Democracy is championed as a universal good by the West, but we over-estimate its power to guarantee personal and political freedom, argues Roger Scruton.
For some time, the leading Western nations have acted upon the assumption that democracy is the solution to political conflict, and that the ultimate goal of foreign policy must be to encourage the emergence of democracy in countries which have not yet enjoyed its benefits. And they continue to adhere to this assumption, even when considering events in the Middle East today. We can easily sympathise with it. For democracies do not, in general, go to war with each other, and do not, in general experience, civil war within their borders. Where the people can choose their government, there is a safety valve that prevents conflicts from over-heating. Unpopular governments are rejected without violence.
The championship of democracy has therefore become a settled feature of Western foreign policy. In retrospect, the Cold War has been seen as a conflict between democracy and totalitarianism, in which democracy finally triumphed. And with democracy came the liberation of the people of the former communist states. Where there had been tyranny and oppression, there was now freedom and human rights. And if we study the words of Western politicians, we will constantly find that the three ideas - democracy, freedom and human rights - are spoken of in one breath, and assumed in all circumstances to coincide. That, for many of our political leaders, is the lesson to be drawn from the Cold War and the final collapse of the Soviet empire.
In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.
Democracy was introduced into Russia without any adequate protection for human rights. And many human rights were protected in 19th Century Britain long before the emergence of anything that we would call democracy. In the Middle East today, we find parties standing for election, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which regards an electoral victory as the opportunity to crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable. In such circumstances democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.
I had the opportunity to study some of these issues during the 1980s, when visiting friends and colleagues who were attempting to plant the seeds of opposition in the communist countries. These were public-spirited citizens, who ran the risk of arrest and imprisonment for activities which you and I would regard as entirely innocent. They ran classes for young people who had been deprived of an education on account of their parents' political profile. They established support networks for writers, scholars, musicians and artists who were banned from presenting their work. They smuggled medicines, bibles, religious symbols and textbooks. And because charities were illegal under communism and religious institutions were controlled by the Communist Party, all this work had to be conducted in secret.
The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party. By studying the situation in Eastern Europe, I came quickly to see that political freedom depends upon a delicate network of institutions, which my friends were striving to understand and if possible to resuscitate.
So what are these institutions? First among them is judicial independence. In every case where the Communist Party had an interest, the judge was under instructions to deliver the verdict that the Party required. It didn't matter that there was no law that the victim had breached. If necessary, a law could be invented at the last moment. If the Party wanted someone to be in prison, then the judge had to put that person in prison. If he refused, then he would end up in prison himself, if he was lucky. In such circumstances the rule of law was a complete fiction: law was simply a mask worn by the Party, as it dictated its decisions to the people.
Then there is the institution of property rights. Normal people in the communist state had virtually nothing to their name - nothing legal, that is. Their houses or flats were owned by the state, their few personal possessions could not be freely traded in the market, and their salary and pension depended on their political conformity and could be removed at any time. In these circumstances the entire economy went underground. No court of law would enforce the contracts that people needed if they were to get on with their lives. You might have a deal with your neighbour to exchange vegetables for maths lessons. But if one of you defected and the other took the dispute to law, the only result would be that both of you went to prison for conducting an illegal business. All transactions therefore depended upon personal trust, in a situation in which trust was in shorter and shorter supply. Hence society was riven by conflicts and suspicions, which neither law nor politics could remedy. And the Communist Party rejoiced in this situation, since it prevented people from combining against it.
Then there is freedom of speech and opinion. The freedom to entertain and express opinions, however offensive to others, has been regarded since Locke in the 17th Century as the pre-condition of a political society. This freedom was enshrined in the US constitution, defended in the face of the Victorian moralists by John Stuart Mill, and upheld in our time by my dissident friends. We take this freedom so much for granted that we regard it as the default position of humanity - the position to which we return, if all oppressive powers are removed from us. But my experience of communist Europe convinced me of the opposite. Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.
Of course, the opinions that are suppressed change from one form of society to another, as do the methods of suppression. But we should be clear that to guarantee freedom of opinion goes against the grain of social life, and imposes risks that people may be reluctant to take. For in criticising orthodoxy, you are not just questioning a belief - you are threatening the social order that has been built on it. Also, orthodoxies are the more fiercely protected the more vulnerable they are.
Both those principles are surely obvious from the reaction of Islamists to criticisms directed at their religion. Just as it was in the wars of religion that ravaged Europe in the 17th Century, it is precisely what is most absurd that is most protected. And critics are not treated merely as people with an intellectual difficulty. They are a threat, the enemies of society and, for the believer, the enemies of God. So it was too under communism, in which a system of government had been built on theories that may have looked plausible in the early days of the industrial revolution but which in the post-war economy of Europe were palpably ridiculous. For that very reason it was the greatest heresy to criticise them.
Finally, there is legitimate opposition. This was perhaps the greatest casualty of communism as it afflicted Europe. When Lenin imposed the communist system on Russia it was in the form of a top-down dictatorship, in which orders were passed down to the ranks below. It was a kind of military government, and opposition could no more unite against it than soldiers in the ranks can unite against their commanders. In times of emergency this kind of discipline is perhaps necessary. But it is the opposite of civilised government.
It has been assumed in this country from the time of the Anglo-Saxons that political decisions are taken in council, after hearing all sides to the question, and taking note of the many interests that must be reconciled. Long before the advent of democracy, our parliament divided into government and opposition, and except in stressful periods during the 16th and 17th Centuries it was acknowledged that government without opposition is without any corrective when things go wrong. That is what we saw in the Soviet Union and its empire - a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future.
In the underground universities of communist Europe, my friends and colleagues studied those things, and prepared themselves for the hoped-for day when the Communist Party, having starved itself of every rational input, would finally give up the ghost. And the lessons that they learned need to be learned again today, as our politicians lead us forth under the banner of democracy, without pausing to examine what democracy actually requires.
I particularly liked this quote from alongside the article.
Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"
Democracy is championed as a universal good by the West, but we over-estimate its power to guarantee personal and political freedom, argues Roger Scruton.
