On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:12 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 12/18/2014 2:05 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 9:07 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 12/17/2014 8:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>> On 17 Dec 2014, at 13:03, Alberto G. Corona wrote: >>> >>> Starting from the fact that The NHS was introduced by Bismark in the >>>> German Empire. for the same reasons that it is sustained today by >>>> "democracies": populism. >>>> >>>> Since the introduction of NHS in England no new hospital was >>>> constructed until recently. >>>> >>>> Democracy, an element of the liberal state, lives on premises that it >>>> can not itself guarantee. (Bockenforde). It is based on the idea that >>>> people will not act or vote for their inmediate interests but will vote >>>> for anything that maintain the common good forever. That is absolutely >>>> false. The only thing that maintain democracy is not democracy, but the >>>> morality of the people. That morality is contunuously underminded by >>>> democracy itself by means of the logic of populism and the formation of >>>> majorities that produce false and impossible and incompatible political >>>> promises for different groups of people. That divides and confront ones >>>> with others. >>>> >>>> It is based on the idea that a million idiot votes within an urn >>>> produces wise decissions. On the idea that consensus produce truth. >>>> >>>> Democracy is destined to be hyaked by false democrats that do not >>>> believe in democracy but want to abuse it from inside . They are the worst >>>> antidemocrats. And the responsibles of that hyaking are te dumb people that >>>> believe acritically in democracy. >>>> >>> >>> >>> I disagree. Democracy is based on the fact that people will vote for >>> their immediate interest, and that it will be implemented reasonably well >>> by opportunist politicians, and if they don't succeed people will stop >>> voting against them. (so it is not just vote, but a promise that you can >>> vote again if dissatisfied). >>> >>> Democracy is not perfect, and indeed it can regress easily to tyranny. >>> Like a living being can die, or a cell become cancerous, democracy can >>> easily be perverted and misused by bandits or ideologues. There is nothing >>> we can do about that, except investing in means (like education, logic, >>> reasoning, ...) helping people to not fall in the trap of the demagogs. >>> >>> It is not the system which makes bad people. It is bad people which >>> makes the system bad. >>> >>> How americans have ever accepted prohibition remains a bit of a mystery >>> to me. In this context, I am not so much for legalization of drugs than for >>> penalization of prohibitionists, and education explaining how prohibition >>> illustrates well a technic to kill democracy and its most important key >>> features like the separation and independence of the different powers, >>> including the press. >>> >> >> They accepted it out of Puritan theology: that this life is just a test >> and indulgence in any pleasure is suspect and possibly a sin. It's the same >> strain of thought that wants to ban any recreational drugs, pornography, >> prostitution, homosexuality,... >> >>> >>> But the institutionalization of religion, especially when the state and >>> the religion are not well separated is a deeper cause of the problem for >>> democracies. It is that mentality which has made possible prohibition: the >>> very idea that other people can decide for you between the good and the >>> wrong. >>> >> >> But people who live in a community do need to decide on some rules of >> behavior in order to live without conflict. The important thing is >> distinguish between a sphere of personal morals and a sphere of public >> ethics. This is the thing missing in Islam (and was missing in the West >> before the Enlightenment). The great advancement of the U.S. was not >> democracy, the Greeks and Scandanavians had invented democracy long before; >> it was the invention of constitutionally limited government and inalienable >> human rights. >> > > I agree. I am a great admirer of the american constitution. Sadly, I > think it eventually failed. > In my view the flaw is that the constitution still requires > interpretation. If it could be written in some formal mathematical > language, then it could be directly implemented by every citizen, > policeman, judge, soldier, etc. > > > That's a pure fantasy. The Constitution was written if fairly plain > language, but it could not (and should not) have foreseen every > technological advance. It said little about privacy, only prohibiting > "unreasonable search" because surveillance was impractical in 1780. > > Requiring interpretation, the state ends up being ultimately ruled by > the supreme court. Giving life tenure to the supreme court judges is a good > strategy but not a perfect one. Eventually we arrived at one of the most > terrifying scenarios that the constitution was designed to prevent: total > surveillance of the state over its citizens. The majority is ok with it, > and so democracy risks ending up in tyranny once again. > > > In the founding father's plan tyranny was to be avoided by having many > competing factions. I think they didn't realize that the way elections > were set up would necessarily force a two party system. And of course they > couldn't foresee the effect of mass communications: radio and television, > and its implications for those with enormous wealth. > > >
Perhaps what's needed is a constitution based on game theoretical concepts, with proofs that cases of disequal power or ursurped are inherently unstable and rapidly decay back to more decentralized and equitable distributions of power. Perhaps this property is already a part of the human condition, but a framework for achieving it without violence or necessarily having to change government would be valuable. I think this was partially the intent of "checks and balances", but the founders wrongly assumed the branches would always be antagonistic towards each other, rather than cooperative. What's needed is a system of checks and balances where the more power one faction accumulates the easier it becomes for other factions to reduce that power. The perennial problem humanity faces is that those with wealth and power so rarely want to give that up, and often find the best way to preserve their wealth and power is to seek more of it. All this debate may be pointless however, as traditional states based on territories, become obsolete once once there are individuals running in software. Henceforth they lose all ability to regulate or control: you can't imprison someone who can be reinstantiated elsewhere, or eliminate a program which can be copied/backed up anywhere. You can't tax virtual wealth, nor use laws to regulate the kinds of experiences others can have in virtual reality. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
