On 8.7.2011, at 8.55, Russ Paielli wrote: > On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Juho Laatu <[email protected]> wrote: > > What didi people think before the nowadays generally agreed idea that all > countries should be democratic. Maybe some idealists discussed the > possibility that one day ordinary people might rule the country. I'm sure > many others laughed at them and told them that such changes are dangerous and > will never work, particularly since they are not in the interest of the > current rulers, nor any other rulers that might overthrow the current rulers. > So reforms are just a joke and idealistic dreams like democracy will never > work. There would quickly be some new rulers that would kick the poor > commoners out and probably even kill them. > > > I'll probably get a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to > understand that democracy itself is almost worthless without Constitutionally > guaranteed individual rights (as distinct from bogus "group rights"). That's > what the American revolution was all about. The founders certainly did not > want a "pure" democracy. They know very well where that majority rule would > lead a tyranny of the majority. That's why they gave us the Bill of Rights.
I think we are on our way from laws of jungle to something more civilized. We can invent better and more fine tuned models on how we should operate in order to achieve whatever we want to achieve. This is not completely off topic since decision making methods are one essential component and tool in making our societies work well. > > The main problem with our political system today is that far too few people > understand what freedom and individual rights mean. The Bill of Rights is > just the start of it. Property rights are essential to any real notion of > freedom, and they are also essential to prosperity. When half the population > thinks the gov't should take from those who have "too much" and give to > others who "don't have enough," we are in trouble. Yet that's exactly where > we are. The greatest election methods in the world cannot save us from those > kind of voters. Yes, not too much of that, although most societies of course expect those that are well off to take care of those that would otherwise be in trouble. > > Are some CEOs overpaid? Yes, I think some are. I happen to believe that some > CEOs and boards are ripping off their own shareholders, and I would like to > see the gov't do something to give shareholders more say in the matter. But > the solution is not to just arbitrarily "raise taxes on the rich," as so many > want to do. People who don't understant the distinction are dangerous, > because they fundamentally believe that the gov't really owns everything and > let's us keep some of it out of sheer benevolence. If the gov't really owns > everything, it owns you too. One interesting question is if government is considered to be "us" or "them" or "it". I tend to think that the government and rest of the society (like companies) should serve the people, not the other way around. In a well working democracy we can decide how those structures serve us in the best possible way (allowing e.g. freedom and wealth to all). > > > Today many of us live in democracies and people can make changes if they so > want. Actually that was the case already before the age of democracy. Changes > were more difficult to achieve then. Now making such improvements should be > comparably easy. And despite of having democracy the world is not perfect > yet. Improvements are still possible. The key problem is actually, as you > say, to agree on the targets, and make a model that majority of the rulers > (voters) agree with, and that looks plausible enough so that people can start > to believe in that change. > > > The fundamental problem now is that too many of us actually want to go back > to a state in which gov't is our master rather than our servant. If gov't can > arbitrarily take from you when it thinks you have too much, it is the master, > and we are the servants. Why is that so hard for some to understand? I think this is a chicken and egg problem. If government is "us", then all the money it takes is because we have agreed to proceed that way. In practice things are more complicated, and governments easily become money hungry beasts that take and spend all the money they can grab. If we go back to the EM topics, good methods need good and simple and credible models and philosophies to allow regular people (voters) to make sensible decisions on which routes to take. One does not work well without the other. Juho > > --Russ P. > > -- > http://RussP.us > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
