American 'democracy'

[Forest_Dump]

As I attempt to slough off my penchant for lethargy:

I also observe that you continue to be pertinacious, if nothing else, in your archaic mercantilist perspective on the economy.

At the risk of appearing truculent towards the more turgid of tropes, I would note that the OP begins with a citation from an 18th century historian. Were I to really advocate running the political economy as it was in the 18th century, you would have a case to build. However, I advocate that neither the economy nor the political structure of any country should follow centuries old doctrines, whether "divinely inspired" Sharia law or an 18th century constitution. To illustrate, allow me to point out a similar problem with not learning from history:

I have to return to this comment. I have been more guilty than most, lamenting the fact that nearly half the population doesn't pick up the tab for the exorbitant cost of government. But... the Constitution was amended to allow Income Tax by promising the voters that it would only affect the wealthiest top 1% of earners! So, the majority gladly agreed to allow the government to tax...someone else.

That's the fallacy of the claim that a democracy is "fair", and is the point of the OP.

Indeed and quite right. The "founding fathers" of the concept of democracy certainly foresaw this and therefore took measures to ensure these kinds of problems didn't arise by making sure that certain peoples couldn't vote. Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way). As democracy became diluted so that people who were not aristocrats, then those who were not land owners, etc., were allowed to vote, all kinds of economically ruinous policies were adopted from freeing slaves to allowing women to vote and even work. Consequently, here we are in the 21st century wondering how to set the clock back a couple hundred years to a mythical golden age.

[CanadysPeak]

As I attempt to slough off my penchant for lethargy:

I also observe that you continue to be pertinacious, if nothing else, in your archaic mercantilist perspective on the economy.

At the risk of appearing truculent towards the more turgid of tropes, I would note that the OP begins with a citation from an 18th century historian. Were I to really advocate running the political economy as it was in the 18th century, you would have a case to build. However, I advocate that neither the economy nor the political structure of any country should follow centuries old doctrines, whether "divinely inspired" Sharia law or an 18th century constitution. To illustrate, allow me to point out a similar problem with not learning from history:

I have to return to this comment. I have been more guilty than most, lamenting the fact that nearly half the population doesn't pick up the tab for the exorbitant cost of government. But... the Constitution was amended to allow Income Tax by promising the voters that it would only affect the wealthiest top 1% of earners! So, the majority gladly agreed to allow the government to tax...someone else.

That's the fallacy of the claim that a democracy is "fair", and is the point of the OP.

Indeed and quite right. The "founding fathers" of the concept of democracy certainly foresaw this and therefore took measures to ensure these kinds of problems didn't arise by making sure that certain peoples couldn't vote. Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way). As democracy became diluted so that people who were not aristocrats, then those who were not land owners, etc., were allowed to vote, all kinds of economically ruinous policies were adopted from freeing slaves to allowing women to vote and even work. Consequently, here we are in the 21st century wondering how to set the clock back a couple hundred years to a mythical golden age.

Certainly. Certainly. The best answer to our stumbling US Postal Service is a return to the Post Road system.

[Paul Anthony]

Indeed and quite right. The "founding fathers" of the concept of democracy certainly foresaw this and therefore took measures to ensure these kinds of problems didn't arise by making sure that certain peoples couldn't vote. Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way). As democracy became diluted so that people who were not aristocrats, then those who were not land owners, etc., were allowed to vote, all kinds of economically ruinous policies were adopted from freeing slaves to allowing women to vote and even work. Consequently, here we are in the 21st century wondering how to set the clock back a couple hundred years to a mythical golden age.

What, then, would be the appropriate form of governance in the 21st century?

I certainly don't condone a return to slavery. Some women are actually smarter than the average man, so they have as much right to vote as their male counterparts. But, as that 18th century quote states, democracy has a flaw that can be detrimental to all.

If your car stopped running, you wouldn't hire a gardener or a cook or even a well-educated neurosurgeon. No, if you want your car fixed you'd be wise to hire someone with knowledge of automotive mechanics. But how do we choose those who we entrust with the responsibility of keeping our government running?

