I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

Reminds me of Stephen Colbert's take on helping the poor

If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we got have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.

@GeeSuss what's the blue sky defence?

@DFT why are you fucking chickens? That's not cool man, you can seriously harm them psychologically.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.

I would test peoples knowledge of politics, finance and such to see if they're capable of understanding what they're voting for, I'd expect around 5-10% of the population to pass it. After heavy studying of course.

Poor people smell like burning and hepatitis.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.

On average, less that 50% of people vote with no restrictions. And you can only vote for people on the ballet in most cases. Nor was it solely poor people, but go ahead and keep fucken that chicken.


Why would you deny the poor the right to vote? That's really fucked up.

Wait, poor people can vote?

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

If it is decided that certain classes of citizens should lose their right to vote, then who makes that call? If it is decided that people must pass a test before gaining the right to vote, then who writes that test? Who grades it?

I personally find Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives too naive to vote; indifferent to the violence, misery, exploitation, pollution and economic decay their thinking has caused us over that past several decades. If I were to write a political literacy test, these people would fail it.

Would this be fair?

The human mind is excellent at rationalization. Do something that you know to be wrong and within a fraction of a second, your mind has already come up with several ways justify or dismiss the wrong doing. We all do it, and in most cases it is a fairly innocent process, but when you get a mass of humans using this process collectively to justify taking action against another class of people, that's how fascism is born.

Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with normal, rational people, whom for whatever reason, were able to rationalize violence, conquest, bigotry and genocide.

But that was a long time ago, right?

If you take away the prism of patriotism and the divine right of American exceptionalism, haven't we already rationalized the violence of war in the Middle East and the conquest of their natural resources? Haven't we already rationalized bigotry towards labor, the poor, Muslims, African Americans, Mexicans, gay people and liberals? Haven't we already rationalized the genocide of Native Americans and residents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Chile, El Salvador, Columbia, Vietnam....? Aren't there people already in the process of rationalizing future violence and conquest in Iran?

I know it makes people on this site uncomfortable to discuss fascism, or the possibility that America is taking steps in that direction, but if you take off the patriotic blinders, the signs are there.

This is how it starts.

Nearly 64% of the lowest 20% income bracket do not vote. Tell me DT, why do you hate poor people?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
If it is decided that certain classes of citizens should lose their right to vote, then who makes that call? If it is decided that people must pass a test before gaining the right to vote, then who writes that test? Who grades it?
I personally find Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives too naive to vote; indifferent to the violence, misery, exploitation, pollution and economic decay their thinking has caused us over that past several decades. If I were to write a political literacy test, these people would fail it.
Would this be fair?
The human mind is excellent at rationalization. Do something that you know to be wrong and within a fraction of a second, your mind has already come up with several ways justify or dismiss the wrong doing. We all do it, and in most cases it is a fairly innocent process, but when you get a mass of humans using this process collectively to justify taking action against another class of people, that's how fascism is born.
Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with normal, rational people, whom for whatever reason, were able to rationalize violence, conquest, bigotry and genocide.
But that was a long time ago, right?
If you take away the prism of patriotism and the divine right of American exceptionalism, haven't we already rationalized the violence of war in the Middle East and the conquest of their natural resources? Haven't we already rationalized bigotry towards labor, The poor, Muslims, African Americans, Mexicans, gay people and liberals? Haven't we already rationalized the genocide of Native Americans and residents of Iraq, Afgannistan, Chile, El Salvador, Columbia, Vietnam....? Aren't there people already in the process of rationalizing future violence and conquest in Iran?
I know it makes people on this site uncomfortable to discuss fascism, or the possibility that America is taking steps in that direction, but if you take off the patriotic blinders, the signs are there.
This is how it starts.

?

Perhaps he didn't read your post? >> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

?

Democracy is fascism. Every democratic state is a fascist state.

'Normal, rational people' is a contradiction in terms. Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with fascists, as every country today is filled with fascists. They didn't just rationalise. They wholeheartedly embraced and perpetuated the evils of their state, as every population would today. As every population does today.

Democracy exists for one reason only, which is to legitimise crime. Want your neighbour's wealth? You can't just steal it, that would be wrong. Get your government to do it for you, after they've taken their cut. Suddenly it's fair. Want to tell him how to live his life? Want to throw him in prison?