For some time, the leading Western nations have acted upon the assumption that democracy is the solution to political conflict, and that the ultimate goal of foreign policy must be to encourage the emergence of democracy in countries which have not yet enjoyed its benefits. And they continue to adhere to this assumption, even when considering events in the Middle East today. We can easily sympathise with it. For democracies do not, in general, go to war with each other, and do not, in general experience, civil war within their borders. Where the people can choose their government, there is a safety valve that prevents conflicts from over-heating. Unpopular governments are rejected without violence.
The championship of democracy has therefore become a settled feature of Western foreign policy. In retrospect, the Cold War has been seen as a conflict between democracy and totalitarianism, in which democracy finally triumphed. And with democracy came the liberation of the people of the former communist states. Where there had been tyranny and oppression, there was now freedom and human rights. And if we study the words of Western politicians, we will constantly find that the three ideas - democracy, freedom and human rights - are spoken of in one breath, and assumed in all circumstances to coincide. That, for many of our political leaders, is the lesson to be drawn from the Cold War and the final collapse of the Soviet empire.
In my view, the idea that there is a single, one-size-fits-all solution to social and political conflict around the world, and that democracy is the name of it, is based on a disregard of historical and cultural conditions, and a failure to see that democracy is only made possible by other and more deeply hidden institutions. And while we are willing to accept that democracy goes hand in hand with individual freedom and the protection of human rights, we often fail to realise that these three things are three things, not one, and that it is only under certain conditions that they coincide.
Democracy was introduced into Russia without any adequate protection for human rights. And many human rights were protected in 19th Century Britain long before the emergence of anything that we would call democracy. In the Middle East today, we find parties standing for election, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which regards an electoral victory as the opportunity to crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable. In such circumstances democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.
I had the opportunity to study some of these issues during the 1980s, when visiting friends and colleagues who were attempting to plant the seeds of opposition in the communist countries. These were public-spirited citizens, who ran the risk of arrest and imprisonment for activities which you and I would regard as entirely innocent. They ran classes for young people who had been deprived of an education on account of their parents' political profile. They established support networks for writers, scholars, musicians and artists who were banned from presenting their work. They smuggled medicines, bibles, religious symbols and textbooks. And because charities were illegal under communism and religious institutions were controlled by the Communist Party, all this work had to be conducted in secret.
The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party. By studying the situation in Eastern Europe, I came quickly to see that political freedom depends upon a delicate network of institutions, which my friends were striving to understand and if possible to resuscitate.
So what are these institutions? First among them is judicial independence. In every case where the Communist Party had an interest, the judge was under instructions to deliver the verdict that the Party required. It didn't matter that there was no law that the victim had breached. If necessary, a law could be invented at the last moment. If the Party wanted someone to be in prison, then the judge had to put that person in prison. If he refused, then he would end up in prison himself, if he was lucky. In such circumstances the rule of law was a complete fiction: law was simply a mask worn by the Party, as it dictated its decisions to the people.
Then there is the institution of property rights. Normal people in the communist state had virtually nothing to their name - nothing legal, that is. Their houses or flats were owned by the state, their few personal possessions could not be freely traded in the market, and their salary and pension depended on their political conformity and could be removed at any time. In these circumstances the entire economy went underground. No court of law would enforce the contracts that people needed if they were to get on with their lives. You might have a deal with your neighbour to exchange vegetables for maths lessons. But if one of you defected and the other took the dispute to law, the only result would be that both of you went to prison for conducting an illegal business. All transactions therefore depended upon personal trust, in a situation in which trust was in shorter and shorter supply. Hence society was riven by conflicts and suspicions, which neither law nor politics could remedy. And the Communist Party rejoiced in this situation, since it prevented people from combining against it.
Then there is freedom of speech and opinion. The freedom to entertain and express opinions, however offensive to others, has been regarded since Locke in the 17th Century as the pre-condition of a political society. This freedom was enshrined in the US constitution, defended in the face of the Victorian moralists by John Stuart Mill, and upheld in our time by my dissident friends. We take this freedom so much for granted that we regard it as the default position of humanity - the position to which we return, if all oppressive powers are removed from us. But my experience of communist Europe convinced me of the opposite. Orthodoxy, conformity and the hounding of the dissident define the default position of mankind, and there is no reason to think that democracies are any different in this respect from Islamic theocracies or one-party totalitarian states.
Of course, the opinions that are suppressed change from one form of society to another, as do the methods of suppression. But we should be clear that to guarantee freedom of opinion goes against the grain of social life, and imposes risks that people may be reluctant to take. For in criticising orthodoxy, you are not just questioning a belief - you are threatening the social order that has been built on it. Also, orthodoxies are the more fiercely protected the more vulnerable they are.
Both those principles are surely obvious from the reaction of Islamists to criticisms directed at their religion. Just as it was in the wars of religion that ravaged Europe in the 17th Century, it is precisely what is most absurd that is most protected. And critics are not treated merely as people with an intellectual difficulty. They are a threat, the enemies of society and, for the believer, the enemies of God. So it was too under communism, in which a system of government had been built on theories that may have looked plausible in the early days of the industrial revolution but which in the post-war economy of Europe were palpably ridiculous. For that very reason it was the greatest heresy to criticise them.
Finally, there is legitimate opposition. This was perhaps the greatest casualty of communism as it afflicted Europe. When Lenin imposed the communist system on Russia it was in the form of a top-down dictatorship, in which orders were passed down to the ranks below. It was a kind of military government, and opposition could no more unite against it than soldiers in the ranks can unite against their commanders. In times of emergency this kind of discipline is perhaps necessary. But it is the opposite of civilised government.
It has been assumed in this country from the time of the Anglo-Saxons that political decisions are taken in council, after hearing all sides to the question, and taking note of the many interests that must be reconciled. Long before the advent of democracy, our parliament divided into government and opposition, and except in stressful periods during the 16th and 17th Centuries it was acknowledged that government without opposition is without any corrective when things go wrong. That is what we saw in the Soviet Union and its empire - a system of government without a reverse gear, which continued headlong towards the brick wall of the future.
In the underground universities of communist Europe, my friends and colleagues studied those things, and prepared themselves for the hoped-for day when the Communist Party, having starved itself of every rational input, would finally give up the ghost. And the lessons that they learned need to be learned again today, as our politicians lead us forth under the banner of democracy, without pausing to examine what democracy actually requires.
I particularly liked this quote from alongside the article.
Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"
There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.
I believe you're confusing true Democracy with a Republic which can actually work correctly. It's well known true Democracy doesn't work well.