"Popular vote" has become just that - a popularity contest, with little concern for the candidate's qualifications for the job. It's not working well, so what better method could be conceived for this century?

[mtbturtle]

Some women are actually smarter than the average man, so they have as much right to vote as their male counterparts.

*blink*

I have a right to vote because *some* women are smarter than the average man???? that's the basis for my rights? that doesn't sound right at all to me.

[Fuqin]

Some women are actually smarter than the average man

,
actually from my experience they all are ;!
EDIT :- Ouch!

[Forest_Dump]

What, then, would be the appropriate form of governance in the 21st century?

Indeed. Now we get to the onion. So far I would say that democracy is the best we have stumbled upon so far so I am in favour of returning to it. Of course I recognise that we can use some improvements. I would recommend various reforms to election funding, putting limits on various forms of corruption prompted by special interest groups, etc. But I think a promising start is indeed recognising what century/millennium we are in. I am all for learning from the past - just not returning to it.

If your car stopped running, you wouldn't hire a gardener or a cook or even a well-educated neurosurgeon. No, if you want your car fixed you'd be wise to hire someone with knowledge of automotive mechanics. But how do we choose those who we entrust with the responsibility of keeping our government running?

Again, some good ideas. And to extend your analogy, if I were to choose who to entrust running a government, again I would start by looking to professionals. Just as I wouldn't hire a cook to fix my car, I wouldn't hire a business man to run government and for the very same reasons.

"Popular vote" has become just that - a popularity contest, with little concern for the candidate's qualifications for the job. It's not working well, so what better method could be conceived for this century?

Well, you have me there. Should we impose some level of education in who gets to vote? I would predict that you would not go for that since the current trop among your more right wing politicians seems to be that the more educated are more liberal and liberal has become anathema in the US so what do you suggest?

[Forest_Dump]

Some women are actually smarter than the average man
,
actually from my experience they all are ;!

From my experience with marking university students, I think you are much closer to the truth that you would think (although granted, my interpretation is that the women are more motivated and work harder).

[Fuqin]

although granted, my interpretation is that the women are more motivated and work harder).

The glass ceiling, roof!!!

[JoeA]

Forest,

I will plead to a charge of being a bit sesquipedalian, I do come by it honestly but please, surely not pleonastic. Or, perhaps you trying to say that I am engaging in circumlocution, I hope not. In any case, I do not advocate following anachronistic practices of a bygone era, no matter how romantic to look back upon. I only advocate that we avail ourselves to philosophical principals of organization and governance that have been shown to produce more desirable social outcomes than others. We should resist the temptation to overthrow a principal simply due to its age; this is, as Hayek informs us, fatal conceit.

Best regards,

Joe

[mtbturtle]

Certainly. Certainly. The best answer to our stumbling US Postal Service is a return to the Post Road system.

how would that work?

[CanadysPeak]

Certainly. Certainly. The best answer to our stumbling US Postal Service is a return to the Post Road system.

how would that work?

That's where letters would travel only along major roads with mileposts on them (think Interstates) and the postage would be per mile as indicated by the mileposts. If they had any letters for you in Milwaukee, they'd put a notice in the newspaper. It was good enough for John Adams, and it'll be good enough again.

[mtbturtle]

They could send you an email that you have a letter :)

[Paul Anthony]

Some women are actually smarter than the average man, so they have as much right to vote as their male counterparts.

*blink*

I have a right to vote because *some* women are smarter than the average man???? that's the basis for my rights? that doesn't sound right at all to me.

I was responding to Forest's post, where he said "Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way)." I assume that was tongue-in-cheek, as was my response.

Get a sense of humor!

[Paul Anthony]

They could send you an email that you have a letter :)

LOL

No, it's worse than that. True Story: I applied for Medicare on-line and dutifully provided my e-mail address. The Social Security Department mailed me a letter telling me they had received my application and....they would be mailing me another letter.

