Logical politics

[Mako]

Democracy is illogical, because it is based upon the logical fallacy, "appeal to the people". Therefore, it is an incorrect means to reach a correct end. But what is a logical political system?

[Dave Toast]

Appealing to the people is not a logical fallacy in the context of ruling the people according to their will. Rather it is a necessity.

The problem, logic wise, is that people aren't exclusively logical and so a logical democracy would require an informed and logical electorate.

If you wanta oltical system in which logic to plays as full a part as possible, the only alternative to democracy of an informed and logical electorate is an enlightened benevolent dictatorship.

[Mako]

Appealing to the people is not a logical fallacy in the context of ruling the people according to their will. Rather it is a necessity.

A democracy needn't be representative.

The problem, logic wise, is that people aren't exclusively logical and so a logical democracy would require an informed and logical electorate.

But if the electorate consists of people, then there's no guarantee that it'd be exclusively logical.

If you wanta oltical system in which logic to plays as full a part as possible, the only alternative to democracy of an informed and logical electorate is an enlightened benevolent dictatorship.

Perhaps an artificial intelligence would be reliable...

[Dave Toast]

Appealing to the people is not a logical fallacy in the context of ruling the people according to their will. Rather it is a necessity.

A democracy needn't be representative.

Etymologically, democracy means rule of the majority.

DT: The problem, logic wise, is that people aren't exclusively logical and so a logical democracy would require an informed and logical electorate.

Mako: But if the electorate consists of people, then there's no guarantee that it'd be exclusively logical.

Unless the people were enlightened. Even then, as with the benevolent dictatorship, there will be issues that defy a fully logical analysis according with all concerns and so everyone will not agree on everything and logic can only play as full a part as possible.

DT: If you want a poltical system in which logic to plays as full a part as possible, the only alternative to democracy of an informed and logical electorate is an enlightened benevolent dictatorship.

Mako: Perhaps an artificial intelligence would be reliable...

Even a highly advanced AI would be next to useless when it comes to issues that defy a fully logical analysis according to all concerns. It would be a useful tool though.

[brokenhead]

Etymologically, democracy means rule of the majority.

I have long thought that the idea of democracy follows your definition here, and as such, it is the idea that has the most social value.

It doesn't take much thought to see that there is no such thing as a true democracy in practice. There can't be. Our system here in the USA guarantees an elected President, but it does not guarantee that the president will have been voted on by a majority of the people who voted, let alone a majority of the entire electorate. Witness GWB's first term.

It was only a matter of time before we had a US president in office who received fewer popular votes than his opponent.

That the majority of the people can rule is either an illusion or a delusion. Here in the US, it is intended to keep the masses well-opiated. The limitations of democracy can be shown mathematically. I may wiki it up if I feel motivated, but I remember attending a small seminar on it years ago. In an election process of any complexity with nominations and conventions, it is almost inevitable that the general election is among candidates that are not people's first choice. In America, for example, the Presidential election is always between two people, third-party candidates not withstanding. What are the odds that either of the two people were the first choice of the largest number of the population? It seems more common to vote against one candidate rather than vote for the other, in a two-party system. This "Mathematics of Elections" seminar concluded that it was the two-party system itself that all but guaranteed the most popular candidate would not get elected.

I know I am veering all over the place with this post, from saying there is a mathematical basis for distrusting "democracy" to stating my personal views that the best people are not the ones who wind up in the general election.

But the two are in fact related. When the entire process is finished, we are left with the ins and outs, and no one really knows how they got there. You don't know which palms were greased, which campaign laws were broken, which illegal promises made, which political debts have been incurred and what they will cost the public, which special interests have jostled their way to the front of the throng milling about the public trough. All you know is who is in and who is out.

The American system may be the best one for any nation of our size. It has evolved into what it is, and is still evolving, which leads me to believe it may be the most representative system that we could have come up with. That it evolved on the basis of a constitution rather than being handed down by "divine right" is something in its favor. Yet calling it a democracy, or even a republic, is something we do to protect the status quo, such as it is - it certainly doesn't make it one. What makes me puke is our propensity for "nation building." How can we "export" democracy if there really is no such thing? The answer is, we can't. It's a flimsy excuse for Imperialism and Hegemony disguised as Foreign Policy. Worse, Imperialism and Hegemony should be more beneficial for more of the populace. I bet Dick Cheyney wouldn't have any problem getting a mortgage.