Dude seriously this is from sophomore history...
LordofHats wrote: I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself
This is comparable to a lot of governments in first world countries.
In most first world countires the top 1% of said countries controls the majority of wealth.
There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.
Actually that would be an example of a democracy working XD The people with a vote wanted a guy dead so he died. Democracy, in action!
LordofHats wrote: I prefer myself a good old fashioned Oligarchy masquerading as a Democratic Republic myself
This is comparable to a lot of governments in first world countries.
In most first world countires the top 1% of said countries controls the majority of wealth.
Yep... that's true. In case of US, it isn't even a Republican vs Democrat thing...
One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo. Which is why any tax reform would really be political reform... writing lucrative loopholes into the code is one of the primary ways the political class confers favors. Furthermore, “targeted” tax cuts is government’s tool to implement "social engineering" mindsets... ie, "do what we want you to do and you can keep more of your money". Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".
There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.
Actually that would be an example of a democracy working XD The people with a vote wanted a guy dead so he died. Democracy, in action!
The main problem with (UK) democracy is that probably only 30-40% of the country voted for you, which means that the vast majority of the population are always going to be hacked off with whatever you're trying to do.
EDIT - And that's ignoring the sizeable chunk of people who can't be arsed to vote.
Flashman wrote: The main problem with (UK) democracy is that probably only 30-40% of the country voted for you, which means that the vast majority of the population are always going to be hacked off with whatever you're trying to do.
It wouldn't be so bad if we had a better system of allocating those votes.
Reptilians are really hit-and-miss as leaders, though. I mean, Bill Clinton and Reagan were pretty good presidents, but Jimmy Carter and Dubya were significantly less so.
Katy Perry seems nice, though. If we have to have a reptilian overlord it might as well be easy on the eyes.
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,
Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.
There's nothing wrong with a little debt. Debt is actually a great thing: I could never buy a house if I couldn't get a mortgage. Debt for a country can mean they are spending heavily on infrastructure.
Debt + budget deficit (ie, going into more debt every year) is the bad thing.
However, Cheesecat seems to have confused 'capitalist' with 'democracy' - AFAIK all current democratic states have a free market to some extent, but they don't necessarily need to go together.
As for 'is democracy overrated'?
The author is probably right that we conflate 'democracy' together with 'freedom', 'civil rights' and (as above) 'free market'.
Democracy means, 'rule of the people'. As opposed to 'oligarchy' (by the few), 'plutocracy' (by the rich), 'autocracy' (by one), 'theocracy' (by religion).
That is all it means.
In most societies, that means a rule by majority, by the 51%. Or less, depending on your voting mechanics. The majority can still be tyrannical against the majority; which to be sure is better than the majority being suppressed, but still isn't a perfect outcome.
The 'problem' with modern democracies stems from the size of modern nations necessitating representative democracies. Voting on every single issue with multiple millions of people is logistically impossible. So we elect representatives.
Representatives are supposed to, as their name implies, represent the will of the people. But by necessity in modern democracies they become career politicians. They come from the upper class, are educated as lawyers or similar. They get divorced from the people they are supposed to represent. Because politics is their career, they get focused on retaining their job. Because they are a single person representing a the power of millions of people in the nation, lobbying of individual politicians becomes a more cost effective way for special interest groups to sway votes, as opposed to lobbying a hundred thousand people to convince them of the same thing. If you look at your houses of government, are they an accurate reflection of society? Are there 51% female, 15% black, 11% gay?
Then you apply bad voting mechanisms which worsens the problem. In the US, 'first past the post' voting is used which is objectively, mathematically, terrible. No voting system is perfect (the a mathematical fact sense of the word), but there are many better systems for representing the will of the people than FPTP. Runoff or instant-runoff voting is superior and used in many other democratic nations. Schulze voting is probably the best, but can't be easily explained to the average voter. Gerrymandering (redistributing of districts to change election results compared to if the districts were a different shape) is another problem.
Proportional representation is a good way to fix this problem as well. Some countries use it, but most are still hanging on to the 'this is your personal representative' idea when I believe society has progressed past needing that.
Then, when you actually have elected the government, how do they make decisions? Should 51% of the vote be sufficient to enact legislation? What if 51% of people are moderately in support of a new law, but 49% of people are vehemently against it? How about if it is 99% vs 1%? Where is the line?
Is the solution demarchy: A jury-duty like system where representatives are randomly selected from the general populace? I don't think so. We choose career politicians for a reason, because the are (supposedly) good at navigating the complex bureaucracy at the upper levels of the country, and are at least a little bit educated in Law and/or economics. A great deal of people don't understand why the government can't just print money to pay off their debts - I certainly don't want them making policy decisions.
This is getting ranty and rambling, so I'll just cut off and say 'TLDR: Democracy is hard' and leave with one more thought:
In an election with 8 people voting and 4 candidates, these are people's preferences (each voter on a separate line, most preferred on the left)
ABCD
ABCD
ABCD
BCDA
CBDA
CBDA
DBCA
DBCA
Who should win the election? A would win in a FPTP election, but 5/8 people think A is the *worst* choice. C would win in an IRV election. B would lose in most electoral systems, yet everyone seems to like B quite a bit. What do you think should be the outcome?
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Incorrect England in debt America in debt, Europe in debt,
Saudi Arabia, Dubai etc doing very nicely thank you.
There's nothing wrong with a little debt. Debt is actually a great thing: I could never buy a house if I couldn't get a mortgage. Debt for a country can mean they are spending heavily on infrastructure.
Debt + budget deficit (ie, going into more debt every year) is the bad thing.
However, Cheesecat seems to have confused 'capitalist' with 'democracy' - AFAIK all current democratic states have a free market to some extent, but they don't necessarily need to go together.
No, I meant democracy I don't think Canada, USA, France, Sweden, Australia, Japan, Britain, etc would have had such a high standard of living if it weren't for the fact the people had some contribution to the leadership of their country but that's not to say capitalism doesn't help either (cause
it does).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Capitalism doesn't get you universal healthcare, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, right to education, etc.
One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo.
So, the tax code was created by democratic process, and is defended by the same method?
Bear in mind that an "influential interest group" isn't necessarily composed of people within the !%, nor does it necessarily represent them.
Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".
