Is Democracy the worst system apart from all the others??

DeVore

Democracy has at its heart that every person's opinion should be given the same weight.

However, when I get sick, I give my doctors opinion a lot more weight then my taxi drivers.

Boards has survived well despite not being a democracy (it is in fact, a benevolent dictatorship). In reality I am not happy with dictatorships of any kind because the people who live there have no choice but to live there. Online you can simply go to a different site if you dont like our policies.

But this all skips the question: Should we consider everyone's "vote" as equal? Why? Clearly some people are smarter then others.

What would Boards look like if we used Democracy as a system to elect mods, admins etc... I dont think it would be half as good as it is now... but is there a better system of self governance?

DeV.

MrMicra

If you are talking about the society as a whole I believe that a society in which only a subset of people have a vote will come to favour the interests of those people and not the subset of people who cannot vote (typically larger).

If you are talking about boards.ie the question is one of emotional investment in the boards.ie project however that's conceived. There are different levels of investment.

Should votes therefore be limited to subscribers? Perhaps however this leaves open the risk of a corporate element subverting the ethos of boards.ie (I don't claim to know what that is but I am sure that you have a clear idea).

Also some non financial method of demonstrating contribution should be devised because there may be a useful subset of boards.ie users who will be reluctant to pay financially but happy to make some other payment. Whether this is 'monkey money' or an extraordinarily valuable contribution depends on the person.

I think that boards.ie is good. I only use part of it, I haven't used it for long and I am currently banned from after hours so perhaps I am not the ideal person to answer your question.

Ostrom

You could opt for a Seanad-style system of disproportionate mandate and nepotism?

Kama

DeVore wrote:

Democracy has at its heart that every person's opinion should be given the same weight.

Firstly, democracy is what is called a contested concept. DIfferent people have quite different views on what 'democracy' desciptively means, or normatively/should mean.

Take Ireland. In theory, every persons opinion or vote is counted. In practice, you vote if you own a house, which is why we have been referred to as a 'property-owning democracy'. There's a long tradition of this in democratic thought, the idea of a explicit or implicit qualification: so child, the 'criminal', or the 'mad', should not be allowed to vote, or those with more of a stake in the society (the owners) should have a bigger say (the English liberal model). Similarly, the Romans had the vote for all citizens, but only those with enough income to make the journey to cast it mattered, and in the US significant quantities of African-Americans are disenfranchised, and making Voting Day a national holiday is consistently shot down, which affects the outcome by skewing the draw.

However, when I get sick, I give my doctors opinion a lot more weight then my taxi drivers.

If we have a choice of doctors, then aggregating information from large numbers of people as to which doctor provides a better service. Choice of doctor, rather than doctor V taxidriver seems a better analogy.

A democratic answer is not 'right' in say, maths. Agreeing 1+1 to equal 3 does not make it so. But when we are talking about direction and social choice by a community, who wants what becomes more of an issue.

Online you can simply go to a different site if you dont like our policies.

Hirschman referred to this ability as Exit and Voice; the ability to complain and create redress internally, and the ability to gtfo.

Since boards has an easy right of Exit, it is arguably less necessary to include all views as to decisionmaking, as if you don't like it, you're but a click away from not coming back.

There is a 3rd part to Hirschman, Loyalty. In the case of boards, someone could be bitterly unhappy, but because they are habituated to boards (or just enjoy whining about it ) they will stick here regardless.

But this all skips the question: Should we consider everyone's "vote" as equal? Why? Clearly some people are smarter then others.

Smarter /= better, and its arguable that 'smarts' aren't one thing, but different types of intelligence. Take a highly-Aspie tech-head, who is unlikely to be able to manage himself, let alone persuade others. Compare to a highly socially-intelligent individual, who can barely add let alone code. Who is 'smarter', and which vote should carry more weight?

You can take this contextually, say that the nerd should have the votepower in nerd-based stuff, and the social in socialstuff. But this begs the question of who decides what areas whose qualifications should or should not apply in. In our current political system, we have issues like this with, say, economics: should people have a say (and the 'Mob' destroy good practices due to their 'ignorance'), or should those areas require people to have a qualification (which could be viewed by dissenters as a ideological brainwashing or kowtowing at the altar)?

What would Boards look like if we used Democracy as a system to elect mods, admins etc... I dont think it would be half as good as it is now... but is there a better system of self governance?

I don't know exactly on what basis mods etc are bestowed, so I can't really comment.

One interesting approach in political theory comes to mind is called Selectorate Theory, which can be applied to anything from a democracy to an autocracy. The selectorate are those who can affect outcomes.

