[ExI] democracy sucks
jrd1415 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 22:57:51 UTC 2011
I think I've completely cleansed the last vestige of "democracy is the
way the truth and the light" from my meme set. Let others worship at
that alter. I've moved on. "None of that democracy stuff for me,
thanks. It doesn't agree with me. Multiple problems. I'm looking
for something better."
I can't stand "the stupids". Okay, so I'm elitist, have an inflated
opinion of myself, and am rude and insensitive. Yeah, yeah. Get over
What a flippin' idiotic system. There's just too much stupidity (not
to mention bias, self-interest, greed, vanity, and perhaps the worst,
misguided good intentions) for any hope of good governance. I don't
have the time to waste writing, and you haven't the time to waste
reading, about my notions of the multi-factorial clusterf*ck that is
democracy. Stupid voters vote stupidly. Smart voters are
overwhelmed. Powerful interests propagandize all voters, and
pre-select pre-purchased candidates. They also pre-select and
pre-purchase the experts who advise the candidates. There's no escape
from the kleptogarchy. Not in a democratic system, anyway.
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those
others that have been tried."
Churchill missed his chance, and now he's dead. What he should have
said was, "Democracy sucks. We have to do better."
Can we identify the pros and cons re governance in general, and
democracy in particular, and come up with something better, or some
suggestions, or at least get pointed in the right direction?
I'll start it off. What we like about democracy is that "we, the
people" get a say. That seems good when compared to tyranny where
"we, the people" only get to say, "How high?" It's an "Enlightenment
values" thing. Two and a half centuries later, having a say is
clearly important, but having a life is clearly MORE important. I
can't help but notice the irony that the tribal cultures we are
currently at war with have a tradition of governance by tribal elders.
Putatively ***wise*** tribal elders.
Which brings me to tribe vs nation state. The small tribal unit is
the "natural" social form for humans. The tribal leader has personal
contact and a human relationship with "his" people. The nation state
on the other hand is a gathering together of large numbers of diverse
"tribes". Why? Because once you master the management of populations
substantially larger than a tribe -- think Roman Empire -- then you
mobilize the resources necessary for conquest and expansion. At his
scale, no authentic personal relationship is possible between leader
and people. Rather, there is a leadership class, essentially a
leadership tribe. This in my view is the basis of the modern nation
state, and may explain the social pathologies that result from the
unavoidable human distance between leadership (upper class) and people
I like the idea (yes, Samantha, there is a Santa Claus) of an
ocean-borne society of small, value-homogenous social units (tribes),
federated(informally?) for the purpose of defense, and where questions
we would normally associate with "governance", are dealt with
'tribally', at the local level. This social structure would also work
Best, Jeff Davis
"We call someone insane who does not believe
as we do to an outrageous extent."
More information about the extropy-chat