When the victims complain, their aggressors can say, "Hey, it's the will of the people. You had your chance to vote."

Tribalism, wilful ignorance, escalating bigotry, absolute selfishness, perfect stupidity; these are the characteristics of the typical voter, that's democracy. These are the people you want in charge?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

If it is decided that certain classes of citizens should lose their right to vote, then who makes that call? If it is decided that people must pass a test before gaining the right to vote, then who writes that test? Who grades it?
...

The human mind is excellent at rationalization. Do something that you know to be wrong and within a fraction of a second, your mind has already come up with several ways justify or dismiss the wrong doing. We all do it, and in most cases it is a fairly innocent process, but when you get a mass of humans using this process collectively to justify taking action against another class of people, that's how fascism is born.
Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with normal, rational people, whom for whatever reason, were able to rationalize violence, conquest, bigotry and genocide.
...

This is how it starts.

Can we run 'Kill the republicans' through the computer next?

Democracy is rule by consensus of the populace. Fascism is rule by a single party state.

Just because the U.S. is some weird two party fascist hybrid dipped in a liberal, "Democratic Republic", white chocolaty shell.. doesn't mean the two are the same.

And just because our "democracy" is corrupt and broken doesn't mean automatically that "democracy = facade for crime."

~~~
Also, who exactly are the victims and who are the aggressors?

You're saying that stupid bigoted [hah] tribalistic commoners are the evil oppressor running the show?

Because.. that's sorta like arguing that U.S. Troops decided to invade Iraq for their own political and economic reasons.

The Pentagon, Defense Depart, Cheney and the CIA were just lowly goons waitin' for a kickback.

~~~
Lastly, I'll say:

Governments exist to organize a group. [tribe if you will]
Individuals within the group express how they wish to be organized thru voting.

If everyone agrees. You have consensus and the tribe's power is consolidated.
If some disagree. You have factions and the tribe's power is split.

Anything that forces one half to remain linked to the other [in order to exploit that power] after such a split is "fascist", in the sense i think you meant.

Both you and Aristotle are keen to note how fuck up it is that the Majority would give up their Power [time & energy] to a State in order to control the power of the Minority.

Tho, scapegoating the commoner when a relative few Power Elite are to blame for your problems is missing the forest for the trees.

>> ^gorillaman:

Democracy is fascism. Every democratic state is a fascist state.
'Normal, rational people' is a contradiction in terms. Pre-WW2 Germany was filled with fascists, as every country today is filled with fascists. They didn't just rationalise. They wholeheartedly embraced and perpetuated the evils of their state, as every population would today. As every population does today.
Democracy exists for one reason only, which is to legitimise crime. Want your neighbour's wealth? You can't just steal it, that would be wrong. Get your government to do it for you, after they've taken their cut. Suddenly it's fair. Want to tell him how to live his life? Want to throw him in prison?
When the victims complain, their aggressors can say, "Hey, it's the will of the people. You had your chance to vote."
Tribalism, wilful ignorance, escalating bigotry, absolute selfishness, perfect stupidity; these are the characteristics of the typical voter, that's democracy. These are the people you want in charge?

Gorillaman,

You have never lived in a society that didn't have a constitution and a bill of rights. You have never lived in a society without labor protections, food and safety protections, health protections and environmental protections. You have never lived in a society that did not have democratic foundations. Democracy has been so successful in improving the general quality of life, that you take its many accomplishments for granted.

You don't seem to understand either concept, democracy or fascism, which is likely due to current corporate media narratives that attempt to link the two. Does it not arouse your suspicion that this line of thought is being pushed on you by the people at the top? Do you not see any ulterior motives? Do you understand that governments in pre-democratic times were generally plutocracies? Kings. Barons. Lords. Dictators. Czars. Do you understand that over the last few decades, our democracy, while under the influence of anti-democratic rhetoric and neo-liberal deregulation, has been steadily shifting towards plutocracy, and that the underclasses have taken many steps down the road to serfdom the neo-liberalism was supposed to prevent? Democracy, though not perfect, has been a successful challenger to plutocracy, which is why so many dollars are being spent to subvert, stifle and eliminate it. Do you really want to return to pre-democratic times? Your media sources do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

@dystopianfuturetoday

I'll admit to sometimes using a loose definition of fascism for rhetorical purpose, but I flatter myself I understand political theory well enough not to need wikipedia's help this time.