I presume (?) that not-all appointing decisions are made purely by you, but that the responsibility is 'farmed down'. Complete micro requires too much time, so any partial devolution could be seen as a broadening of the 'franchise' to include more views, aggregate more info, and gain the 'private goods' of sweet delicious power for the included elite

ChesterCoperpot

A democratic system would see me absolved ghost - not from my latest problem, but IT grew from my previous problems.

But since I had disagreement with moderator, i'm site banned.

it's not mistake, when the neighbours awake Gordon from his rest under the apartment staircase, he will ..or someone in spite will successfully ban me.

however, the operation may be severe, proceed with caution.

Gordon, I love you and you cannot deny we are lovers...i always remember that kilt.

ChocolateSauce

Democracy is only needed when you haven't got a choice; for example a country should be democratic because its citizens can't help living there. Boards is a place we all choose to come to and are not obliged to stay, so I vote to continue with the dictatorship. Furthermore, it is a private company, and last time I checked customers can only vote with their feet.

Some people's opinions are worth more than others; some opinions are stupid, ignorant and factually incorrect, but when it comes to a vote we must never give any person or group of people the right and power to decide this, because an opinion cannot be objectively assessed for its value.

nesf

DeVore wrote: »

Democracy has at its heart that every person's opinion should be given the same weight.

No, not really.

Democracy or more accurately parliamentary democracy is about having those in power being elected by those their decisions will affect. The value in this is that it limits (but does not eliminate) leaders screwing over the people to enrich themselves, compared to dictatorships, monarchies and what have you.

Benevolent dictatorship would probably be better for a country in some ways but how exactly do you guarantee you get a benevolent dictator and not a selfish one? That's what makes democracy better than the alternatives, it's a terrible system really but human nature makes other forms less palatable. The average person is woefully ill-equipped to answer the questions that dominate how to run a country but c'est la vie.

Brigantes

nesf wrote: »

The average person is woefully ill-equipped to answer the questions that dominate how to run a country but c'est la vie.

I agree. But instead of bemoaning 'democracy' (or rather our representative democracy) we should focus on equipping the average person with the information needed so they can make informed decisions on matters that affect us all.

Democracy is the best of a bad bunch because at it's heart lies compromise. If we refuse to engage with it, then our opinions don't get a hearing.

nesf

Brigantes wrote: »

I agree. But instead of bemoaning 'democracy' (or rather our representative democracy) we should focus on equipping the average person with the information needed so they can make informed decisions on matters that affect us all.

See, that's pretty much impossible and not a good idea. It requires a lot of knowledge and training for a person to have a good solid grasp of economics beyond the basics. To be able to fully comprehend budgets etc you need this and even then unless you specialise in the area you won't understand it fully. Ditto with law, health policy and almost every other major question.

It's utterly unreasonable to expect the average person to be highly informed on all these issues. They would have to dedicate an enormous amount of their time just to have a high level of knowledge on a handful.

potlatch

If selection of mods is the issue here, then you've discussing processes of candidate selection and, distinctly different, candidate election. How to select mod candidates, and how to put them in 'office'.

It's an interesting question: how would boards.ie fare if selection of the 'executive' were democratically selected. Well, perhaps think of it like this: the power-mods like DeVore are the Ministers of the Executive, mods like myself are the Secretary Generals and Principal Secretaries. Until recent years, Ministers selected their SGs and PSs.

An issue with boards.ie would be lack of knowledge among the 'voters'. In a system where mod candidates would put themselves up for election, they could have to fill in a questionnaire to demonstrate their suitability for the post in question. In theory, this is one of the organisational roles political parties perform, though this is never the reality. Candidates would then be voted for on the basis of objective factors. But how could this information be verified? Either boards.ie citizens would vote in spite of ignorance, risking degeneration of the board.is-politic, or not vote, delegitimising the whole process. Otherwise, you'd need to put in place a massive boards.ie bureaucracy to process, vet and approve candidates so voters would have a relative degree of confidence in the candidates.

Alternatively, you could keep things as they are and instead focus more on the transparency of the process (more prominent mod advertising, why people are selected, on what basis/criteria) than the democracy of it. There's a perception that it's who you know, not what you know that gets you into Mod-dom.

SkepticOne

As Kama points out with the likes of a privately owned message board you may not have formal vote but you can always vote your feet.

However if you want boards to be self-running then some form of voting for mods would be appropriate. Does not strictly have to be 1 boards user (who signed up yesterday) per vote.

simplistic

Democracy can be compared to what happens in the playground a school when two bullies steal your candy and toss it back and forth over your head and throw you a few crumbs after crying and begging for it back.

This guy delivers an amazing speech on politics , warning this may offend voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

Red Hand

DeVore wrote: »

But this all skips the question: Should we consider everyone's "vote" as equal? Why? Clearly some people are smarter then others.

In what way "smarter" though? And is such inteelligence beneficial to society if that intelligence is marred by a dubious moral code?