[Mako]

Unless the people were enlightened.

What qualities that would enable consistent logical thought does enlightenment entail?

[Dave Toast]

Etymologically, democracy means rule of the majority.

I have long thought that the idea of democracy follows your definition here, and as such, it is the idea that has the most social value.

It doesn't take much thought to see that there is no such thing as a true democracy in practice.

Indeed. Never has been, very likely never will be.

It was only a matter of time before we had a US president in office who received fewer popular votes than his opponent.

The first-past-the-post system is a particularly ridiculous component of any supposedly democratic electoral process. Proportional representation is so obviously more democratic but then the population don't get to make the rules, just to elect the rulers. These rulers know full well that the bipartite party system is in their interests and that FPTP almost necessitates the perpetuation of such a system as it marginalises other parties, whereas PR has the opposite effect.

Politics is supposedly the science of governing but it's only ever really been the science of being in government and staying there. Certainly in recent history.

That the majority of the people can rule is either an illusion or a delusion.

It's not really illusonary in principle, as an ideal, so it can't be delusional to believe in it as such. It would certainly be delusional to believe that majority rule has been anything but illusonary in practice, being as every large scale political system in history has been its antithesis.

Here in the US, it is intended to keep the masses well-opiated. The limitations of democracy can be shown mathematically. I may wiki it up if I feel motivated, but I remember attending a small seminar on it years ago. In an election process of any complexity with nominations and conventions, it is almost inevitable that the general election is among candidates that are not people's first choice. In America, for example, the Presidential election is always between two people, third-party candidates not withstanding. What are the odds that either of the two people were the first choice of the largest number of the population? It seems more common to vote against one candidate rather than vote for the other, in a two-party system. This "Mathematics of Elections" seminar concluded that it was the two-party system itself that all but guaranteed the most popular candidate would not get elected.

Again, the bipartite system is a joke. It has everything to do with maintaining the staus quo of the power structure and nothing whatsoever to do with true democracy. People have heard this joke so many times that the fact it is a joke no longer registers. At least it doesn't register consciously, although judging by the ever decreasing electoral turn outs in the western world, it seems to be registering subconsciously to some extent.

I know I am veering all over the place with this post, from saying there is a mathematical basis for distrusting "democracy" to stating my personal views that the best people are not the ones who wind up in the general election.

But the two are in fact related. When the entire process is finished, we are left with the ins and outs, and no one really knows how they got there. You don't know which palms were greased, which campaign laws were broken, which illegal promises made, which political debts have been incurred and what they will cost the public, which special interests have jostled their way to the front of the throng milling about the public trough. All you know is who is in and who is out.

Perhaps the only glimmer of hope is that, whilst we don't know who ignored ethics, broke the rules and how they did it, at least we know that they're doing it. This one definitely registers consciously throughout the electorate and is probably the main reason that the disillusioned public don't bother turning out for elections. Still, we are thrown enough crumbs in the western world to be merely apathetic about it, as opposed to miliant.

The American system may be the best one for any nation of our size. It has evolved into what it is, and is still evolving, which leads me to believe it may be the most representative system that we could have come up with. That it evolved on the basis of a constitution rather than being handed down by "divine right" is something in its favor.

For me, that's assuming an awful lot of integrity being involved in that process, integrity that simply isn't in the nature of large groups of people, engulfed as it is by the superior numbers of the lowest common denominators.

Yet calling it a democracy, or even a republic, is something we do to protect the status quo, such as it is - it certainly doesn't make it one. What makes me puke is our propensity for "nation building." How can we "export" democracy if there really is no such thing? The answer is, we can't. It's a flimsy excuse for Imperialism and Hegemony disguised as Foreign Policy. Worse, Imperialism and Hegemony should be more beneficial for more of the populace.

The US is a pretty large group of people and the US administrations are masters of manufactured consent. An electorate with a conscience wouldn't allow such a state of affairs.

I bet Dick Cheyney wouldn't have any problem getting a mortgage.

Didn't he not long take one out on 'The greatest material prize in world history'?

