly existing international social contract, the same kind of "freedom" is allowing for us to directly exploit the "south", which is possible because they are unorganized. This international use of "freedom" is reinforced by the typical nationalistic effect of egalitarianism. The average person simply wants to better its own conditions. Democracy makes me condemn this naive egoism, because the people are the ones to be held responsible. I really wish i didnt have to condemn them, because not being a political being is really no sin, although democracy makes it one (ill return to this point below). Local interests are very influential in a democracy, in the name of equality, yet it reinforces international inequality (which, beside being inhumane, is destabilizing: leading to war and anarchy, and a strengthening of the force of the population bomb). A certain equality of possibility might be a good goal, but the equality of value, specifically political value, undermines this goal.

Freedom is something that arises from safety, that we are protected from dangers so that we can do what we will (do what thou wilt...). That is why dangerous wills must be prohibited somehow. The "somehow" need comment: Prohibition is a question of balance. We are out of this balance. Where the balance is, needs experimentation. Although we have all of history to learn from, we are in dire need of interpretation of the specifically modern situation. Ill use this opportunity to recommend Paul Virilio (links to a relevant text). I think hes pro-democracy, or even worse (a christian anarchist, but dont take my word for it), so hes no direct backup for my case, but hes got a lot of very good insights as to the modern crisis. Just read and judge for yourself.

The art of balance of prohibition is the foundation of civilization. We would do wise to ensure that we and our neighbours (including our neighbouring country) are prohibited from posing dangers to order somehow, because if else our freedom is bereft us by opportunists. This safety (these constraints) can only be ensured justly by some kind of government. To possibly repeat myself: I think that democracy (and with globalization: nations) poses a severe danger to civilization.

Superficiality. Democratic politics is like media or ads in that it lives off sensationality. Politicians become prostitutes. The people become suspicious and afraid, loose respect for and faith in their leaders. Depth is ignored. Long lines are cut into four year period promises.

Politics must be shielded from the constant and ever more violent war of manipulation and suggestion.

Will you ever accept a reduction of your standard of living? Will the majority of people in your (presumably relatively rich) nation?

It should not be demanded of the people to think as if they where the whole, because 1) their decitions are poor, and 2) it encourages a culture of universalization of personal desires. The hearts desires and the states desires are not equivalent. My contempt for the people stems from they being the ones to be held responsible in a democracy, not so much the leaders. Bjørn Stærks contempt for politicians and my contempt for the people are not at all unrelated. In an aristocracy, i would not have the same contempt for the people, they would be free to be unpolitical. The categorical imperative gives a valuable perspective to this: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." In reality this means that ones own desires are universalized, are seen somehow as truths of human nature or even the world. It means that one judges others on the basis of self-justification. The art of generalization is philosophy. But Kant himself didnt see that he was generalizing his desire for generalization when he postulated the categorical imperative. I want to approve of the people, in spite of their silly or shallow opinions. But when these people have the same amount of votes (1) as Johann Galtung or other wise people, i cant help but detest them for their expressed political carelessness, insensitivity, superficiality. I dont want to be an enemy of the unpolitical people to be a good and reflected political person. It should not be a sin to be philosophically ignorant.

Lastly, were in a hurry, and democracy is, in its nature, unhurried. Im not just impatient. There is really a crisis. The largest one yet, in the history of humanity. And technology will bring us many more. To make a list of the obvious: Our ecosystem is threatened by our consumption; the earths species extincted by among other things, our need for living space; we are depleting natural rescourses, which means there will be more oil wars etc; humanitarian disasters, amplified by our environmental unbalance; the threat of nuclear terrorism, stately or otherwise; and while this is going on, we are narcotizised by games, virtuality, entertainment, drugs and whatever else we can find, decadencies are eating the peoples that can afford it, the demos that have the rescourses and democratic responsibility to invoke a change of course. We need changes of chinese proportions (im thinking of the huge dam they made or are making, destroying the houses of millions of chinese, but probably a very valuable long-term decition), but how is this possible withing democratic boundaries? To democracy, short-term comfort is more important than long-term survival.

Thomas Jefferson said, and i concur: "I have no fear that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master." But this "experiment" will need to last a hundred, no, a thousand years or more.

Seems to me Gorm is recapitulating the work of Jeremy Bentham.

Bentham was enormously frustrated with the limits that the current (c. 1840) political system placed on the power of the government. He found all that nonsense about democracy and rights served to frustrate the ability of those with understanding (i.e., like him) to improve the world.

He had, after all, invented the utilitarian calculus, by which he could calculate the greatest good for the greatest number.

And with this he could show, for example, that society would benefit if we imprisoned certain ethnic or economic groups in advance of their actually committing any crimes, because it would cost less, and they'd cause less damage, and they were nearly certain to commit crimes eventually, anyway.