Lockstep

I know Belgium used to have a system where the more educated/richer you were, the more votes you got.

Everyone got one vote with rich, third level educated person got 3 votes, less so people getting 2.

Kama

However if you want boards to be self-running then some form of voting for mods would be appropriate. Does not strictly have to be 1 boards user (who signed up yesterday) per vote.

Arguably this already happens to some extent; I presume there to be some form of 'reputation economy', which though it may not be formalized (adhocracy+dictator-nodes) allocates value to certain posters on criteria that their 'rep' is higher, they are seen as knowledgable in the area, and their behavior are contextually-approproiate for the context (eg AH vs PolTheory), and hence are seen as 'good hands'. But as said, ignorant as to the actual process here.

Reputation economies are one way to deal with the 'confidence' problem, and the new entrants problem. Individuals who have accumulated more 'rep' by contributions that are deemed valuable by others. Formally, we have a rep-economy of 'thanks', but I doubt this translates in a direct way in terms of decision-making, although it's probably indicative to some extent.

Boards (and again I'm guessing beyond my grounded knowledge) is probably highly 'self-running', in that you have autonomous unpaid behavior by a multitude of actors performing governance of a community. If you build it, they will come

DeVore

Kama you are quite close to the money really... we request names, canvas for suggestions from the existing and previous mods and also from admins, and then review the posting history of the person looking for someone with a calm head in a sh*tstorm and a positive attitude.

The problem is that most/all self-perpetuating systems deal only with today and dont really consider tomorrow. To vest that amount of trust in a single person or group is a bigger task.

My main problem is that all roads seemingly lead to Democracy, but I think if we had elections for mods and admins, this place would collapse or at the very least function considerably worse for it.

I like democracy in the real world, because people cant move easily, but I dont like it as a system per se, I think its just lazy thinking and the easiest solution to say "yeah, everyone is equal and we'll all vote".

DeV.

Eliot Rosewater

Democracy is the least worst, indeed. However there are ways to improve it which can be effective. For example one of the key problems with democracy is that it often boils down to the majority of the electorate enforcing their views on the rest of the country, even when its absolutely none of their business. That is why in the past condoms and homosexuality have been outlawed, and its why nowadays gay marriage and prostitution are not allowed.

A proper state should have limits imposed on its democracy. The people should not be allowed dictate moral values where those values have no impact on them. In the same vein no one should be forced to be a member of 'society' more than is necessary, just because the majority believe in a tight society.

Internet forums could never work on democracy. Im sure you would get some candidates running on a platform of allowing personal abuse and if you have PR-STV your bound to get one of them elected. In the end the best system is those on top who are willing to listen to those on bottom, for fear of losing them as members.

The reason this system doesnt work in real life is because, unlike message boards, there is a lot of financial gain to be made from abusing your power.

SkepticOne

DeVore wrote: »

The problem is that most/all self-perpetuating systems deal only with today and dont really consider tomorrow. To vest that amount of trust in a single person or group is a bigger task.

That's where a constitution comes in to limit that power. It prevents or at least hinders drift from the central ideals.

SkepticOne

DeVore wrote: »

I like democracy in the real world, because people cant move easily, but I dont like it as a system per se, I think its just lazy thinking and the easiest solution to say "yeah, everyone is equal and we'll all vote".

That's a criticism of people putting forward the idea rather than the idea itself.

DeVore

Two very good points SkepticOne. I'm actually mooting the idea of a constitution in Feedback at the moment.

As for the second point, thats why I guess I'm asking the question.... is Democracy the best we can come up with?


DeV.

SkepticOne

I think the key thing is that in a country we have voting because of shared ownership of the country. Ownership is a form of control and shared ownership implies shared control. It is as of right rather than because it is best for one purpose or another. It just so happens to work well in practice when compared to the various other forms (dictatorships, one party states etc) that have existed but we don't have it because it is best but because of right.

We can see straight away that we are looking at something very different with boards.ie. Users can of course vote with their feet if they are not happy, something that may be difficult with living in a country but, since they don't own boards.ie, they have no right to say how it is run and therefore no right to vote.

The purpose of a constitution in this case of boards.ie would be to ensure continuation of a particular set of ideals rather than specify rights and responsibilities and voting would be a matter of practicality rather than right. As pointed out, it would not need to be one user per vote since there are no rights to begin with. It would be some sort of weighted system.

I'm not sure voting is a good idea for the likes of boards.ie but I don't see an alternative if a person is going to be replaced by some sort of system.

FionnMatthew

I think there's an argument to be made for the notion that democracy is the 'least worst' system in the real world. That needs some qualifications though.

