Why good people have bad politics
“Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. No one in this world, so far as I know—and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me—has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.” – H.L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy
In a previous post I said most people make little effort towards an informed opinion. I will expand a little on that.
When it comes to actually knowing politics and economics, some people will point out they are busy doing various things and have little time for studying these things.
Hey, aren't you busy? I've got shit to do ... Be that as it may, this is important
Serious, honest people, who are generally quite competent at what they do, find it a waste of their valuable time to spend it on politics, so they convince themselves they just know how it is. Or it does not matter and they can't change anything. These are the two default states.
They double down on this with what I call the “Hey, I’m doing my job!" misconception.
That's a trap of thinking that if they do their job right and if everyone else did theirs, including or maybe especially politicians, things will go great. This is of course hardly a guarantee, but sounds right, so they default to this logic.
The fact of the matter is that many people won’t just do their job right, quite the opposite. In fact the exact people who don’t to a good job in a useful field are the ones who use the time not spent doing something productive in order to climb through the ranks of organisations, both private and public. That's just the way the world works, it's not the skillful but the shrewd that gets to the top.
That is how a country ends up led by a bunch of politicians no one would trust with running and average business. It is how good engineers in corporations end up with incompetent middle managers – because the good engineers spend their time innovating, while the bad ones spend their time becoming managers. The system often rewards people with the skills that are required to be a good hierarchy climber, often opposite to competence at a clear job. You mind your business, but do others mind theirs? It is how the incompetent yet highly ambitious manage to obtain power over everybody else. It's a damn tragedy it what this is!
I will say this: people use completely different methods in politics than in their job. If you take a group of really good ... let's say plumbers, you notice they are all really good in relatively the same way, the reach remarkably similar conclusions in their job: if you buy poor materials from a firm, you do not buy from them again. If a technique works better than another, you use it. If a store is more expensive, you buy supplies at the cheaper one. Logic and common sense prevail.
These same people reaching the exact same conclusions in their job can have wildly different views on politics. You will find a socialist, a centrist and a libertarian among this group. Why is that?!
Well mostly because they do not approach politics the way they approach the job. One does not see the results of his actions - a bad vote let's say- as clearly as the results of buying bad pipes; one does not put as much research into economics and philosophy as into plumbing tools. In the short term, this may seem like a successful strategy, and maybe it works, until it doesn't.
And then what?
Furthermore, it is more likely to use feelings more when it comes to politics then when tightening gaskets - are gaskets tightened or even something used in plumbing? I don't really need to know as I am not a plumber. But while I can call a plumber when my sink is leaking, I cannot call an expert when I have to vote. And seeing that votes are given as if they don’t cost a thing – they don’t, not the politicians at least, you will sooner or later get one - why would I even bother calling anyone.
Just give me the damn stamp and I'll do the rest!
Some say that people should know they are uninformed and somehow defer to elites or the informed. But if you are uninformed, how can you tell who these people are? It's a catch-22, something that happens a lot when it comes to politics. We keep running in circles.
Now, I try not to judge people to much on their views, even though I know sometimes nothing of substance goes into them, but it is hard, in the end, to accept that these good people are willing to make political decisions - which are basically use of violence - without taking a bit of time to think things clearly.
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine
They are friends, they are family, they are people doing their best. But looking at the world, sometimes their best is just not enough. I'm sorry but trying harder becomes a must if you don't want to wake up one day, that your stamp is gone or useless.
This looks like a long enough post already, so stay tuned, same time, same channel, for more.
"I cannot call an expert when I have to vote."
That's not entirely true, thats what pundits are. Ok, you can't call them, true, but they are on TV 24/7.
The real problem is that the most contentious issues are ones that can't be properly answered, either because the answer is unknowable or because there is too much missing information.
For instance you can have two expert economists look at the same tax plan, and give wildly different conclusions as to how it would affect the economy. There are too many unknowns to really answer most issues correctly.