I want an advance to post-democratic times.

Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Democracy isn't the ultimate development of government, as you seem to believe, it's its ultimate collapse.

So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

You have never lived in a society with a constitution. Not if you live in the US you haven't. Your hated plutocrats long since overcame that last remnant of wisdom left by founders who presumably believed they wouldn't be needed so many years later. Imagine if the constitution were living thinkers rather than a dead relic; an active body to oppose corruption rather than a rotting, passive corpse waiting pathetically to fall to dust.

Are you a coward? Do you want to better society or cling to the sense of virtue your own corporate media narrators have fed you?

The truth is no one informs my political thought. It crawls implacably from the sludgy depths of hatred I've cultivated for the world in which I live.

>> ^gorillaman:
Democracy exists for one reason only, which is to legitimise crime. Want your neighbour's wealth? You can't just steal it, that would be wrong. Get your government to do it for you, after they've taken their cut. Suddenly it's fair. Want to tell him how to live his life? Want to throw him in prison?


You talk about crime and wealth, terms which only have meaning in the presence of government, and then complain that governments can be used, or misused, to take wealth away, or commit non-criminal crimes, which is true of any system of government. But since you seem to care about laws/property, you need a system of government which is capable of being fair, please provide a historical example of a non-democracy that has managed this feat, and then we can compare and contrast with the supposedly terrible system you are complaining about.

Government is always a balancing act, but "property above all else", which seems to be your position, is a massive wealth redistribution policy, the money just happens to flow up. If we want a neutral market, we should structure it something like the 1950s US, with 90%+ upper end tax brackets, sizable government pensions, massive government investment on infrastructure, and the reasonable ability of just about anybody to acquire and hold a reasonable amount of wealth, without redistributing it up or down, anything else is theft by your definition.

While the US is not functioning very well at the moment, it is still a constitutional democracy, we have, even recently in practice, a judicial system that puts a check on both the legislator and the electorate. People are not thrown is jail by popular vote, thought the laws are not applied fairly, to suggest that we have referenda on jailing people we don't like is pure fantasy.

Your basic argument, that unrestrained democracy is bad, is true, it just does not happen to be practiced anywhere, and so is completely irrelevant. If you have a non-fantasy-based alternative to constitutional democracy, please let us all know.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I had a similar interaction with a particular videosifter, except that it was about denying poor people the right to vote instead of killing them. When I expressed shock and outrage, he used the blue sky defense.


You're hardly one to talk about suspicious argument techniques.. In the past you've attempted to make me appear to be racist, homophobic, probably some other stuff too. For some reason, i get the impression @GeeSussFreeK has an entirely different (and probably more accurate) story to tell on this one.

Edit:
I'd say it's the one flaw in an otherwise intelligent person that you feel the need to intentionally misconstrue (and then advertise the result) of anyone that doesn't fully agree with you.

>> ^gorillaman:
Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Actually it was more of a "we're tired of power being concentrated in the hands of a few, unaccountable, self-centered, self-important people, let's disperse that power amongst everyone!"

That form of democracy still has yet to be tried, but from where I sit, the closer a society's government hews to that principle, the better off the society.

>> ^gorillaman:
Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Awesome argument for abolishing markets and capitalism...you know, the system that rewards amoral selfish idiots who succeed in ripping others off. For abolishing democracy, not so much.

>> ^gorillaman:
So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

So your bold new plan for the future...is Aristocracy.

Tell me, do you think yourself a philosopher-king, an artisan, or an auxiliary? No faux modesty here, please.

gorilla: dghandi said it better than I could have.

danny: If I called you racist or a homophobic, it was because I found something you wrote racist or homophobic. Don't take it personally. Post the link if you'd like me to further clarify.