It's probably the least worst system from the point of view of fairness. This isn't to say that a particular benevolent dictatorship might not be, in practice, a more fair place to live for everyone. It's to say that the structural features of democratic systems ensure a greater likelihood of distributed fairness, whereas there are no such structural features of dictatorship, so that a dictatorship can range arbitrarily between vastly different cultures of fairness, whereas a democracy, at least as we know it, tends to be like another one.

I'm not at all sure, though, that a democracy is the least worst system from the point of view of good governance. I don't think the structural features of democracy ensure a greater likelihood of level-headed, credible, informed, intelligent decision-making for the best interests of a country and a citizenry taken as a whole. There may be other systems of governance that produce better such systematic likelihoods from their structural features.

The benevolent (and shrewd, efficient) dictatorship is a model that works for boards.ie, and for good reason. Fairness isn't as much of an issue when lives are not at stake - when the price of stamping dissent is an infraction and not a public execution. I think your intuitions are right: if boards were democratically governed, it would be far less well run a site. And it's not as life or death important to be fair on boards.

But as for countries, well, we have to weigh the importance of (capital) fairness against the desire to run things as well as possible. At a certain point (the 21st century promises to be a century during which good governance might turn out to be crucial to survival) I'm sure it's better to have a surviving, unfair society than a desert upon which a just and fair society once self-annihilated out of bad governance.

SkepticOne

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I'm not at all sure, though, that a democracy is the least worst system from the point of view of good governance.

Though on the other hand systems that inspire sureness often end in disaster.

recedite

SkepticOne wrote: »

As pointed out, it would not need to be one user per vote since there are no rights to begin with. It would be some sort of weighted system.

What you are advocating there is meritocracy, not democracy. A system similar to the original system, but this time with you included in the selectorate.

Kama

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

A proper state should have limits imposed on its democracy. The people should not be allowed dictate moral values where those values have no impact on them. In the same vein no one should be forced to be a member of 'society' more than is necessary, just because the majority believe in a tight society.

Tangent for this thread, but not allowing moral values to be imposed is quite arguably a moral value in itself, while on the second point the critical variable of 'more than is necessary' is highly reflexively dependent on what the majority believe. There isnt really a difference beyond personal philosophical-ideological flavour between dictating personal-libertarian communal values, and dictating social-communitarian values, especially with the move that the democracy should be limited in accord with those values.

Democracy is the least worst, indeed/is Democracy the best we can come up with?

Nonsense! We can crowdsource the future-perfect boardsie state from among the elite ranks of the PolTheory heads. Its about time we got to be the Philosopher-King Overlords, I look forward to being welcomed...

I've never been much of a fan of the 'least worst' quote, its always seemed like pure conservative self-legitimation, making improvement or change seem unnecessary.

As to what is best, my feeling on this is always keep tinkering. Implement things, see if they work, if they work scale 'em. Draft in the whole 'rights and responsibilities' rhetoric, offer people votes for some arbitrary idiotic task, or put people who have more than X posts or age in a 'Senate'. Especially on the internets, people respond to egoboo and status. Its always nice to be able to pay someone with something that costs nothing, however they are likely to consider that they possess some kind of moral 'sweat equity', and demand an appropriate share of wimmin/territory/cut of the ad revenue

Going the opposite route: if people are not demanding a democracy, they probably don't want it, and wouldn't know what to do with it, not much point forcing one on them. Bread, circuses, and the thank button are more than enough. So carry on regardless. Those who are sufficiently interested/boards means enough to will get involved enough that their voice is heard while those who ain't and cba won't. Which is kinda like the Iron Law of Oligarchies, I guess.

A vote itself shouldn't be a shibboleth, what is important is that people (feel) they have a say. This is the true genius of the democratic move: you had your chance, better luck next time, its not like we ignored you, btw enjoy the next 4 years mwahaha! Involvement increases legitimation, even when you lose.

FionnMatthews wrote:

I'm sure it's better to have a surviving, unfair society than a desert upon which a just and fair society once self-annihilated out of bad governance.

Almost anyone would be forced to agree with the statement. The question is knowing ahead of time which structural features are causative of good governance emerging from the democratic 'mix', which requires trial and error, comparison and failure. This was why I found Olstroms 'Nobel' interesting, since her previous work wa on governance regimes for commons systems, what works and what doesn't.

I don't think the structural features of democracy ensure a greater likelihood of level-headed, credible, informed, intelligent decision-making for the best interests of a country and a citizenry taken as a whole. There may be other systems of governance that produce better such systematic likelihoods from their structural features.

The problematique is determining what those best interests are, and who the selectorate is who makes this call. The situation here differs significantly from that of a state, since we can have competing regime types, and if crowdsourced MyFootballClub approaches work, they work, and if they fail, no biggy. In state or global terms, the cost is higher. Nevertheless, my wager (and I don't think we can get to any better position than a informed bet) tends to be on the side of democracy, at least partially because historically narrow-selectorate approaches don't seem to do significantly better. Although I do believe that when history looks back the most important and significant man of the last century in terms of governance was Lee Kuan Yew, so scratch my last point maybe?