I guess that's how the government plans on keeping the Post Office in business.

[Forest_Dump]

I was responding to Forest's post, where he said "Specifically slaves, plebs and of course women (who certainly didn't contribute to the economy in any way)." I assume that was tongue-in-cheek, as was my response.

Well I do kind of hope that most here know me well enough that I now accept that women, plebs and slaves should be allowed to vote too. Democracy has evolved from its early days. I'm just not so sure business people, tradesmen, gladiators or show business folk should also get that privilege. There do need to be some limits.

[mtbturtle]

Paul,

It was not obvious you were joking and were suggesting placing some kind of limits on voting, democracy.

[Paul Anthony]

Paul,

It was not obvious you were joking and were suggesting placing some kind of limits on voting, democracy.

Not to belabor the point, but why would you assume Forest was joking, but assume I was serious?

I'm a FISCAL conservative, but a SOCIAL liberal. :)

[mtbturtle]

Paul,

Forest's comments were not on my mind when I asked you so he had nothing to do with my comments.

You have some eclectic views. In the past as I recall you've supported legislation that limits voter registration and went along Republican lines there. You've also surprised me on a number of occasions considering/supporting views that don't really fit with the fiscal/social lines nor with libertarian positions which you also have aligned with. I didn't think you were talking about restricting voting for women, but I would not put it past you to want to some how limit democratic participation by limiting who could vote - such as intelligence, education, income test. Such things might seem reasonable to you, but I don't know on what basis, if any, you would establish the right to vote.

Democracy and a popular vote seems to be taking a beating here. Do any of the problems with "the system" really have anything to do with the democratic aspects? That's one of our strengths not flaws.

[Paul Anthony]

...but I would not put it past you to want to some how limit democratic participation by limiting who could vote - such as intelligence, education, income test. Such things might seem reasonable to you, but I don't know on what basis, if any, you would establish the right to vote.

Your personal opinion of me aside, it is an issue worthy of debate, and I hope others will join in.

My frustration with the process (and the outcome) of elections has led me to wonder if some limitation on voting rights would be justified, but there is no reasonable formula I can think of that would better than one-person, one-vote. An intelligence test? No, one's IQ does not assure that one has knowledge of the issues. Likewise, education. Is someone with a PHD in medicine better suited to make financial decisions? Why? And income...Should we trust a pro football player to choose our elected officials? I stand firm on my position that only citizens should be allowed to vote, but efforts to ensure that voters are citizens has run up against quite a bit of opposition.

Democracy works best when employed by an informed electorate, but lately it seems not even the candidates are all that well informed! While I don't condone an intelligence test for voters, could we consider one for candidates? :)

[Serpent]

Oh, it's crumbling. not for lack of funds, though. For incohesion. Because its realities are so far removed from its self-images that nobody has any idea what's going on.

That may be a legitimate point to argue. We have talked before about how myths define a society. Certainly the possibility exists that, if those myths stray too far from reality, the society becomes disfunctional. Could you elaborate on your point, please?

I would love to, but maybe not here, because it's too large a subject, too far off topic.
In brief:
psychologically: America imagines itself as happy, tolerant, law-abiding, resourceful and clever, while in fact, the vast majority of the people are deprived of a decent education and system of justice; they're set one faction, one ethnic group, one gender, one class, one region against another every minute of the day; they are systematically desensitized to violence and goaded to aggression and competition; they are bullied and frightened into global and local paranoia of epidemic proportions.
politically: A political structure works, as long as the overwhelming majority of its members, an overwhelming majority of the time, act according to the tenets of the mission statement (founding document, constitution, rules of the game...) It doesn't matter whether the structure is monarchy or anarchy, theocracy or secular republic; doesn't matter whether they're cannibals or strict vegans; whether they believe in the return of the moon dragon or string theory... just so they're mostly on the same page and honest.
As soon as the ruling elite begin to deviate from their sworn duty, the structure begins to lose cohesion. The aristocracy shirks its obligations, then judges take bribes, builders substitute shoddy material; effluent is dumped in rivers, merchants use rigged scales... and it all goes to hell in a handbasket.

