ift.tt/eA8V8J It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. ― Sir Winston Churchill Democracy, like free-market capitalism or communism or any other system, has and will never be implemented in a form everyone could call pure. Pure systems do not exist; when rubber meets the road, or in this case when implementation provides the deliverables, every complex system humans build exists by the grace of ad-hocracy alone. There will always be individual intelligences involved in figuring out how the ideal applies to any given real-world situation; the bureaucracy. Every implementation of such a grandiose ideal - hell, every ERP system - is slightly different. Some turn out better than others. Regardless of our own personal opinions about democracy, it must be agreed that the western democratic nations could have done a hell of a lot worse than they have. The infighting between us has stopped now, something that would likely have continued forever if nationalism was still the norm. Its clear were tired of that fight; were tired of every fight, in fact. Nevertheless, democracy is still the mandate in the land, and likely to be for a long time yet. There have been some successes on the part of democracy that set it apart from, and as a viable successor to, the classic monarchy or dictatorship. On a small scale, democracy... does provide for anyone who should be able to run for govt the ability to do so, assuming they can pick a party affiliation they can live with. does provide for the ability for the public to introduce petitions and perhaps have bills crafted on their behalf does provide for a recall capability On a large scale, it.... Does provide for a regional voice, in some implementations, though this is usually tempered by party whip voting block behaviour Does seem to provide sufficient illusion to the average person that theyre a free and equal member of something bigger than themselves: an inherent national good that steers away from nationalism in and of itself Those are valuable advantages. The problems, however, are glaring: Populism and demagoguery - pandering to the people and doing what they want today rather than saving for bigger things tomorrow will buy you votes Low barriers of entry to decisions: too many low-information voters elect people based on historical party affiliation rather than a legitimate evaluation of the playing field compared to their own views (however refined) Parties inherently work on a favours-trading basis, which means the system is built on compromise and multiple competing visions that often deliberately work against each other despite existing in the same cities and depending on / being depended on by the same overall group of people A high literal cost on the part of a prospective employee to obtain a job doesnt actually guarantee a competent person taking on the role, nor does it guarantee a person operating from clean motives Voting blocks can end up with an undue amount of influence over government, e.g. the anti-evolution movement in some Bible Belt states Discussion questions: What kind of system would an idealized neoractionary state use to choose a leader? What if they went mad or evil? What about succession? How much life preparation is necessary for a man to be a leader of a nation - should it really start from childhood? Can one buy the title? Can any kind of person hold it? How much unilateral authority do they get? What checks and balances do we place on them? By what manner of authority feedback loop would this be enforced? Can they appoint anyone they want to any position of authority? Should we all carry swords?
Posted on: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:54:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015