That this guy and his neo-con cronies have pulled the strings for so long says all we need to know about the greatest democracy on earth and politics in general.

Is it really worth any more of our time mate?

[Dave Toast]

Unless the people were enlightened.

What qualities that would enable consistent logical thought does enlightenment entail?

Amongst other things, a practiced single-pointed concentration, a highly developed logical facility and, above all, the dispassionate understanding of things as they are, sans delusional baggage.

[Mako]

Amongst other things, a practiced single-pointed concentration, a highly developed logical facility and, above all, the dispassionate understanding of things as they are, sans delusional baggage.

Do you distinguish between passion and motivation? What about sexual desire or hunger? Those "passions" are largely involuntary, barring chemical intervention.

[DHodges]

Democracy is illogical, because it is based upon the logical fallacy, "appeal to the people".

Democracy (and government in general) is not some sort of logical argument designed to get to truth; it is the control and distribution of force. The idea behind democracy was to take the power out of the hands of the select few - royalty and nobility - and distribute it among the people. You might say this was a de-mystification of politics - replacing some supposed divine right of kinds with a rule by consensus. The supposition behind it is that free men can govern themselves very well, and will generally only need government for conflict resolution, coordination of large projects, the common defense, and such things.

If democracy's failing is that it appeals to the people, the fallacy behind most other government forms is an appeal to authority. Democracy, they say, is the worst form of government, except for all the other ones.

Therefore, it is an incorrect means to reach a correct end.

You should probably elaborate on what you think the "correct end" is. In my mind, the correct "end" is to do away with government to the greatest extent possible, since government is force. The more government you have, the less freedom people have.

I find it interesting that Karl Marx also stated his end as the "whithering away" of the state. (I think his ideas about how to get there were very bad, however, and tend to lead to even more government control instead of less.)

But what is a logical political system?

Logic is a means to figure out how to get to what you want. What system is logically preferable depends on your ends. I greatly value freedom. Other people value other things more.

[Jason]

In my mind, the correct "end" is to do away with government to the greatest extent possible, since government is force. The more government you have, the less freedom people have.

Are there many/any things that you want to be able to do, or want others to be able to do, that are now impossible due to a lack of freedom that is directly caused by current government? If so, what are they?

[Ryan Rudolph]

My alternative for democracy is as follows:

Still allow the general public to vote in mediocre irrational men to balance budgets, carry out decisions to amend bills, allocate resources to government services and so on, but in the senate or congress, establish a rotating body of intellectuals that have veto power to vote down irrational congressional decisions through rational debate. For instance: if you had a panel of about 20 of the leading intellectuals in the country in different fields, such as ethics, philosophy, law, economics, biology, psychology, and all the rest of it, and you give them veto power as a collective entity - if they decide that the congress is being driven by emotionalism, and not rationality.

A simple panel like that one above could have easily vetoed the decision of the Iraq war, or the decision to give a billion dollar stimulus package to people during the economic slowdown.

I call it a transitional republic....

[brokenhead]

Logic is a means to figure out how to get to what you want. What system is logically preferable depends on your ends. I greatly value freedom. Other people value other things more.

But Dave you are elusive as to what "freedom" means, as are most libertarians. Maybe some people value the public school system, which attempts to fashion a minimally educated populace as opposed to a glaringly uneducated one. Most people dislike the roads they have to drive strewn with potholes, and they like those same roads cleared quickly when a heavy snow falls. And I don't suppose you ever needed life-saving surgery when you had no health insurance. I, for one, have, and received the care I needed.

No one likes to be taxed, but most of us accept it. What I do not accept is some of the little things. For example, I just received a "statement" in the mail. It was a bill for $29.00. It was from a collection agency worded in such a way as to seem to be saying "let's solve this amicably," while delivering the thinly-veiled threat "or we could do it the hard way." The bill was for a $5 per capita tax in the township where I live for 2007. I had no idea I had to pay this. Suddenly, it has been sent to a third party agency which is tacking on its fees as $24 in "costs."

This is not a little thing to me. The money is little enough, but the principle makes me want to kill. This local government levies a tax I do no know about, then without anyone's consent, farms the collection out to some private heavy and gives them the legal right to charge me nearly five times what the original tax was. So I have to pay them to threaten me!