As for Geesus, he chose to out himself. I didn't mention his name. Here's the thread: http://videosift.com/video/Tea-Party-Only-Property-Owners-Should-Be-Allowed-To-Vote

The next question is - What constitutes Poor?
Poor in assets, Poor in knowledge, Poor in Wisdom, Poor in on-hand cash, Poor in Investments... the list goes on...

Materialism does not constitute wealth.

I'd like to comment on how I enjoyed the humor in this Mitchell & Webb short, but methinks this is the wrong crowd for that.

I hate you all and whatever government you prefer!! Vote Morganth King in 2012!

The Tea Party has already suggested denying poor people the vote.

@dgandhi
@NetRunner

A constitutional democracy is a system in denial. If democracy's such a good idea what do you want a constitution for, and if the constitution's so wonderful why bother with democracy?

It's also unstable. Very nice for wise and benevolent founders to write down a list of rules for the mob to observe, until they decide not to observe them any more. Gradually or suddenly, every constitution is subverted. An effective model wouldn't be vulnerable to these periodic collapses.

Recognise that the people and their oppressors are the same group. The mob is the mob. Which of its members manage to stumble into positions of authority doesn't signify.

Participation in government is not a right. It involves enforcing your will on the lives of others. If you're going to make that your business you'd better be sure you know what you're doing, and it's not the sort of power you hand out to anyone who wants it.

An equal stake in tyranny isn't freedom. In fact tyranny is as enduring as gold. Hammer it as broad and flat as you like, cut it up and and give everyone their piece, there'll still be just as much around. Dictatorship or democracy, the injustice is the same.

Every state is an oligarchy. I'm suggesting we try to empower the best possible oligarchs. Would anyone here really dare to deny that smart people make better decisions than stupid people? Then we have an agreed foundation for building a superior government model and can put all this populism and consensus foolishness behind us.

I do tend to agree that smart people often make better decisions than stupid people. Carrying that logic forward (which I assume you will not object to, seeing as it is taken directly from your own political philosophy) I am forced to side with dghandi and NetRunner in this discussion, as they are clearly smarter than both you or I; their arguments are much stronger in content, reasoning, logic, historical context and grammar. If I am to go along with your contention that democracy is tyrannical, and that intellectual elites represent a superior government model, then I must dismiss your inferior commentary as the uninformed babblings of an oppressive mob.

That said, I don't really want a dictator, not even a smart compassionate dictator with a sense of social justice like dghandi or Netrunner. I also want you to have a say, regardless of how confused, misguided or historically challenged your thinking might be.

Does this make me a tyrant?

I'm glad you agree with me anyway.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

gorilla: dghandi said it better than I could have.
danny: If I called you racist or a homophobic, it was because I found something you wrote racist or homophobic. Don't take it personally. Post the link if you'd like me to further clarify.
As for Geesus, he chose to out himself. I didn't mention his name. Here's the thread: http://videosift.com/video/Tea-Party-Only-Property-Owners-S
hould-Be-Allowed-To-Vote


Yes, your modesty and humility is fast becoming legend.

>> ^gorillaman:
A constitutional democracy is a system in denial. If democracy's such a good idea what do you want a constitution for, and if the constitution's so wonderful why bother with democracy?


When was the last time a piece of paper did anything? Some system of human involvement is always required, even "strict constructionists" differ on the meaning of any document. Attempting to run a society on ground rules without any interpretive framework is not even wrong, it just doesn't make sense.

Democracy is, of course, not perfect, but it is a functioning manner in which to resolve the conflicts in society while only rarely resorting to violence in the streets. While pure democracy would be terrible, it does not follow, either theoretically, or in practice that constitutional democracies make worse decisions than beneficent tyrants.

I understand that you think that the government being "honest" about who is in charge would be preferable to a shadow oligarchy, but I submit, that "democracy" results in more transparent oligarchy than explicit oligarchy. Pragmatically we are better off having some oversight in a "dishonest" system, than no oversight in an "honest" one.

Democracy is dangerous. But selecting an oligarchy from the brightest minds is easily as dangerous. There's no good government system. Not a one.

Self-governance to me seems obvious as the least intrusive.