Tax reform and political reform are only the same thing if you are discussing the power of a given body to levy taxes.
Too much democracy is probably a bad thing. True democracy for example is one where 51% of the population could vote for the other 49% to be shot. Admittedly that’s an extreme example, but democracy can in its own way by tyrannical.
Representative democracies as we tend to have are essentially a least worse option. But even that are susceptible to becoming a tyranny of the majority.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". - Winston Churchill
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.
Is democracy overrated, why yes it is, people vote for the person/party that they want to win, then when they try and do something that influnces them in a negative way they immediatly cry wolf and run off and vote for the next person/party, and so the process repeats itself until all the partys become so central so they get more votes, as is happening in the UK with Labour (LibLab).
However if there is one party in control at least you know who to hate.
The problem with democracy as we have it in the UK and other similar places is there is nothing in place to force parties/individuals to actually stick to their election pledges.
When it is the big main parties doing it, they get enough votes to win seats almost regardless. The Lib Dems really suffered when they completely dropped all of their party's promises except the one no one cared about other than the Lib Dems but they are small enough and enough of a protest vote party that they can be influenced in that way.
SilverMK2 wrote: The problem with democracy as we have it in the UK and other similar places is there is nothing in place to force parties/individuals to actually stick to their election pledges.
When it is the big main parties doing it, they get enough votes to win seats almost regardless. The Lib Dems really suffered when they completely dropped all of their party's promises except the one no one cared about other than the Lib Dems but they are small enough and enough of a protest vote party that they can be influenced in that way.
The conservatives have given the lib dems the poison chalice. In disregarding they're own policy's, they've banked everything on the economy getting better before the next election.
Which it now seems like it won't. They've alienated they're power base, students, intellectuals etc. Thus weakening themselves, whilst strengthening the conservatives.
The conservative vote will be maintained, because these are the sort of policies they voted for.
One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo.
So, the tax code was created by democratic process, and is defended by the same method?
Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?
Bear in mind that an "influential interest group" isn't necessarily composed of people within the !%, nor does it necessarily represent them.
True... I just wished there were better exposure as to which groups/industry get said favorable tax laws... and which congress critters voted for it. In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.
Tax (political) reform would reduce the opportunities for the political class to throw its weight around. That's why it won't happen anytime soon, short of a "National Convention".
Tax reform and political reform are only the same thing if you are discussing the power of a given body to levy taxes.
Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?
You need to be more precise. Are you only referring to tax law?
whembly wrote: In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.
I'm not certain how that could be accomplished, as Congress is already quite transparent. I suppose we could implement Big Brother style house cams, but most members of Congress probably don't look good naked.
I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.
Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).
I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.
Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).
Yup.. in a way. With the current laws/regulation, do you think they've could've forseen how this would be used?
You need to be more precise. Are you only referring to tax law?
In this discussion... yes.
whembly wrote: In other words, we somehow need better TRANSPARENCY. That way the media/voters can hold congress accountable.
I'm not certain how that could be accomplished, as Congress is already quite transparent. I suppose we could implement Big Brother style house cams, but most members of Congress probably don't look good naked.
LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?
I did a poor job of explaining myself. Tax reform would involve altering how taxes are levied. Tax reform would become political reform when it regarded whether or not a body could levy taxes.
Adjusting the tax rate would be tax reform. Taking away a government entity's ability to levy taxes would be political reform (and tax reform).
Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.
Apart from all its civil rights issues, China's doing pretty well by cheating a weird form of Democracy (and Communism for that matter) into
"We're all the same party, working on the same goal, even if we disagree on how to get there - please don't shoot me - at least I have freedom to practice semi-capitalism!"
LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?
No, but it would take me less than a day to discover; assuming I was proceeding from written legislation. If I were proceeding from a particular Congressman it would take less time.
Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.
First, the word is "preponderance", but it doesn't make sense in that sentence. You probably meant to use the word "predilection."
Second, so long as a government has the ability to levy taxes it maintains the ability to grant monetary favors to certain groups, which inevitably involves "Social Engineering*."
I feel that the democratic process works fine, in small scale. I feel that the United States is a bit too large for democracy to work as well as it could.
I honestly feel that the State/County/City scale is where it works best. I don't feel that a single government body can accurately represent the interests and opinions of 300 million of the most racially, religiously, and morally diverse people on the planet.
As much as people like to say otherwise, Americans are not a single people. We are a mass of various beliefs, and many of those beliefs conflict with each other.
I'm all for a single unified DEFENSIVE military. I think if our country needs to police the world "to protect our interests" that we should instead look to self sufficiency. Lord knows we have enough oil to not need it from other countries.
We generate far more calories per day than our nation consumes. If our country really wanted to, we could cut off a vast majority of our dependence on foreign resources.
I feel that the states should be left to govern themselves, and that Federal laws should be restricted only to enforcing the Constitution itself. We are starting to see this, with certain states basically telling the federal government to piss off(recent marijuana legislation as an example). Many federal laws(and local laws for that matter) are very outdated, but still strictly enforced.
I think that one step in fixing that would be to have a 10 or 20 year term for any given law, and at the end of that term a vote should be held to keep or abolish said law. Our culture changes. Our opinions change, our emotions change.
I think our country does a piss poor job of utilizing the only system of government that seems to work decently on our scale. Sadly the people with the power to change this have far too much power, and are paid by special interests to NOT change things for the good of the people.
LOL... Here's an exercise. Do you know of any existing tax loopholes/write-offs/incentives AND which congress-members/party who voted for it?
No, but it would take me less than a day to discover; assuming I was proceeding from written legislation. If I were proceeding from a particular Congressman it would take less time.
Yes, I'd advocate to alter the tax laws in such fashion that it minimized the government's pre-ponderances to use it for "political favors" or social engineering.
First, the word is "preponderance", but it doesn't make sense in that sentence. You probably meant to use the word "predilection."
Oops... that is the exact word I was trying to use...thanks.
Second, so long as a government has the ability to levy taxes it maintains the ability to grant monetary favors to certain groups, which inevitably involves "Social Engineering*."
*Which is a bad thing, apparently.
Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.
Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.
Okay, Hugo Drax.
Social engineering is a natural function of government, which is a natural function of society. You can no more remove social direction from the state than you can from a community.
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.
Over time... yes, it can be a bad thing. We need a reset button.