The question then becomes what mechanisms or structural features most fairly represent or aggregate the distributed information and values of the demos. I'm a fan of range voting and multiple tiers of representation myself, hopefully I'll be in the Winning Coalition and force it on the rest of ya! More seriously, what form of democracy and what features it operates on has a strong effect on result. The 'aul pencils' of a vote every X years was a product of the most efficient means of communication at the time and the cost of asking. Our current means has negligable costs (server farm electricity bills notwithstanding) and near-instanteneity. I'd argue this will move us to a more transparent Whuffle-style reputation economy. Transparency means you can't get away with being a troll or a-hole, and I again have a philosophical bet that decent people outnumber tards, and that the assumption that you are being watched and behavior matters decreases tardism (cites relevant psych experiments). Which does seem, to me, an extension of the democratic principle beyond the purely formal-political. Ubiquitous voting to go with ubiquitous computing?

So in classic style, rather than go we need/don't need democracy, what systems of Voice and selection seem best, and why? Democracy imho needs a prefix at least, some form of clarification of what structures work in what context

monellia

In a democracy you are forced to comply with the preference of the majority, which may not be at all virtuous. Democracy is simply having the majority choose your slave masters. And even the "power" of those who comprise the majority is illusory because they rely on the trustworthiness of office candidates to fulfil their policy promises. I'd sooner be ruled by a monarch than live in democracy. At least monarchy isn't built on the illusion that the people are in control, so it's far easier to overthrow corrupt rulers.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” (Thomas Jefferson)

recedite

In the original democracy of Athens, citizens voted on individual issues rather like our referenda. Subsequent larger societies were too complex for that, hence the "bread and circuses" democracy of the elected Public Representative. But electing a representative is an act of personal disempowerment.
Soon, when all security issues are resolved, we will be able to free ourselves of the politician parasites by using internet voting for individual issues. The selectorate can be self selecting; only those interested stakeholders with an awareness of the particular issue will bother to vote.
In Germany the wrong approach is taken to voting; citizens are obliged to vote. A better approach is not to encourage it too much; let the right people emerge by themselves to vote.
The same can apply to boards.ie

Executive Steve

Potentially, rather than actually, there are better solutions, but problems facing us as a species will probably have to be overcome first before they show themselves to be practical.

I'm a huge fan of benevolent dictatorships myself, there's an awful lot to be said for being able to plan further ahead than the next election.

silverharp

[cm]tyranny wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of benevolent dictatorships myself, there's an awful lot to be said for being able to plan further ahead than the next election.

Its called my wife:D but seriously power corrupts and all that. minimal gov and self reliance is the only system that would meet your requirement of longer term planning while perserving personal freedom. Personally I dont like the idea of being a chess piece in a game supposidly for my benefit.

pagancornflake

monellia wrote: »

In a democracy you are forced to comply with the preference of the majority, which may not be at all virtuous. Democracy is simply having the majority choose your slave masters. And even the "power" of those who comprise the majority is illusory because they rely on the trustworthiness of office candidates to fulfil their policy promises. I'd sooner be ruled by a monarch than live in democracy. At least monarchy isn't built on the illusion that the people are in control, so it's far easier to overthrow corrupt rulers.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Trivialize and generalize more plz.

hatrickpatrick

I favour democracy but with one absolute exception.

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal. The government has no right to invade people's personal lives and make moral decisions for them.

Everything else which involves the running of the country should be decided by all citizens. I favour transferring power to county councils instead of central government and giving all citizens of those councils the right to vote on them.

This country has lived for far too long in the shadow of an endless political elite (note the similarity of the government / bank / developer relationship we've seen to the government / church relationship which is now being brought out into the open). The opinions of the citizens should absolutely always come before the opinions of any organization or entity. So for example, I would support the Shell 2 Sea campaign simply because the people objecting own the land through which the pipe is planned to pass, and therefore they should have the absolute final say on anything which goes through their property. I supported Save Our Seafront in Dun Laoghaire because no matter what the council's opinion was, the vast majority of the people did not want the development to go ahead and therefore the council had no democratic mandate to allow it. If government was genuinely accountable to its citizens they would have no choice but to put the will of the people before their own agenda.

pagancornflake

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I favour democracy but with one absolute exception.

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal. The government has no right to invade people's personal lives and make moral decisions for them.