[Fuqin]

one's IQ does not assure that one has knowledge of the issues.

Agreed but I might add that what’s being sold and what is purchase is not only diluted but may in fact be bogus.
also ‘issues’ are mere advertising regardless of ones understanding of them, no amount of intelligence or facile vantage has any consequence for a happier world, when we vote we just choose a lesser evil whatever your dislike may be , the only thing that makes significant change in society is civil rebellion IMHO…

[mtbturtle]

Paul,

Fear of the masses is nothing new. Elites try to limit the people's power, influence and often employ fear to get the masses to go alone. Machiavelli noted it was better to be feared than loved. Plato proposed a Guardian class to look after us. The US framers saw danger in an unbridled democracy which is among the reasons we have things like the Bill of Rights and a Constitution and they also didn't invited everybody to the party.

Limiting democracy more so than we do already would only push towards dictatorship not serve to protect us from it. That is what we were trying to avoid isn't it?

We already disenfranchise a number of citizens that are difficult to justify or questionable when it comes to voting rights - such as felons who have served their time and those with impaired cognitive abilities.

Republican efforts to restrict voting right, suppress voting is not because we have some grave threat to our democracy from rampant voter fraud. That's a myth. Republicans are wiping up fear. They are also quite willing to stir racist sentiments and economic anxieties while they opportunistic target minorities with such restrictions in the hopes of producing better outcomes for them.

I don't see who is voting as a problem, looking to disenfranchise more people is not a solution, particularly if you are trying to avoid dictatorship!

I already do an intelligence test for candidates and it is among the many reasons I haven't voted Republican for federal elections in years. The latest Republican contenders bring tears to my eyes and I keep wondering how much lower they can dip.

[mtbturtle]

We can split the myth discussion if folks want let me know.

I'll toss out a few myths regarding US (besides that it is questionable if we've achieved democracy).

1. taxes are an illegitimate, unconstitutional way to raise revenue
2. high taxes = bad economy
3. low taxes = good economy
4. raising taxes is unjustified, they are historically way to high already.

We've had much higher tax rates in the past and the republic was just fine and so was the economy. High tax rates and great economic growth co-existed in the past.

[Paul Anthony]

We've had much higher tax rates in the past and the republic was just fine and so was the economy. High tax rates and great economic growth co-existed in the past.

But, as Forest has pointed out, that was before "globalization", when the US enjoyed a closed economy.

It's a new game now. It requires a new method of funding government. A national retail sales tax would be superior to income tax.

[mtbturtle]

We've had much higher tax rates in the past and the republic was just fine and so was the economy. High tax rates and great economic growth co-existed in the past.

But, as Forest has pointed out, that was before "globalization", when the US enjoyed a closed economy.

It's a new game now. It requires a new method of funding government. A national retail sales tax would be superior to income tax.

Superior how? by what criteria? what's the connection to the global economy?

I'll agree that the global economy changes things, but the global economy is not that new and we've had higher taxes even in the recent past. As it is the Republicans won't even consider raising them, all the while telling us the world is going to end because we won't...I mean can't, we just can not do it!

[JoeA]

Fellow Interlocutors,

I started with the Tytler quote, not to setup a rhetorical question, but in the hopes of commencing a serious discussion. Apart from the puerile digression into over generalizations about the relative intelligence of man versus women, I would to thank my fellow interlocutors for their expatiation on the subject.

It is axiomatic, or can at least be shown apodictically, that free market capitalism with some form of representative government does provide the optimal societal outcomes, but not necessarily perfect outcomes. We will never archive perfect societal outcomes because human beings are not perfect and it is thus dangerous to reach for such perfection. Surely, the objective observer can see that the human condition is much improved with capitalism and ‘democracy’ as compared to the alternative systems that have been tried. This is a dianoetic conclusion and I will go as far as to paraphrase from Churchill in stating that free market capitalism and representative government are the worst forms of economic and governmental organization until they are compared with all the others.