Okay, Hugo Drax.
Social engineering is a natural function of government, which is a natural function of society. You can no more remove social direction from the state than you can from a community.
Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.
Why would having diverse opinions ruin democracy?
Indeed, democracy would be useless if there was any form of homogeneity of opinion.
Clement Atlee: "Democracy means government by discussion, but it is only effective if you can stop people talking"
Keeping the discourse going is one of the best features of democracy. That way, those who haven't got their way can still hope that it will happen in the future, and aren't faced with the choice of being forever discontent or overthrowing the system.
Cheesecat wrote: The most comfortable and prosperous countries in the world are all democratic so democracy must be doing something right.
Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.
Why would having diverse opinions ruin democracy?
For the simple reason that you can't please everybody, all of the time. If the diverse opinions made up a fraction of the overall percentage of a population, then it's likely it can be ignored or it's not such a big deal. If you have 20, 30 or 40% of the population with a fundamental difference of an opinion, then their views have to be taken into account. I'm not saying it's bad, but it sure as hell won't make it a plain sailing Democracy.
Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.
So, we're talking about taxation, specifically? And this whole thing about equating taxation with social engineering (as a general concept) was essentially a poor attempt at trolling?
Right... but make it harder to implement... i.e., new taxes / cuts requires super majority.
So, we're talking about taxation, specifically?
In this discussion...yes.
And this whole thing about equating taxation with social engineering (as a general concept) was essentially a poor attempt at trolling?
I'm not trolling... taxation isn't ABOUT social engineering. It's the tax LAWS (with the bevy of exemptions, loopholes, rebates, etc..) is the social engineering aspect. Is it bad... maybe, maybe not. Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.
But the fact that the responses had to be anonymous and locked away from public view probably tell us more than enough.... doncha think?
How are you going to get enough members of any political stripes to sign on to any sort of significant, tough changes to the tax system if they won’t even put their name to a suggestion in the open?
That's why, imo, this will never change... unless, short of another National Convention (which the status-quo crew abhors).
The blank slate approach is a pretty good one, though, and might actually prove to be the one place where a stymied and gridlocked legislative body such as the one we “enjoy” now would be useful.
So... to get those "goody tax rules" put back in place post-blank state implementation, you’d need to get a majority of congress to agree in order to put them on record. With that as the bar set, it should be very difficult to change tax laws except for the VERY popular laws, instead of the usual backroom "cloak and dagger" styled agreements. ( <--- yeah, over reaction )
Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.
The rich and powerful will always grant favors to the rich and powerful as they have commonality. You can orchestrate a revolution which exchanges rich and powerful group X for rich and powerful group Y, but that's pretty much it; at least in either of our lifetimes.
“We plan to operate from an assumption that all special provisions are out unless there is clear evidence that they: (1) help grow the economy, (2) make the tax code fairer, or (3) effectively promote other important policy objectives,”
The above is very vague, meaning that it can be used to justify nearly any special provision.
Could we change it so that it doesn't disportionately point the favors to the few rich/powerful entities? Sure.
The rich and powerful will always grant favors to the rich and powerful as they have commonality. You can orchestrate a revolution which exchanges rich and powerful group X for rich and powerful group Y, but that's pretty much it; at least in either of our lifetimes.
Of course it would... it forces the current congress-critters on record.
“We plan to operate from an assumption that all special provisions are out unless there is clear evidence that they: (1) help grow the economy, (2) make the tax code fairer, or (3) effectively promote other important policy objectives,”
The above is very vague, meaning that it can be used to justify nearly any special provision.
You do have a point... that is very ambiguous. Bleh
Repeal would be interesting if state legislatures would actually care about their states and not their parties. Not that the voting public is any different now. 10-15 years ago Oklahoma voted very much Democrat in state elections, but send Republicans to DC. Without the 17th the Democrat controlled legislators would likely have send democratic senators to DC instead to pad their own numbers.
Yes, it pretty much is. All Congressional proceedings are matters of public record, unless otherwise stipulated by statute or Congressional regulation. All this "blank slate" proposal would do is force members of Congress to justify the existence of tax exemptions in the course of Congressional proceedings, which you do not think are sufficiently transparent.
How do you feel about the 17th Amendment? Specifically, the calls to have it repealed?
I'm not sure.
It would make the Senate a legitimate upper house, but in doing so make state politics more important. I suppose that's a good thing from state's rights perspective, but the majority of state politicians are either insane or horribly corrupt*. After some time they would be chased out of office, as making state politics more important would draw more attention to the matter; but the transition would be hell.
I was once for the repeal of the 17th, but now I see very little benefit and a very high cost.
*Corruption (nebulously defined) and proximity to the people keeping you in power are directly proportional, and not just in government.
d-usa wrote: Repeal would be interesting if state legislatures would actually care about their states and not their parties. Not that the voting public is any different now. 10-15 years ago Oklahoma voted very much Democrat in state elections, but send Republicans to DC. Without the 17th the Democrat controlled legislators would likely have send democratic senators to DC instead to pad their own numbers.
It's not a silver bullet...
But I think on a state-to-national level, it'll curb the federal encroachment into what should be left to the state. I'd also argue it'll strengthen the 10th amendment a bit (because, now it's a joke).
Political parties ruined a whole lot of things...
O.o
Would you prefer a parliment system (ala, AU / UK / Canada)?
Yes, it pretty much is. All Congressional proceedings are matters of public record, unless otherwise stipulated by statute or Congressional regulation. All this "blank slate" proposal would do is force members of Congress to justify the existence of tax exemptions in the course of Congressional proceedings, which you do not think are sufficiently transparent.
It's a reset button dogma... it puts the issue "back to the top".
Maybe a better way is to incorporate a sunset date on all exemptions/tax laws so that it's touched regularly.
How do you feel about the 17th Amendment? Specifically, the calls to have it repealed?
I'm not sure.
It would make the Senate a legitimate upper house, but in doing so make state politics more important. I suppose that's a good thing from state's rights perspective, but the majority of state politicians are either insane or horribly corrupt*. After some time they would be chased out of office, as making state politics more important would draw more attention to the matter; but the transition would be hell.
I was once for the repeal of the 17th, but now I see very little benefit and a very high cost.
*Corruption (nebulously defined) and proximity to the people keeping you in power are directly proportional, and not just in government.