Lovely theory, doubt it will work in practice though as the question of whether or not something affects another is quite a subjective one. I'd say a decent example would be someone who decides to take coke. This may not affect another for some time but the effects generated by it may affect others socially.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

Lovely theory, doubt it will work in practice though as the question of whether or not something affects another is quite a subjective one. I'd say a decent example would be someone who decides to take coke. This may not affect another for some time but the effects generated by it may affect others socially.

all you can say is that the person has different time and risk preferences.

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

all you can say is that the person has different time and risk preferences.

Sorry, can you rephrase that please?

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

Sorry, can you rephrase that please?

well, taking coke and I assume we are not talking cola is a risky behaviour to be judged by the individual concerned as is smoking or alcohol , others that are more risk adverse may deem coke to be an unacceptable heath risk or have a different view of the trade off between present versus future gratification/consequences.
In and of itself the primary effects are on the person that takes the narcotic, the water only get muddy for example if someone else is obliged to pick up the medical tab. I see no just reason for it to be a criminal offence for instance as there is no crime against another person or their property.

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

well, taking coke and I assume we are not talking cola is a risky behaviour to be judged by the individual concerned as is smoking or alcohol

The erratic and violent behavior which accompanies cocaine use (as I said) is a matter which may potentially affect others through interaction with the coke user, which is what I was talking about (not the effects that it has on the person taking it, which is what you are talking about). The problem I have with this model is that I don't see how a concrete set of criteria can be devised to determine whether a certain personal behavior "affects no one but the person engaging in it".

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal.

Some people (such as myself) judge certain things to be harmful to others which others do not (second hand smoke, for example. I think that the effect is negligible but extant). How would policy in these areas be determined?

Joycey

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Absolutely everything which affects no one but the person engaging in it (and / or other people who actively agree to be affected by it) should be legal. The government has no right to invade people's personal lives and make moral decisions for them.

I find the question of abortion to be an interesting response to views like this one.

Its all very well if we assume that all the inhabitants of a society are entirely secular, but what if someone has a belief that firstly, you are killing a baby when you abort a baby, and secondly, that by living in a society whereby abortion (killing babies) is seen as legitimate, you are in fact complicit in the murder of human beings and as such will burn in hell for all eternity.

Now its not enough to say "only the person affected can make the decision", because by choosing to have an abortion, the mother (in this person's view), is in fact condemning everyone in the society who is complicit (by not preventing it) in the abortion to an eternity in hell.

There are all sorts of other examples of non-secular belief systems which cause problems for this view. Seeing everything as interconnected and intricately tied to everything else, pantheism, or certain forms of buddhism for example, would prevent the killing of ants or cutting of grass due to the belief that you are harming "me" when you do such things.

In short I think deciding what is morally right or not in a society is a question of compromise and intelligent debate. And I see two people who come together, one of them saying "ITS MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE", the other saying "ITS MY RIGHT TO LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE WE DONT MURDER BABIES/ITS THE BABIES RIGHT TO LIVE" as engaging in neither necessary compromise or intelligent debate.

The same can be said for any other claim of "natural" or "god-given" rights IMO, they are antithetical to any form of compromise or rational discussion. They are useful as handy political buzzwords (eg "right" to freedom bandied about by various American politicians) which dont actually say anything on their own without being justified and argued for but invariably aren't, or as a kind of rough guideline for laws/behavioural practises (like a child has a right not to be hurt etc) but again need to be recognised as non-absolute and always open to question.

biko

DeVore wrote: »

Democracy has at its heart that every person's opinion should be given the same weight.

nesf wrote: »

No, not really.
Democracy or more accurately parliamentary democracy is about having those in power being elected by those their decisions will affect.

You're both right.
Direct democracy is how it was intended (one free man, one vote). When this became unwieldy parliamentary democracy was invented (one free man speaks for a group of people). Direct democracy is still used to this day in referendums/polls/elections.

A benevolent dictatorship is an oxymoron. I'd rather describe boards as an meritocracy.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

The erratic and violent behavior which accompanies cocaine use (as I said) is a matter which may potentially affect others through interaction with the coke user, which is what I was talking about (not the effects that it has on the person taking it, which is what you are talking about. The problem I have with this model is that I don't see how a concrete set of criteria can be devised to determine whether a certain personal behavior "affects no one but the person engaging in it.

I dont see the problem , the "crime" is not taking the subsistance, its if here is a "trespass" on the person or their property. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt at social engineering but it has nothing to do with justice

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

I dont see the problem , the "crime" is not taking the subsistance, its if here is a "trespass" on the person or their property. Anything else is an arbitrary attempt at social engineering but it has nothing to do with justice

You dont, but I do see a problem here. The problem I see is that it does not seem reasonable to allow the personal freedom to take highly addictive drugs which lead to such degrees of violent behavior purely on the basis that taking the drug is not a violent behavior in itself. The trespass happens by proxy when under the effect of this drug. Furthermore, if this is allowed, then the strain on law enforcement will be to deal with coke users who are actually committing a trespass as opposed to dealing with the source, which is the supply. The strain is heavier, the staff must be more abundant=> higher taxes which I really dont want to pay just so some people can enjoy more of what they claim to be their "rights".