It's much like getting a speeding ticket. In the old days in England, when the rural routes from one large town to the next were called "highways," the unprotected traveller stood the risk of being accosted and robbed by "highwaymen." These days, it is much more civilized. The highway robbers wear uniforms and will only pull their weapons if you refuse to follow their every command in a servile and deferential manner. Or if you are substantially darker than they are. In addition, these are not poor thieveing beggars, but people who draw a regular paycheck - one, by the way, that you pay! Not only that, but the entire robbery process is so refined now, they will permit you to keep your belongings and they bill you! They'll take a check! What gentlemen! And the usually won't force sexual favors from female victims, even when the females are travelling alone! We've come a long way, baby.

I guess what I am saying is that we are all libetarians at heart. But my head always seems to interfere in the end. I'm German, what can I tell you? It's the bleak Teutonic Weltanschauung: It can always get worse, and if we try to make things better, it probably will get worse.

[DHodges]

Are there many/any things that you want to be able to do, or want others to be able to do, that are now impossible due to a lack of freedom that is directly caused by current government? If so, what are they?

For myself, I have to say no, not really. It's much more a matter of principle than any direct infringement on my rights.

The government does do certain things that I think it shouldn't. Topping the list would be wars of aggression, like the current war in Iraq. I resent paying taxes to support a war that is unjustifiable.

[DHodges]

For instance: if you had a panel of about 20 of the leading intellectuals in the country in different fields, such as ethics, philosophy, law, economics, biology, psychology, and all the rest of it, and you give them veto power as a collective entity - if they decide that the congress is being driven by emotionalism, and not rationality.

I've had thoughts along these lines, but how would those intellectuals get selected? I think it would inevitably end up as a political process - and probably used the same way appointments to the Supreme Court are, to further certain political ends.

And what happens when the majority of Americans are calling for something deemed irrational?

I call it a transitional republic....

Transitioning to what?

[DHodges]

But Dave you are elusive as to what "freedom" means, as are most libertarians.

Well, it is a very general term, and there are both social and economic freedoms and restrictions. With a freedom generally comes a personal responsibility. Generally a freedom is restricted when some group is (actually or potentially) abusing that freedom by acting irresponsibly.

An example might be gun rights. Some people feel it is acceptable to restrict the freedom of people to own weapons, because of the potential for them to misuse those weapons, in committing a crime.

Maybe some people value the public school system, which attempts to fashion a minimally educated populace as opposed to a glaringly uneducated one.

While I agree that generally available (but not mandatory) education is a good thing, there is also the potential danger for it to be mis-used as a tool of indoctrination. The educational system in the US is not all that centralized, actually; it's generally run by local school boards.

Most people dislike the roads they have to drive strewn with potholes, and they like those same roads cleared quickly when a heavy snow falls.

I think a strong case can be made that road maintenance is a legitimate function of government - but I don't think government is the only way it could be accomplished.

And I don't suppose you ever needed life-saving surgery when you had no health insurance. I, for one, have, and received the care I needed.

No, I am exceptionally well insured.

There is some interesting commentary on this issue in Ron Paul's book (he used to be a doctor). He argues that the need for health insurance has been caused by government interference in the health field, as that not so long ago, doctors often gave free health care to those in need.

No one likes to be taxed, but most of us accept it.

Well, you kind of have to accept it, as there is not much you can do about it. I have been reading some on the issue of tax avoidance. In general, it seems the best thing to do is to keep a simple lifestyle, and reduce earnings so that less taxes are paid. (This is something I am currently exploring and trying to implement.)

These days, it is much more civilized. The highway robbers wear uniforms and will only pull their weapons if you refuse to follow their every command in a servile and deferential manner. Or if you are substantially darker than they are.

A government is very much like a gang of thieves. Even a legitimate government is under the constant threat of falling into the hands of devious people who want to control others (i.e., politicians).

It can always get worse, and if we try to make things better, it probably will get worse.

People often try to make things better by passing a law, and often as not there are unintended consequences, requiring more laws to clean them up. And you end up with a mess of laws that may or may not be better or worse than the original problem they were intended to "fix," which may have been lost sight of in the process.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Dhodges,

I've had thoughts along these lines, but how would those intellectuals get selected? I think it would inevitably end up as a political process - and probably used the same way appointments to the Supreme Court are, to further certain political ends.