The simple truth is that the societies that have thrived have been those that have managed to muzzle their utopian dreamers. Because the dreamers always seem to care more about their dreams than about the people whose lives they're screwing around with.

You'd think that 165 million dead would convince people that we should settle for a government designed to prevent the worst, rather than one designed to aspire to the best.

Because the "best" always seems to be an abatoire.

Gorm, you are basically arguing for fascism. Your post reminds me of the writings of Adolf Hitler.

Besides not having a proper moral system, and being a general hater of humanity, you are incorrect on certain assertions:

>> Our ecosystem is threatened by our consumption;

There is no evidence of this. This argument was the subject of a bet between an environmentalist and a thinking person, regarding the price of certain commodities. The environmentalist wacko lost, as all prices declined. Or perhaps you're thinking of oil? It turns out that the latest is that the oil we knew of represents only 1% of the total. Even if we don't discover something better, we're not going to run out any time soon. Oh, perhaps wood? Trees are a crop. There are more trees now in the US than during colonial times. Perhaps you'd like to indicate which resource is being depleted?

>> the earths species extincted

There are no intrinsic values. Values are subjective. You value biodiversity more than other people. Who are you to force other people to sacrifice what they value for what you value. Only a dictator wannabe would think this way.

In The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjørn Lomborg shows how figures for species loss are thrown about like confetti. In 1998, Greenpeace's official biodiversity report said that half the world's species 'are likely to disappear within the next 75 years' (1). But Greenpeace International removed this claim from its website when Lomborg challenged the organisation to cite some scientific evidence. The real guru of imminent species loss is Norman Myers, whose book The Sinking Ark was published in 1979. Myers argued that 40,000 species were being lost every year - 109 a day - so that by the time you finish reading this article at least one more species will be extinct. But the most remarkable thing about Myers' book is that references are as rare as the dodo. But evidence and referencing don't seem to be important to those who warn of widespread species loss. Professor Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb and Extinction, said in 1981 that up to 250,000 species a year could be becoming extinct, with half the world's species likely to be wiped out by the year 2000 - and the other half by 2025 (2). Obviously, half the world's species have not disappeared since 1981.

>> we are depleting natural rescourses [sic]

Predictions of forest loss are also blown up out of proportion. The Worldwatch Institute claimed in 1998 that the 'world's forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades' (4). But, as Lomborg points out, long-term data prepared by the United Nations shows that 'global forest cover' has increased from 30.04 percent of the global land area in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994. Lomborg also questions the findings of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), arguing that its claims of widespread global forest depletion do not stand up to scrutiny. When he challenged the WWF's Global Annual Forest Report in 1997 - which estimated that two-thirds of the world's original forest cover had been lost - the WWF in England had to admit that no report existed and these were estimated calculations.

Let me make it clear: A human life is of infinite value. If you dispute it, don't complain when someone puts a gun to your daughter's head and blows it off. A human being has a inalienable right to his own life. You are immoral to devalue that life by placing a mosquito's interest above human life.

As a corollary, a human being has the inalienable RIGHT to liberty. You have no right to enslave him. If you dispute it, don't complain when we lock you up without due process of law.

As a corollary, a human being has the right to earn and keep property, because a person owns his own labor. How can one own a tree, but not the fruit? If you dispute it, give me your bank account number.

Gorm, the US is finding species it thought were extinct.

this whole post is getting interesting

wee kee, it's about to get even more interesting.. Gorm, seems it's not only the US, via Bros. Judd:

Record haul of 20,000 new species expected

Wildlife is discovered as habitats are destroyed and it has nowhere to run

Robin McKie and Zoe Corbyn
Sunday September 25, 2005
The Observer
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1577873,00.html

Well said and thought-provoking.

Is democracy (as we know it) as useful and equilibrium-creating as you say tho? I understand you being anti-politician but if everyone was as distrustful as us, a democracy would probably crumple! I don't think it can work with too many voters who are "thinking" people.

Is democracy always going to be what you describe? I'm not so confident... I don't see how a system is sustainable where "ability to lead" is equated with "ability to maintain a more positive public personal image than the other guy".

Aren't we being left with a a big problem these days where as people get smarter (or better informed) and realise what entering politics means (in Australia the Latham Diaries only speeds this understanding) "thinking" and "talented" people won't bother enter politics unless they have an extreme level of narcissism, an unreasonable level of self belief and all those talents for deception that you describe! Yet probably most genuinely "thinking" people and most of the "talented" ones will have the emotional intelligence to recognise traits like narcissism and deception in themselves and won't succeed in the self-deception in the first place. Even if they do succeed in the self-deception and remain in politics how will they get past their own narcissism, and unhealthy self belief to be of any value in building/maintaing society (except as you say to reinforce to everyone else that all politicans tell lots of lies)?

And the remaining politicians who aren't "thinking" or "talented" people are going to be useless in terms of leadership ability too, by definition.

People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.

Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the industry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.

The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to this::Sam Walton's WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1658