I am just using the example of a drug which leads to violent behavior to illustrate the fact that the criteria involved in judging what is a trespass and what is going to be a trespass by proxy would be a bureaucratic mess. In light of this, I feel that the whole scenario begs the question as to whether or not the pursuit of absolute individual freedoms takes precedence in all cases, or are some people just using it as a vanguard? I suppose what I am getting at here is that I don't think that the aim of protecting such far fetched personal freedoms takes precedence in dictating policy. The aim of absolute individual autonomy is not justified prima facie.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

You dont, but I do see a problem here. The problem I see is that it does not seem reasonable to allow the personal freedom to take highly addictive drugs which lead to such degrees of violent behavior purely on the basis that taking the drug is not a violent behavior in itself.........

I dont think the basis for law should be what is convenient or necessarily based on a flawed attempt at cost/benefit analysis. Using your logic it would seem reasonable to legalise heroin and make it illegal to consume more then say 4 units of alcohol inside or outside the home? Also if one was to take a utilitarian approach, the war on drugs has been a distaster in terms of the growth in organised crime which I think would swamp any potential additional crime you've mentioned

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

I dont think the basis for law should be what is convenient or necessarily based on a flawed attempt at cost/benefit analysis.

And I dont think that the basis for law should be some vague platitude which would lead to exactly the same thing. You failed to respond to the rest of that paragraph, so let me list the points that have not been dealt with:

1)The trespass happens by proxy when under the effect of this drug.
2)that the criteria involved in judging what is a trespass and what is going to be a trespass by proxy would be a bureaucratic mess

silverharp wrote: »

Using your logic it would seem reasonable to legalise heroin and make it illegal to consume more then say 4 units of alcohol inside or outside the home?

And using hatricks logic, there would be no reason not to do the exact same thing, since it would be up to the people whether or not a certain behavior qualified as a trespass. So, under your logic, what is the basis for making heroin illegal?

silverharp wrote: »

Also if one was to take a utilitarian approach, the war on drugs has been a disaster in terms of the growth in organized crime which I think would swamp any potential additional crime you've mentioned

And what of the cost to the taxpayer in the event that we allowed people to freely take substances which have a propensity to cause public order offences, vandalism, and violent crime? Anyways, how is this relevant to the method of determining the nature of a trespass using hatricks model? This is not a discussion on the war on drugs, this is a discussion on how such a model of "freedoms come first" can be justified.

silverharp

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property. However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.
People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever subsistance the person wishes.
One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

Gary L

silverharp wrote: »

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property. However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.
People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever substance the person wishes.
One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

I've been arguing this case for years I've never heard it put that well. bravo

pagancornflake

silverharp wrote: »

you lost me I'm afraid. There are crimes against the person and property.

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

silverharp wrote: »

However you have not indicated why recreational drug A should be legal say alcohol and recreational drugs B,C..... are illegal.

I have no duty to say anything of the sort about drugs since I am not advocating a framework for law surrounding them, nor am I advocating any alternative; I am attacking the idea that "whatever a person does that does not effect another should be legal" on the grounds that it is an inadequate framework for basing law itself since it cannot define a scope for categorizing what effects others as expressed in the stated premise. Do you not realize how subjective these distinctions are?

silverharp wrote: »

People have / should have the right to self ownership with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this. This implies the right to ingest whatever subsistance the person wishes.

And if the inherent risks of ingesting the substance have a propensity to effect others, as they do in the case of many drugs through the manifestation of violent behavior, why should they have the right to take these risks? Should others not have a say if they are effected?

Ownership is quite a vague notion imo. For example, at this time, people have a right to the fruits of their labour, and to self ownership (thankfully) but what is the point in these "rights" if they are not afforded protection? You can come up with as many rights for yourself as you like, but they are useless unless protected, and the protection of these rights is contingent on the communal adjudicative and executive bodies, which in turn are defined in scope and constitution by those around you who also agree on what rights are to be afforded (in a democracy anyways, which is what we are talking about).
Ownership is of course a right in contemporary society, but you seem to neglect the fact that it is a terribly ambiguous term. The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

I am arguing that given the maxim stated by hatrick, the advancement of liberty in some cases could potentially result in the restriction of liberty in certain areas due to the fickle nature of what constitutes a trespass.

silverharp wrote: »

One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.