Well as a fan of Austrian economics I would probably have a pretty strong opinion on such a plan. That does not necessarily mean I am right, but the fact would be that there must be a correct opinion. How to find it is tricky. Sadly I think they even people who say they agree with Austrian economics do not understand it fully.
Pundits on the other hand? No. They rarely understand much. They can be entertaining though.
Yeah, Mencken was wrong about democracy. It actually is a good thing. Sadly, it no longer exists anywhere.
It's a common misconception that democracy (and government) are incompatible with libertarianism. (They need only be voluntaryist, or "as increasingly voluntary as possible" to be libertarian.)
The problem here is that most people don't think deeply about what democracy (and government) actually are. The website http://www.democracydefined.org makes a solid case for first correctly defining democracy, and second, pursuing it.
Democracy is not "suffrage alone." In fact, suffrage is a less significant limit on government power than the other "primary component" of democracy, ...proper jury trials! When either of these democratic limits is rigged, stacked, or corrupted, they are not "proper" and technically have then ceased to exist.
But that doesn't mean that, in proper form, those things are bad.
A democratic limit on government power is a responsive and adaptive limit based on the people's understanding of the situation/context. A republican limit on government power is a set rule written down on paper that is supposed to be followed. The latter limit is actually weaker than the former, in most cases. Republican limits on government serve primarily to act as "cultural guides" that establish "social norms." ...Once transgressed or ignored, republican limits are generally "gone for good." ...But empathic groups of people are never "gone for good," so democratic limits (like jury nullification of law," which repeatedly rears its head in news stories) tend to persist.
Which is better, to be accused of owning marijuana and be found not guilty, or to simply be pronounced guilty by people beholden to the law? I'll always choose even the chance of the former over the latter(dictatorship).
So what of the Konkinist ("agorist") insistence that "political relinquishment" (a form of Kurzweil's "technological relinquishment") and a faith-like belief in "anarchy" is required for libertarianism? Equally inane. Government is simply "any feedback-and-correction systemic control mechanism." When you make decisions, you are "self-governing." In fact, "government" and "cybernetics"(the study of goal-directed systems) have the same Greek root word, anglicized to kybernetik, or "steersmanship," from the process of using feedback-and-correction to control a ship's rudder and steer the ship.
How government is controlled or limited depends on the number and quality of the network nodes and their interactions.
But such control is certainly no worse than the absence of control, as long as a government exists.
Mencken was a bit of an elitist asshole, but i think he had a way with words, which is why i like his quotes, does not mean I fully agree with him.
I do not necessarily think democracy in itself is incompatible with libertarianism, just particular forms of mob-rule democracy. I will probably expand on this in subsequent posts.
It is important to define everything correctly, otherwise you just manipulate words and end up in an orwellian situation. "Freedom is obeying orders"
I do agree a constitution is only as good as the people who uphold it. But due to nature of society it is better than nothing - it can at least delay the authoritarians. Or to quote Lysander Spooner (I like quotes) “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” This sounds good, but I'd rather have a constitution like the US one then none at all. I mean at least the first and second amendments did some good. In Europe you can be arrested for "hate speech".
I should also note I am a big fan of jury nullification, sadly such a thing does not exist in a not common-law system.
This is why am I advocating for a better informed population as the best safeguard of good government. How possible that is is up for debate
One more thing. I bet some people in Turkey wished they had a constitution right about now. I mean I assume they have but not a good one ...
They do have a constitution but they also have a Padishah who does not give a fig about a piece of paper because, to use his words, he is "a martyr for Allah" and, thus, he feels he has every right to suppress, arrest, brutalize, and kill people because they do not agree with his Islamic madness. Turkish "modern democracy" was always a joke, but what we still call "the West" chose to ignore the facts in favor of "geopolitical reasons" and "security interests." Right now, the Padishah is dancing a dervish's whirling dance around freakin' idiots like Merkel and the Brussels mandarins... because of that early choice...