I'd agree it would be ugly during the transition... but, I'd argue that the corruption is in part of the 17th.
However, we need both individuals and state governments to have “direct input in the national government”... that is, individual votes for Representative and State Officials vote for Senators.
If the Senators were beholden to their state's elected officials, big federal laws would be scrutinized through the lenses of how well the states can implement/enforce/adapt these proposed laws. Case in point: Obamacare could've been written MUCH better had the states had better input. Instead, about 35 states are NOT participating in the "State Exchange", leaving the Federal Government holding bag to make the mad scramble on the mandated dates. (that's why we're seeing waivers and postponements).
Instead they are beholden to the machine of "Washington lobbyists, campaign funders, national political consultants, and other national advocacy organizations.” Or in other words... Senators don't really care about what the Boston, Albany, Harrisburg, Springfield, Lincoln, Little Rock, Atlanta, Austin, Sacramento, Carson City, etc crew says. So, hello "K Street".
The irony is that the failed attempt to pass gun control legislation by the U.S. Senate.... Who did they blame for the defeat? Not the Senate... they blamed a lobby (the NRA). Ironic, eh?
Parliamentary systems still have political parties.
As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.
Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.
d-usa wrote: Parliamentary systems still have political parties.
As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.
Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.
Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.
If the Senators were beholden to their state's elected officials, big federal laws would be scrutinized through the lenses of how well the states can implement/enforce/adapt these proposed laws.
They already are, which is part of the reason why 35 states won't participate in the exchanges.
Instead they are beholden to the machine of "Washington lobbyists, campaign funders, national political consultants, and other national advocacy organizations.” Or in other words... Senators don't really care about what the Boston, Albany, Harrisburg, Springfield, Lincoln, Little Rock, Atlanta, Austin, Sacramento, Carson City, etc crew says. So, hello "K Street".
They care about them in the sense that they represent voters or supporters. Getting their electorates to vote for them is important as the relevant Senators want to be elected to office.
d-usa wrote: Parliamentary systems still have political parties.
As long as you have political parties, and people making a living of these parties, you will have a system where people are more concerned about their party being in power instead of their party actually doing anything.
Not that I have any solution on how to fix that or how to create a political system without political parties.
Yeah, I do wish there's a way to lower the current barriers of allowing more parties into our system.
Um... so that the voters vividly remembers their tax outlays? Or, conversely, what exemptions/rebate/loopholes they were allowed to use...
I'm sure that most voters who care enough to use exemptions, rebates, and loopholes can recall how much they paid in taxes. The remainder would most likely file their taxes at the deadline and refrain from voting, as doing a thing associated with the federal government two days in a row is commonly believed to be annoying.
Well... I'd like more than that... but, even a 3 party system ought to be better-ish since it should encourage compromise.
Like say, a full-fledge libertarian party. (Green Party?)
What do you think? You're in the trenches so to speak with American Politics.
If you want a multi-party system the first steps are the elimination of the Electoral College and FPP voting, the latter of which cannot be done en masse without a Constitutional Amendment.
As to what I think: "...the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling."
Surely the constitution of the USA allows new political parties to be formed and run for election. The difficulty is getting them to a viable level when the two incumbent parties are so rich and powerful.
Um... so that the voters vividly remembers their tax outlays? Or, conversely, what exemptions/rebate/loopholes they were allowed to use...
I'm sure that most voters who care enough to use exemptions, rebates, and loopholes can recall how much they paid in taxes. The remainder would most likely file their taxes at the deadline and refrain from voting, as doing a thing associated with the federal government two days in a row is commonly believed to be annoying.
Well... I'd like more than that... but, even a 3 party system ought to be better-ish since it should encourage compromise.
Like say, a full-fledge libertarian party. (Green Party?)
What do you think? You're in the trenches so to speak with American Politics.
If you want a multi-party system the first steps are the elimination of the Electoral College and FPP voting, the latter of which cannot be done en masse without a Constitutional Amendment.
As to what I think: "...the big fish eat the little fish, and I keep on paddling."
I'd be alright with getting rid of the Electoral College and FPP only if the 17th Amendment is repealed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: States, some much more than others, make it hard to form political parties.
Oklahoma is home to some of the most restrictive ballot access laws for political parties in the nation.
Yup... so much this.
I want to be able to form the GW-fanboi party... whereas I'd advocate for paid holidays to support tournaments and subsidy for gaming munchies.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the constitution of the USA allows new political parties to be formed and run for election. The difficulty is getting them to a viable level when the two incumbent parties are so rich and powerful.
New parties have arisen in other democracies.
One of the big problems here is the voting system. First Past the Post is objectively quite terrible. It discourages voting for minor parties.
Lets say there are 2 parties, Republicans (R) and Democrats (D), and the election will probably be a 51/49 R/D split. Your preference is R>D. But now a third party Libertarians (L) is introduced, and your preferences are L > R > D. But you know that L aren't actually that popular, and the real race is between R and D. Lets say, 10% of people are like you and want to switch their vote from R to L. However if they do that, the split becomes 41/49/10 R/D/L split and D wins.
Voting more accurately according to your preferences in FPTP actually makes it less likely that your preferences are realised. You can't express that you prefer L>R>D, only that you like L. Giving rise to the phenomenon 'a vote for anyone except the ones who come first is a vote for those who come second.'
A system like Instant Runoff Voting lets you indicate that you like L > R >D. If L doesn't get 50% of the votes, any votes for L are given to the voter's second preference. So in the above situation, after L loses then his 10 votes go to R and R wins.
There are a number of mathematical criteria you can use to judge a voting system by. Some are mutually exclusive, and some of them might not be valid depending on what you want out of the system.
Shultz voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schulze_method) is considered to be a very good method - but it's too damn complicated to explain how it works to the majority of the population (just look at the math in the link).
To encourage more parties, the voting method needs to change. Not *just* the voting method, but it without changing the voting then other changes won't have the needed effect.
We have the same system in the UK. We have still managed to develop a number of new parties over the years -- Labour, SNP, Plaid Cymru, and Green Party -- some of these are minority / regional in appeal.
I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...
There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....
In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....
When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...
This is not a new issue….
Aristotle
"If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city,"
Jim Quinn on discussing the history of taxation and property rights in the United States in 2008
"Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Moments earlier, Quinn said, "Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: 'It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote,' but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any. Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote."