>> ^gorillaman:

A constitutional democracy is a system in denial. If democracy's such a good idea what do you want a constitution for, and if the constitution's so wonderful why bother with democracy?
It's also unstable. Very nice for wise and benevolent founders to write down a list of rules for the mob to observe, until they decide not to observe them any more. Gradually or suddenly, every constitution is subverted. An effective model wouldn't be vulnerable to these periodic collapses.

Let me one up you in pessimism and cynicism. Humans are never going to create a society that everyone finds just. At least, not as long as humans remain human, and the physical laws continue to work as we presently understand them.

Also, physical laws and human behavior being what they are, no society is ever going to be static. Further, no society is going to dynamically adjust to change without someone somewhere feeling an injustice has been done to them. No paradigm of government is guaranteed to last forever.

So now that we agree everything is hopeless, and justice and freedom will never permanently eradicate tyranny and suffering, let's move on to actually talking about the best options for what we can do in this life with the tools we have at our disposal today.

>> ^gorillaman:
Would anyone here really dare to deny that smart people make better decisions than stupid people? Then we have an agreed foundation for building a superior government model and can put all this populism and consensus foolishness behind us.


I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).

But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.

Before labor was regulated in this country, self governing business men enslaved other self governed men. How is this an improvement?

As banking regulations were removed over the past few decades, self governing bankers defrauded millions of Americans. How is this an improvement?

Self governance is subject to all of the evils of any other style of government, but is impotent to do anything about it.

>> ^blankfist:

Democracy is dangerous. But selecting an oligarchy from the brightest minds is easily as dangerous. There's no good government system. Not a one.
Self-governance to me seems obvious as the least intrusive.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Before labor was regulated in this country, self governing business men enslaved other self governed men. How is this an improvement?
As banking regulations were removed over the past few decades, self governing bankers defrauded millions of Americans. How is this an improvement?


I'd disagree. It wasn't labor regulation that freed the slaves in a country that claimed all men were created equal.

Also this "deregulation" didn't happen only under Dubya, it began in the 1970s with the Marquette decision and increased every decade since, trading one set of old regulations for a set of new ones. Hardly as simple as calling it "deregulation", but whatever.

I long ago stopped trying to approach you with logic, dyst. After about the third iteration of the same old nonsense. It's like trying to put out the sun with ice cubes.

You've just skirted over my point completely. Without regulation, what is to stop powerful people from subjugating the little guy?

I get the feeling that you think current labor standards are part of some kind of natural order. Child labor laws, 40 hour work weeks, weekends, workplace safety standards, workplace compensation, wage standards and overtime were hard fought political battles that we now take for granted. Deregulate and there is no motivation for big business to honor any of these principles.

Danny, sorry to burn your logic cubes in my nonsense sun. Logic cubes are much less vulnerable to melting when you keep them hidden away in the dark. Good call.

Did I skirt over it? Maybe those are my logic cubes also melting there.

hahahahahahaha....

i'm amongst that stastitic. i don't vote because its fucking bullshit. not because im not smart enough to grasp the issues, but because the options do not, will not and never have represented me. i can not lend my support to someone who is owned by a moneyed interest. i'm in texas too, it's fairly obvious that all our politicians are owned by oil companies, natural gas companies, home builders, halliburton, lockheed martin and wal mart. it's insulting and it is a waste of time. all the options are false.

oh, i take that back. i do vote in local elections like school board and city council and railroad commissioner and judges, etc. but only when i have reason to believe that at least one of the candidates isnt working for a church or a company. and i do a pretty thorough evaluation.

poor does not equal stupid. i would say poor simply equal unrepresented. but none of you are being represented, unless one of you happens to own lockheed martin, then you probably are very well represented.

anyway, voting is such bullshit.

i do however, enjoy vandalizing campaign signs. like, a lot. i go around and rip them out of the ground during the day, like im the person in charge of them and im supposed to be doing it. then i take them home, deface them with clever graffitti. then drive back around and put them back in the ground. like im supposed to be doing it. sometimes i just strategically relocate them, like in front of strip clubs or "gentlemen's spas". i highly recommend you all adopt this tactic in your own towns.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Nearly 64% of the lowest 20% income bracket do not vote. Tell me DT, why do you hate poor people?