Hell you get kicked out of uni meeting in the UK for a gesture of consternation in a "safe zone". Fucking disgrace:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/
Wtf:
"This includes “refraining from hand gestures which denote disagreement”, or “in any other way indicating disagreement with a point or points being made”."
Don't belive the Telegraph, it is a rag these days, they are just a bunch of rabble rousers. It was a good newspaper 10 years ago when the new owners turned it into their personal mouthpiece
Safe space is bullshit though:)
Yes, it is but... it keeps bringing up ** true ** news stories no "authoritative" (read politically correct) mouthpiece would touch because they offend "oppressed minorities" not to mention the current darlings of the "progressive" lot viz. "irregular migrants," Muslim "refugees" and refugees, and all of the devout bowing to the Prophet.
Your views are very close, almost identical, to mine. Totally agree with your first 2 sentences of your reply. However, jury nullification exists even in our "degraded common law" system. The instant that jury trials no longer exist in any form (even degraded form), violent rebellion will be the only option left. That said, your clarification makes it clear we're "on the same team."
In my opinion, the opening quote by H.L. Mencken was the only thing worth reading in the whole article.
It struck a hard discordance, which refused ever to die down or be altered by all the squirming and pointless noise-making that followed it.
Ultimately, I think the author @ionescur would even agree with me; he gave it his best shot and tried to talk around the Mencken din, but in the end, like a babe with few language skills beyond "baa" and "maa", had to throw in the towel. Why must we be like this, my brother? We got nothing on that bastard Mencken. He's long dead, but his mind is nimbly alive. While you and I are the vibrant living, full of blushes and farts, but quite braindead. We have to try harder.
I've been saying for years our politics would be better if we made it a habbit to debate the issues like people debate their favorite sports teams.
I can respect opinions counter to mine when they are informed opinions.
Eh a little to much emotion and tribalism in sports though.
An informed opinion goes a long way though
As opposed to the lack of emotion and tribalism in politics?
nope. the idea is not to replace one type of tribalism with another.
Not sure if getting rid of tribalism is even possible though.
Attention is the key. If your neighbor likes the democrats and you like the republicans and you guys talk politics on a regular basis, my hope is these talks lead both of you to become more informed on the issues. Doesn't mean emotion can't come into it, we are creatures that feel emotion, it should mean however that facts .ur leading to certain emotions, rather than our emotions being the primary factor in who to vote for.
You begin your post with the assertation "...most people make little effort towards an informed opinion."
Although I really enjoyed your post, as I do any that challenge me to actually think and contain valuable content , this opening remark bugged me.
Donald Trump... repeatedly... "Most people say..." "Everyone is saying"....
Do you actually know Most people? What does this remark even mean? What are you comparing it against? Generalizations of this type is exactly the same rhetoric used by the politicians and political process you are criticizing.
Do you know why we don't have true Democracy? Cause we don't want it! Period!! Oh sure, we sort of want it. Just not enough to do something about it.
Think about when you really really want something... Can anyone or anything stop you from achieving that goal? Now imagine a critical mass of people wanting the same thing. Let's stop blaming the politicians and politicial process and start taking our power back. ... collectively.
The same thinking that caused the problem in the first place will not solve it. We need to begin a new rhetoric that is not reactionary to the exisitng one. Stop throwing the ball back, stop playing their game. Give them no attention. Just like a relationship or flower, feed them no attention or love,,, they die.
Things are the way they are because it's easier that way. Your point on that is very valid. Education cures ignorance. Again, why I am so excited about Steemit.
Thank you for your contribution and especially, for making me think.
P.S. There are models of true democracy working, it has been tried and tested... Credit Unions, Co-operative societies, Bhutan, fellowships like A.A.
Well as the saying goes, all generalizations are false, including this one. Off course I don't know most people, it was a rhetorical device. Based on many hour spend hearing opinions and by generally looking at the state of world politics. I couldn't have said 73% of the 245 people I asked ...