If you want to see where America is going look to Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa... They did forced land reform where the government took the land and democratically gave it to lots of its voters who knew nothing about farming. Less than 5 years later there was mass starvation...The country changed from being the bread basket of Africa to just being a basket case...People do not care for what they have not earned…
No one would let someone sit down at a poker table and play without bringing a stake into the game and we still call that gambling. Why gamble with a nation?
Why should anyone without a stake in America get to vote? It was a mistake to change that part of the Constitution…
As to felons not being able to vote…that is actually determined by the states. I think once someone has served their time they should be allowed to vote, if they own property (land of course)….
The extreme point of the “you must have a stake in the country to vote in it” view was expressed by Robert Heinlein in his book Star Ship Troopers. (Read the book, it's better than the movie)
Heinlein's Terran Federation is a limited democracy, with aspects of a meritocracy in regard to full citizenship, based on voluntarily assuming a responsibility for the common good.
Suffrage can only be earned by those willing to serve their society by at least two years of volunteer Federal Service – "the franchise is today limited to discharged veterans", (ch. XII), instead of, as Heinlein would later note,
anyone "...who is 18 years old and has a body temperature near 37 °C.
Democracy is too precious to leave in the hands of someone who has not earned it....
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...
There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....
In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....
When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...
I'm pretty sure America is a lot better place to live in today than 1856, but if that is means going downhill to you then you have a pretty strange way at looking at things. Also why should owning property be the qualifier for voting? Doing so will just misrepresent the population even more as
many college students, poor people, etc wouldn't be able to vote.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: I've been to a few countries, generally when things were not so OK with them...
There is nothing wrong with democracy. It's all in how you determine who is allowed to vote....
In this country you have to be a citizen, over a certain age and not have been a convicted felon and that’s why this country is going down the drain sooner or later.....
When the United States Constitution was signed you had to own property (land to be specific) to be able to vote. The last state to remove that restriction did so in 1856. The country has been going downhill since...
I'm pretty sure America is a lot better place to live in today than 1856, but if that is means going downhill to you then you have a pretty strange way at looking at things. Also why should owning property be the qualifier for voting? Doing so will just misrepresent the population even more as
many college students, poor people, etc wouldn't be able to vote.
That would be my point...
A large number of States started the abolition of property qualifications to vote in 1812 and finished except for one State by 1860. The last holdout was 1865.
Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.
Just to make it simple the national dept will never be paid off, the politicians have no reason to because a large number of voters really do not care...as long as the politicians give them free food, free phones, free college Pell grants.....fill in your favorite government giveaway.
This country will never get out of dept as long as welfare, food stamps and other handouts exist and those handouts will never go away if people can vote for politicians who will give it to them.
Why would debt be your only qualifier in how great the US is doing? What about technological advancements, increased life expectancy, more entertainment, better laws, etc ,etc.
Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.
I don't know of anyone of 18 years old who doesn't understand that you have to pay for what you buy.
Just to make it simple the national dept will never be paid off, the politicians have no reason to because a large number of voters really do not care...as long as the politicians give them free food, free phones, free college Pell grants.....fill in your favorite government giveaway.
Why would you assume people receiving government benefits don't care about debt? You could just tax people more while still keeping the benefits that way the costs aren't so bad.
This country will never get out of dept as long as welfare, food stamps and other handouts exist and those handouts will never go away if people can vote for politicians who will give it to them.
It's better that then having them starve and die cause there's no services to take care of them plus welfare, food stamps, higher minimum wage, etc if managed right can turn some people into contributing members of society who go to work, own property and pay taxes help alleviate the
What's to prevent the landowners from simply voting for stuff THEY haven't "earned"? What's preventing them from simply perpetualizing their power advantage?
Your entire premise is flawed anyway. I can't remember who here on Dakka said it, but it goes something like this:
"A poor person has significantly more interest in his or her country than a rich person, because the rich person can alwaysmove funds or assets somewhere else. The poor person is gak outta luck if the government programs he's dependent on go away". Owning land doesn't mean you've got a bigger stake in the country than someone who doesn't, it just means you own more land.
Monster Rain wrote: That was in reds8n's sig for a while, if it's not still there.
Thank you!
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.
I don't know of anyone of 18 years old who doesn't understand that you have to pay for what you buy.
There is a large difference between a conceptual understanding and an understanding of the reality of the situation. Also, I would counter this by saying I know lots of people 18 years old who don't realise what government funding means and why national debt even matters.
Just to make it simple the national dept will never be paid off, the politicians have no reason to because a large number of voters really do not care...as long as the politicians give them free food, free phones, free college Pell grants.....fill in your favorite government giveaway.
Why would you assume people receiving government benefits don't care about debt? You could just tax people more while still keeping the benefits that way the costs aren't so bad.
That tax people more part is where I think you only have a conceptual understanding of the issue. It SUCKS being a slave to the government for several months out of the year when you don't get as many bonuses coming back to you than someone who doesn't have to work their ass off so they can eat.
This country will never get out of dept as long as welfare, food stamps and other handouts exist and those handouts will never go away if people can vote for politicians who will give it to them.
It's better that then having them starve and die cause there's no services to take care of them plus welfare, food stamps, higher minimum wage, etc if managed right can turn some people into contributing members of society who go to work, own property and pay taxes help alleviate the debt.
That's the thing though, people who are on social welfare have a stigmatised interest in keeping those politicians in power as they are the net receivers versus net losers. For instance, if I am feeding you, clothing you, and paying for your medical bills and education you shouldn't get a say in who I sleep with or how much cocaine I snort while doing so.
No one would let someone sit down at a poker table and play without bringing a stake into the game and we still call that gambling. Why gamble with a nation?
Why should anyone without a stake in America get to vote? It was a mistake to change that part of the Constitution…
Every adult male in America actually does have a physical and tangible stake in the country, it's called the draft. If you look up historical suffrage movements the vote was given to the male population regardless of property because they were subject to conscription and the possibility of death or dismemberment in service to the nation. That was the original philosophical and political justification for the expansion of the vote. So your method is correct but your target is wrong, to vote a person must be registered for the draft otherwise you have a disconnect between political power and political responsibility/duty.