Individuals would be recommended by the Deans of Universities and Colleges. The Deans would be pressured to select the best intellectual talent that best represents the school. The best choices would be your secular scientists, economists and philosophers. Basically, your Noam Chomskys and your Richard Dawkins.

And what happens when the majority of Americans are calling for something deemed irrational?

Then they are exposed as poor decision makers. It is no secret that most Americans supported the initial Iraq war because they were easily duped by due to their low emotional intelligence, and lack of skepticism.

Transitioning to what?

A full blown rational republic where each person that serves on the governing panel is an intellectual elite that works in the society in some capacity.

It needs to become common knowledge that average intelligence doesn’t cut it in positions of power where big decisions are being made. George Bush is a sort of global parody of most men in the world, although most are too unconscious to realize.

[brokenhead]

He argues that the need for health insurance has been caused by government interference in the health field, as that not so long ago, doctors often gave free health care to those in need.

Not so long ago is correct. My father was a family physician who did just that, before he became a surgeon. We lived at 53rd and Chester Avenue in Philadelphia, a corner row house. It is three stories. We lived in the top two and my father used the ground level as his office. He made house calls and everything. People paid how they could and if they could. It was common for him to get gifts like baskets of cheese or fruit or loaves of bread in lieu of payment.

It would be difficult to do these days. The overhead is staggering. Malpractice insurance has forced the simple barter-type exchange like my father used to transact off the map.

I very clearly recall that my father was typical in this respect. He felt that as a physician, he would earn a good living, better than most people, and that the society which afforded him this living would in turn get his skills gratis if the patient could not pay. It was definitely the old school way of thinking. He would not have survived today's financial demands. When he retired in the '80's, his office hours were still $10 a visit, up from the $5 he had been charging.

Not so long ago.

[brokenhead]

While I agree that generally available (but not mandatory) education is a good thing, there is also the potential danger for it to be mis-used as a tool of indoctrination. The educational system in the US is not all that centralized, actually; it's generally run by local school boards.

Right. And that it is so decentralized minimizes the potential danger you are talking about.

[Tomas]

Democracy is illogical, because it is based upon the logical fallacy, "appeal to the people". Therefore, it is an incorrect means to reach a correct end. But what is a logical political system?

Here's a short article that places in a nutshell what went wrong with american politics, especially with the presidency...

-------


The presidency is now an office with virtually open-ended powers

(snippet)
When we strip away from the process they are engaged in, the democratic mythology and red, white, and blue bunting, we are left with the spectacle of two people vying for raw power. They say they want to lead and inspire. What they really want to do is rule - us.

As the great political philosopher Peter Townshend said, "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?news ... 2076&rfi=6

Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc.




.

[DHodges]

The presidency is now an office with virtually open-ended powers

That is the problem. At most, you get your choice of which dictator you will bow to.

Who do I want for Dictator? Nobody.

[Ataraxia]

The HBO series 'Deadwood' was actually a pretty interesting look at minarchism,libertarianism , anarcho-captialism--whatever you want to call it.

[DHodges]

Are there many/any things that you want to be able to do, or want others to be able to do, that are now impossible due to a lack of freedom that is directly caused by current government? If so, what are they?

I answered this above, but apparently if I lived in California I would be unable to get bacon on a hot dog.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_det ... dline/3621

[Sage]

I've been researching anarchism for the last few months and I've come to the conclusion that it is the only logical form of society. That is, anarchism will be to politics what heliocentrism was to astronomy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

[brokenhead]

I've been researching anarchism for the last few months and I've come to the conclusion that it is the only logical form of society. That is, anarchism will be to politics what heliocentrism was to astronomy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm

Anarchy has gotten a bad rap over the years. We tend to think of people hurling Molotov cocktails and rocks at riot police. An anarchist is no more violent than a monarchist. An anarchist by definition is merely someone who believes that the best form of government is no of government. It has nothing to do with violence or lack of social mores. In fact, a true anarchist would necessarily have more faith in a person's own ability to behave in a rational manner without its being mandated by a Church or a secular government.