>> ^dgandhi:
When was the last time a piece of paper did anything? Some system of human involvement is always required, even "strict constructionists" differ on the meaning of any document. Attempting to run a society on ground rules without any interpretive framework is not even wrong, it just doesn't make sense.
Democracy is, of course, not perfect, but it is a functioning manner in which to resolve the conflicts in society while only rarely resorting to violence in the streets. While pure democracy would be terrible, it does not follow, either theoretically, or in practice that constitutional democracies make worse decisions than beneficent tyrants.
I understand that you think that the government being "honest" about who is in charge would be preferable to a shadow oligarchy, but I submit, that "democracy" results in more transparent oligarchy than explicit oligarchy. Pragmatically we are better off having some oversight in a "dishonest" system, than no oversight in an "honest" one.


Where constitutional democracies make better decisions than would pure democracies they do so because they're bound by rules laid down by wise men. Wouldn't you say theocracies have a kind of constitution? It seems to me the only difference is their constitution was written by stupid people. Stupid constitution, bad results. Wise constitution, good results. Is it the constitution or the wisdom doing the good?

You say democracy is not perfect, I say it's immoral and disastrous. Do you think all the freedom we lose and all the damage that's done to our society is a fair price to pay for a conflict resolution mechanism? Shackles are a great peacemaker. The absence of violence is an illusion. So beaten down are we by enforcers of the artificial consensus that we daren't provoke the most obvious displays of their aggression, but the truth is they bring violence to the streets every day.

>> ^NetRunner:
I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).
But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.


That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.

>> ^gorillaman:

That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.


I think you're confusing this conversation for the one dft linked to. This conversation started with you saying democracy was fascism because poor people might vote to redistribute wealth so they're not so poor anymore.

I can expand a bit on why I'm leery of "limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for". On the surface, that sounds good to me. However, the question I have is how do we discern who knows what they're voting for? A standardized test? Who writes the test? Who grades the test? How do we decide those people know what they're talking about?

It quickly reverts back to the need for a foolproof methodology for finding people with golden souls to write these hypothetical voting literacy tests. But then if we had a way of identifying superlative leaders, why waste them on writing rules for voting, why not just give them the keys to government directly?

We also have a chicken-and-egg issue. Absent a revolution, the power would have to come from our existing government. That means letting the likes of Harry Reid or John Boehner have ultimate say on who writes the test (or worse, what's specifically in it).

Even if they somehow picked the absolute best possible person for the task, I think the implication of the task is beyond mortal capabilities. They wouldn't just need to write a test that would be fair, they need to write a fair test that would also ensure that the resulting elected officials would appoint a successor who would be willing and able to write a fair test for the next round that produced good elected officials, and so on and so forth for all eternity.

What I imagine would really happen in that loop is that the whole thing would slowly (or maybe even quickly) turn into a tool for one party/ideology/family to consolidate power, and shut off any legal, nonviolent way for the people to get rid of them.

It's why I think that if your goal is to make sure your electorate is comprised of people who know what they're doing in the voting booth, then you should be fighting for policies that make the electorate smarter and more engaged, not smaller.

@NetRunner

Do you really think it's impossible or just difficult?

You obviously have a lot more faith in your government than I do, and yet you seem to be arguing that we should stick with them because they can't be trusted. If they're too corrupt to administer a basic competence test without undermining it completely why not just admit they've lost all legitimacy? Why not admit democracy has failed utterly?

It absolutely doesn't require a perfectly advanced agent to begin an improving process. Where would science be were that the case, or education?

The improvement would compound itself naturally over generations. A smarter government will develop better procedures for selecting its successors. You don't need perfection from the start. Call it a political singularity. We're talking about the ultimate prize, the best possible society, at least until our species is smart enough to leave governments behind forever. It only needs to work once. If you miss the mark completely and get a self-perpetuating mafia state, well, that's no different to what we have today. Just try again.

>> ^gorillaman:
You obviously have a lot more faith in your government than I do, and yet you seem to be arguing that we should stick with them because they can't be trusted. If they're too corrupt to administer a basic competence test without undermining it completely why not just admit they've lost all legitimacy? Why not admit democracy has failed utterly?

I wouldn't really characterize my position that way. I remain convinced that the basic principles of democracy are moral, and I believe that the flawed implementations of democracy we've seen have produced vastly superior results to the flawed undemocratic governments we've seen.