Why not? It would have been more honest. The current system and it's players and how they, as you say, use rhetorical devices, do not need to be our teachers.
They do seem to be very apt at doing what they're doing. Just because they're "wrong" or we don't exactly agree with them it doesn't mean we shouldn't keep our eyes open and learn.
Haha... Touché... But two wrongs do not a right make :)
As was long ago said, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal," which in fact "they" have, given that the vote upon which all others depend — self-determination — has been illegal in this country since the Civil War, never mind that it was the country's founding principle.
Best to back up, then, and examine the status, as in statist, quo for what it is: http://revolutionradio.org/?p=11424
This quote from your post captures the many ways the system gets jepordized:
The system was never tailored for ""working class people or for poor people"" alone. No one tells you the rules of the bureaucratic game ""(what you call office politics I call the bureaucratic game. Rich people can cheat code their way in by buying lawyers to create the laws and codes, by buying politicians to write the laws, and by buying the police to enforce them. Poor people have to scratch their heads and navigate through the system blindly. And the lie is brought to them that if they work based on merit then they will go far. But as your statement said, the real people who break away from the system and try to innovate are ignored and often times scolded; all while people who play the game are praised.
Professor Grabber captures your idea eloquently in his book ""Utopia of Rules"" and in this YouTube video, Culture is not your Friend.
Democracy is flawed by Design. The best approach towards real democracy is decentralized self rule. In that case people would take the best possible informed decision for their actions and collective future.Until that time though we will be governed by the herd mentality.
Democracy as we know it brings an Obama once & threatens to give you a Trump another time. It sucks.
Couldn't agree more. The very concept, let alone reality, of why anyone would want to bet on a two horse race, where both horses have the same owner, just different trainers and jockeys, has perplexed me since I was able to think for myself. Come on people. This is the best we can do? Seriously?
It's not even close to the best we can do. It is, however, the best we can do, given external control of the Libertarian Party by the FBI/CIA/unknown. I'm very confident that the LP is controlled by one man who is under external control. The dilettante "libertarian billionaires" then assume that the LP is "doing the best it can" when the opposite is true.
In order for them to really pursue freedom, they'd need to get involved with the LP, discover how it is being purposefully manipulated toward failure, and correct the problems.
Only John McAfee had the intellectual integrity to attempt to do this.
It's more comfortable to just be a libertarian billionaire in the current system. Also, correcting the LP involves a large degree of risk: What if the central bank kills everyone who bootstraps serious opposition against it? Most people like Charles Koch, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel are smart enough to see that the current system is sociopathic.
For all of the prior reasons, the USA lacks a serious libertarian effort equivalent to even the level of the Founding Fathers' and abolitionists' effort.
Couldn't agree more. None of us, are as stupid as all of us.
This actually isn't the problem. I recommend you read "The Wisdom of Crowds" by James Surowiecki. It turns out that, past a certain threshold in numbers, neurons (individually stupid) exhibit "emergent order" because they exist in sufficient numbers to "map to a pattern." True democracy does something similar, contingent on a few important variables. (For example, each individual voter must be truly able to select any choice, all of which have the same access to the ballot, ...currently something that isn't true.)
The problem is primarily that we don't actually have true democracy. We have sociopath-rigged-elections (elections that are statistically tailored to remove most competition) combined with "mob rule." Also, see my post on jury nullification to see the many ways that jury trials (1/2 of proper democracy) have been degraded.
The sociopaths in power know that they don't have to entirely get rid of options for freedom, in order to maintain power. They just make those options inconvenient and then that gives them the ability to blame the admittedly lame-ass and apathetic freedom movement for its own failure.
Voting is a big scam we have already elected 4 Prime ministers in the past 5 year here in Nepal, This might sound strange to you all but it has happened here. Some political leader here are so lucky that they have had a change to become prime minister twice in just 6 years time even after announcing that they are quiting from politics.