For those expressing disapprobation with the results of, and who are thus so censorious of, and so anxious to, overthrow free market capitalism and representative government, what are the alternatives?

Best regards,

Joe

[JoeA]

For those interested,

I have uploaded a file showing the phases in the life cycle of a democracy as adduced by Tytler. I added the time frame and the historical periods, just my quick estimate, further thought and refinement is welcome.
Best regards,

Joe

Life Cycle of a Democracy.xlsx

Excel 2010 File

(8.94 KiB) Downloaded 25 times

[Paul Anthony]

Superior how? by what criteria? what's the connection to the global economy?

Let me count the ways...

Income tax worked because it taxed all income - not just workers, but employers. Multinational companies that earn money globally have a disincentive to bring profits into the US. Ironically, that fact by itself would actually save consumers money, since corporate taxes are a part of the cost of doing business and are reflected in retail prices. But, a reduction in revenue from corporate sources requires a higher level of taxation on individuals. We pay, either way.

A National Sales tax is based on consumption. It doesn't matter where the money is earned. It is taxed when it is spent. And it doesn't matter if the people spending it are citizens, tourists or undocumented aliens. It spreads the cost of government across a wider array of people, ensuring that everyone has "some skin in the game". If everyone has a say in how we are governed, everyone should have a stake in the cost of government.

As long as groceries are exempt, it is automatically progressive. Those who spend the most, pay the most tax. The tax on a BMW or a luxury meal is higher than the tax on a Nissan or a Big Mac. No loopholes, no exceptions (except groceries), no way to hide. How much tax you pay is not based on how successful you are at earning money, but on the personal choices you make about how you spend your wealth. Your lifestyle determines your tax bill.

The savings rate in the US is dismal. By replacing income tax with a sales tax, there is an incentive to save since any interest earned is yours to keep - until you spend it. (Even though the current interest rates almost make that point moot).

[Paul Anthony]

For those interested,

I have uploaded a file showing the phases in the life cycle of a democracy as adduced by Tytler. I added the time frame and the historical periods, just my quick estimate, further thought and refinement is welcome.

Interesting. It is a possible scenario, but IMO not a foregone conclusion.

[CanadysPeak]

Paul,

Fear of the masses is nothing new. Elites try to limit the people's power, influence and often employ fear to get the masses to go alone. Machiavelli noted it was better to be feared than loved. Plato proposed a Guardian class to look after us. The US framers saw danger in an unbridled democracy which is among the reasons we have things like the Bill of Rights and a Constitution and they also didn't invited everybody to the party.

Limiting democracy more so than we do already would only push towards dictatorship not serve to protect us from it. That is what we were trying to avoid isn't it?

We already disenfranchise a number of citizens that are difficult to justify or questionable when it comes to voting rights - such as felons who have served their time and those with impaired cognitive abilities.

Republican efforts to restrict voting right, suppress voting is not because we have some grave threat to our democracy from rampant voter fraud. That's a myth. Republicans are wiping up fear. They are also quite willing to stir racist sentiments and economic anxieties while they opportunistic target minorities with such restrictions in the hopes of producing better outcomes for them.

I don't see who is voting as a problem, looking to disenfranchise more people is not a solution, particularly if you are trying to avoid dictatorship!

I already do an intelligence test for candidates and it is among the many reasons I haven't voted Republican for federal elections in years. The latest Republican contenders bring tears to my eyes and I keep wondering how much lower they can dip.

While you're on this subject, can you explain the electoral college?

On a more serious point, what do you think of the notion (not mine, but swiped like many of my ideas) that the Republicans have passed a tipping point where the base is so nutty that they now repulse the moderating Progressive Republicans who once influenced the party (Think Rockefeller, Dirksen, Brooke, Baker)? The nutty base, as they become a greater portion of the nominating body, choose candidates that are unthinkable for even fewer on the moderate "fringe", which then makes the nutty ones more in control, etc.