It's a point I've tried to make on dakka here a few times before (why countries like Egypt first need basic civil protections, especially on religion, before democracy can operate - because without it that election becomes a live or die affair).
ThePrimordial wrote: There's no such thing as true Democracy anymore because Democracy never works well. Socrates proved this to be the case when the people put him to death and the government had no say.
I believe you're confusing true Democracy with a Republic which can actually work correctly. It's well known true Democracy doesn't work well.
Dude seriously this is from sophomore history...
You've gotten your terms confused. Republic simply means that there isn't a monarch. I think you're thinking more of the difference between direct democracy and representative democracy, and then missing the point that the article isn't talking about any of that at all (because it's author is sensible enough to not even bother to tear down as silly a strawman as direct democracy).
Instead, the article is talking about the necessary civil protections and institutions that a society must have in order for democracy to function properly, and that in efforts to reform countries around the world we've often made the mistake of just dumping a democracy on there, without first establishing all those other elements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: One of the biggest "culprit" is the bajiillion-word tax code that was created at the behest of influential interest groups that tenaciously defends the status-quo.
Not really, you don't get rich by avoiding tax. That idea is basically a fixation of the middle class (because when you're middle class then a nice bit of tax work here or there can make a big difference to your net income). But to a rich person, while tax avoidance is certainly nice and a part of income maximisation, the real meat and potatoes is profitable investment.
I mean, think of it this way - in a world where the top marginal tax rate was 75c in the dollar and couldn't be avoided, then the people who got in on the groundfloor of Facebook would still be richer than God. But the folk who threw all their money at Bernanke would be bankrupt no matter how favourable the tax laws were.
Not that there isn't a great deal of good arguments for tax reform, it's just that tying tax reform to the concentration of wealth is a bit too neat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LuciusAR wrote: Too much democracy is probably a bad thing. True democracy for example is one where 51% of the population could vote for the other 49% to be shot. Admittedly that’s an extreme example, but democracy can in its own way by tyrannical.
Sure, and that's very much the argument made in the OP's article. It isn't enough to just have democracy, because all that means is that instead of using guns and force to decide who is privileged and who is oppressed, we use a ballot. What's needed is a democracy backed by solid institutions - independant judiciary, basic guarantees of personal freedom and so on.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: Could that be down to most of the population have very similar political beliefs? If so then I can believe that you would get a Democracy that works in the way that people imagine a Democracy should work. Many countries, including us in the UK and the US have too many diverse views and opinions for Democracy to work in the way we all imagine it should work.
I'd argue the opposite - that for stuff that really matters there is a hell of a lot more consensus than in previous generations. Wasn't that long ago that there was a genuine debate between political parties over basic economic structures. The need for the welfare state was genuinely debated, and on the other side socialism, actual real honest to God socialism meaning state control of the means of production socialism, was a position with a politically relevant level of support in the general population.
And the way we got through all of that, and came out the other side with a kind of consensus was through repeated elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: For the simple reason that you can't please everybody, all of the time. If the diverse opinions made up a fraction of the overall percentage of a population, then it's likely it can be ignored or it's not such a big deal. If you have 20, 30 or 40% of the population with a fundamental difference of an opinion, then their views have to be taken into account. I'm not saying it's bad, but it sure as hell won't make it a plain sailing Democracy.
There's a strange idea that government is only successful when everyone is happy with absolutely everything that is going on right at that moment. That's just not a useful measure.
Instead, I'd say government is successful when most people are happy enough that the whole system remains stable, and that it produces effective enough governance along the way.
In that sense, it isn't an issue if 40% of people have a fundamental difference of opinion, only if 40% (or 20%, or 10%) have such a strong difference of opinion that they cannot tolerate living in that place, and either leave or begin to attempt some kind of effort to force change (terrorism etc).
Then compare the UK to Egypt. In the UK there's a lot of talk about how bad the other side of politics is, but ultimately people do nothing but vote, and campaign for their side. In Egypt, there's enough at stake that people are dying.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I'm not trolling... taxation isn't ABOUT social engineering. It's the tax LAWS (with the bevy of exemptions, loopholes, rebates, etc..) is the social engineering aspect.
Nah. In terms of a description of what tax is, you can't get a description that's any more universally accepted than Adam Smith's 4 canonss;
1) Canon of Equity
2) Canon of Certainty
3) Canon of Convenience
4) Canon of Economy
The first one listed (and there's a big reason its the first one) is equity - and that doesn't mean everyone pays the same - by Smith's argument people should pay according to how they benefit from the system - earn lots of money pay lots of tax.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: If you want to see where America is going look to Zimbabwe, once known as the bread basket of Africa... They did forced land reform where the government took the land and democratically gave it to lots of its voters who knew nothing about farming. Less than 5 years later there was mass starvation...The country changed from being the bread basket of Africa to just being a basket case...People do not care for what they have not earned…
Trying to argue that events in Zimbabwe have any kind of relation to democracy is well, kind of deranged.
Why should anyone without a stake in America get to vote? It was a mistake to change that part of the Constitution…
They have a stake. They live there, their life and livelihood is staked on the success of that government. The idea that you only have a stake when you have assets is crazy.
Democracy is too precious to leave in the hands of someone who has not earned it....
Democracy is so precious that once you start talking about who is and isn't allowed to be part of it you've already completely fethed it up. Democracy only works when the state is stable enough that people don't mind losing a vote and waiting out a government they don't like for 3 or 4 years.
Once you get to the point where its okay to start denying people the vote for something as nebulous as 'not having earned it', well then you've got real stakes on the table, and democracy won't hold.
Your first mistake there is in looking at debt in raw numbers, instead of being a percentage of total GDP. Simply put - $1,000 debt to a person earning $100,000 is nothing at all like a $1,000 debt to a person on food stamps, and it's the same thing for countries - when GDP is 14 trillion the level of manageable debt is wildly different to what it was in 1865 and the GDP was much, much lower.
Politicians realize the new voters, not being land owners themselves, do not understand you have to pay for what you buy and the voters will not hold them responsible.
In the post war period only two US presidents left office with larger debt to GDP ratios than when they entered - Reagan and GW Bush. They suffered those budget blowouts because they put in place lower taxes, which were very much supported by the wealthy - the people with land that you think are somehow more fiscally responsible with government dollars.
But they aren't, and as a result your theory just doesn't work at all.