The United States's implementation of democracy looks like it's pretty much been successfully killed. It's not dead yet, but I'm not really seeing a lot of chances for revival. But it's pretty much taken a massive propaganda campaign conducted over decades to convince enough people to vote it out of existence. They still don't know that's what they've been doing, but that's the power of a good propaganda campaign.

>> ^gorillaman:

Do you really think it's impossible or just difficult?

...

It absolutely doesn't require a perfectly advanced agent to begin an improving process. Where would science be were that the case, or education?

The improvement would compound itself naturally over generations. A smarter government will develop better procedures for selecting its successors. You don't need perfection from the start. Call it a political singularity. We're talking about the ultimate prize, the best possible society, at least until our species is smart enough to leave governments behind forever. It only needs to work once. If you miss the mark completely and get a self-perpetuating mafia state, well, that's no different to what we have today. Just try again.

I think it's entirely possible that you could pick a government that is composed entirely of people with golden souls. I think you might even see that government pick golden souls to replace them for a few generations. I just think before long, the power and recognition of a few generations of successful rule would go to their heads and hubris would ensue, followed by defensiveness, followed by tyranny, followed by revolution.

I think if you set up an institution that a) holds the traditional powers of government, and b) can control its own selection process, I think it's only a matter of time before they start seeing their own whims and desires as being the only purpose of government.

I just fail to see what the feedback loop is that results in continual improvement once you shut off democratic accountability.

@NetRunner

One hates to nit-pick, but if self-scrutinising governments are bound to fail where does that leave democracy, where everyone's the government?

In fact an intellectual authority, as well as itself serving as an oversight body, over the depredations of the mob; can have whatever accountability measures, separation of powers and so forth it needs. It would be better capable of implementing and maintaining those measures than any alternative. Who developed the famous checks and balances in the first place, was it idiots?

In any case shouldn't the goals of the wisest among us determine those of society and its government? If not theirs then whose?

This is my alternative to democratic principles, which seem to be, and you'll forgive the dramatisation: 'Let's get as many morons together as we can - they're bound to make good decisions. The more morons the better.' It goes against all logic and experience.

>> ^gorillaman:

@NetRunner
One hates to nit-pick, but if self-scrutinising governments are bound to fail where does that leave democracy, where everyone's the government?

I think you're glossing over a key difference. In democracy, everyone is bound by the laws of government, but the government is accountable to all the people bound by those laws. In your system, everyone is bound by the laws of the government, but the government is only accountable to certain special people.

Again, I'm not of the position that democracy can't become an oligarchy, but it takes completely undermining people's understanding of the basic institution before it can fully be subverted.

>> ^gorillaman:
In fact an intellectual authority, as well as itself serving as an oversight body, over the depredations of the mob; can have whatever accountability measures, separation of powers and so forth it needs. It would be better capable of implementing and maintaining those measures than any alternative.

Again, you say authority should rest in the hands of some group of intellectuals over the rest of us. What keeps the intellectuals concerned with the welfare of "the mob"? The goodness of their hearts?

It seems like it's a lot easier to corrupt the kind of closed system you're talking about. It sounds like purely a recipe for corruption.

>> ^gorillaman:
In any case shouldn't the goals of the wisest among us determine those of society and its government? If not theirs then whose?

Who's the wisest among us? Wisest according to who?

Our current ruling class are all convinced of their own infinite wisdom, why should plebes like us have any right to question that?

>> ^gorillaman:
This is my alternative to democratic principles, which seem to be, and you'll forgive the dramatisation: 'Let's get as many morons together as we can - they're bound to make good decisions. The more morons the better.' It goes against all logic and experience.


You're on a website that ranks videos purely via a democratic rating system. What's your opinion of the Top 15?

It seems to me that they're almost universally interesting videos. I don't think even a council of the Top 15 users could pull that off on a consistent basis.

How about user ratings of products on Amazon? I often find them more useful than professional reviews of products these days.

Internet crowdsourcing like that seems to be working the way a small-d democrat would expect it to.

@NetRunner

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way. Where everybody's only responsibility is to their own interest, which it is in a democratic 'believe whatever you want, vote however you want' anarcho-relativist system; the difference is one of chance only.

Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt. Our goal shouldn't be to defend unsuccessful criminals from their more effective rivals. The great value of government is that it tears power out of the hands of the people, so they can't do as much damage with it.

There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.

>> ^gorillaman:

Here we are with our downvotes and promote powers, an elite of an elite, privileged members of the internet class, which is itself already practically superhuman, talking about our democratic website? LOL.

I'm noticing that you aren't really responding to my argument, but instead are trying to declare Videosift...what? An oligarchy? An Aristocracy? Totally devoid of any wisdom of crowds?

I've never really seen downvotes make a difference when it comes to getting on the Top 15. Hell, I can't even remember the last time I saw a video get more than 3 downvotes.

All promote and quality do is increase exposure. They can make a difference between a video "sifting" instead of going to pqueue, and it can pad the number of votes it gets after it hits the Top 15, but I doubt you could get, say, a video of silent blackness into the top 15 purely with quality and promote.

>> ^gorillaman:
The misconception I see in your posts is this arbitrary distinction between the oppressors and the oppressed. The average man on the street is as guilty today as the plutocrat with his snout in the trough, because if their positions were reversed they'd each behave in the same way.

It's not a misconception, it's that I disagree with your assertion. I doubt reversal would make no difference. In any case, my aim isn't to "reverse" their positions, but to equalize them.

>> ^gorillaman:
Accountability to 'the people' is hardly a check on corruption if the people themselves are corrupt.

The theory is, if people vote for politician A, and A does things that fuck them over, they can vote for another politician next time. To use the favorite conservative example, you can't raise taxes with impunity, because if people don't think it's justified, they'll vote you out. Get rid of the vote, and those eeevil government bureaucrats can raise taxes, and spend all of it on palaces for themselves instead of healthcare. The only "accountability" valve then comes in terms of an armed rebellion.

You're vaguely alluding to a tyranny of the majority issue, but in practice every tyranny I can think of has been a "tyranny of the elite".

>> ^gorillaman:
There's a linguistic issue here as well. Over time 'democracy' has become perversely synonymous with 'freedom'. There's an essential difference between taking power away and taking freedom away. Power here means the power to enforce ones will over others, freedom is the freedom from the power of others. Removing power from the majority will actually increase their freedom.

Again, it's not a linguistic issue, it's that you disagree with other people's feelings about democracy. Maybe that's justified, maybe it's not, but it's not that people don't understand what the words mean.

As for freedom vs. power, it's a slippery thing. I'd say they're synonymous in this context in a lot of ways.

Do I have the ability to own a house because I'm "free" to do so, or because I have the power that comes from having the talents to build a decent career for myself? Or am I "free" to have land like this because the government is ensuring that my property rights will be respected? Or am I somehow a slave to the majority because I pay taxes to a democratic government?

>> ^gorillaman:
Look at the progress of this thread. I don't see much ideological territory left to the democrats, squeezed as you are from both sides. While dft lectures blanarchist on the need for a government to protect free men from one another, you want to turn around and give those same men a stake in that same government with all its might and authority. Even on the site of your last stand - the desperate, impossible compromise of constitution, you admit to massive deception and malfeasance and even in the strongest and best designed democratic state an apparently irredeemable collapse. With all this you still believe democracy is moral? It amounts to a kind of political stockholm syndrome.


For all the proclamations of victory, I notice that the vast majority of that paragraph refers to things people other than me have said. I haven't used the word "constitution" until just now, for example.

I do think the US's implementation of democracy is headed for a collapse. Not because people left to their own devices slit their own throats (which you seem to think is inevitable), but instead because a wealthy elite has effectively subverted the mechanics of democracy.

So you say to me, as the elite stands over our wounded democracy, choking the last life out of it, that this is proof that the corruption and stupidity of the people has finally led to democracy's demise, and demand that we empower the elite to rule over us.

That's Stockholm syndrome.

Hell, you have yet to even try to explain what it is you're really suggesting, beyond that you want Superman and the Justice League to come and save us from ourselves. Not only that, you want them to totally ignore what we might say about their edicts, lest our filthy corruptness infect them.