There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

silverharp

pagancornflake wrote: »

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

As flow from voluntary cooperation otherwise the only basis for rights are the whim of a committee

pagancornflake wrote: »

....I am attacking the idea that "whatever a person does that does not effect another should be legal" on the grounds that it is an inadequate framework for basing law itself since it cannot define a scope for categorizing what effects others as expressed in the stated premise. Do you not realize how subjective these distinctions are?

I dont agree that it is subjective, to be clear where is the grey line in trespass/aggress against a person or their property?

pagancornflake wrote: »

And if the inherent risks of ingesting the substance have a propensity to effect others, as they do in the case of many drugs through the manifestation of violent behavior, why should they have the right to take these risks? Should others not have a say if they are effected?

There are many risks in life and flawed individuals, it would be up to invividuals to agree to restrictions if so required based on their property rights and market choices. As an example a cinema owner could ban coke heads or drunks from his cinema but the state of being drunk or high should not be deemed to be a crime in and of itsself

pagancornflake wrote: »

I am arguing that given the maxim stated by hatrick, the advancement of liberty in some cases could potentially result in the restriction of liberty in certain areas due to the fickle nature of what constitutes a trespass.

If property rights and voluntary exchange are the basis for society then trespass is not fickle. Of course tyranny by the majortiy is accepted as normal so liberty is a tradable commodity. Currently my right to consume Brazilian beef or even a Pharmaceutical drug is at the whim of the collective.

pagancornflake wrote: »

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.

There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

You might not like the example but it highlights in other areas of life the crime is seperate from the state of mind of the individual at the time. People have free will so could one deem it criminal to not seek help knowing that they are a risk to people around them? It really doesnt matter to me if I get beaten up by someone who is drunk, high, has anger management issues or because of mob violence at a football match.

I've no idea how the public might vote , I cant actually think of an example where it has been put to a direct vote. However it wouldnt be an exercise in determining right or wrong behaviour. A utilitarian I guess could put a good case together but again its not my preferred method of arguing the case.

pagancornflake

pagancornflake wrote: »

What is the basis for determining what the rights of the person are? This is a question which must be answered before you can determine what constitutes a crime

If you admit that the rights of the individual and the scope of their protection (the latter not opposed by you) are contingent on the communal mandate...

silverharp wrote: »

As flow from voluntary cooperation otherwise the only basis for rights are the whim of a committee.

Then I reply:

pagancornflake wrote: »

The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

Hence...

pagancornflake wrote: »

Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal (since the right to ingest it does not exist unless agreed to) given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

I dont agree that it is subjective, to be clear where is the grey line in trespass/aggress against a person or their property?

I have already clarified this above:

pagancornflake wrote: »

The scope of ownership is not defined prima facie; it is contingent on communal agreement. This communal mandate, given the axiom provided in hatricks statement, does not violate the right to self ownership, since the tenets behind what constitutes a trespass, and the tenets which define the scope of ownership are contingent on the peoples agreement.

What constitutes a trespass is not conceptually defined without the mandate of subjective, reciprocal deterministic beings. Hence, the products of their mandate are themselves subjective. Therefore, what constitutes a trespass is subjective, since it is subject to the mandate of the people. No Grey line exists because there is no line. Hatricks axiom is too ambiguous since it does not set out what constitutes a "right" or a "trespass", and neither have you (since you do not have the authority to do so). Hence, if we accept that the "tyranny" of the majority determines what rights and trespasses are, then their executive body (the government) will then encroach on the individuals conduct. However, according to hatrick, the government has no right to do so. Hence, I dont see how his statement is anything other than platitudinous and trite.

There are many risks in life and flawed individuals, it would be up to invividuals to agree to restrictions (as I said) if so required (what determines when it is required?) based on their property rights and market choices

As an example a cinema owner could ban coke heads or drunks from his cinema but the state of being drunk or high should not be deemed to be a crime in and of itsself

Why not? People determine the "rights", so why would they not make something illegal if it had no discernible benefit and a large risk of detriment to themselves and the community around them?

If property rights and voluntary exchange are the basis for society then trespass is not fickle.

Since property rights and voluntary exchange do not carry with them ubiquitously assented to terms, then the notion of trespass is indeed fickle.

Of course tyranny by the majortiy is accepted as normal so liberty is a tradable commodity.

Elaborate on this platitude please.

Currently my right to consume Brazilian beef or even a Pharmaceutical drug is at the whim of the collective.

What does this have to do with anything at all?

You might not like the example but it highlights in other areas of life the crime is seperate from the state of mind of the individual at the time.

One would think it insane to have "angry" laws where people could be jailed for having mild personality disorders because they might have a propensity to commit minor crime. Yet you are suggesting that the basis of law should be an exercise in probabilities.

I love that example because it was easy to destroy and it demonstrates the absurd nature of your position:

pagancornflake wrote:

Indeed, it would be insane since having a genetic or otherwise uncontrollable development of behavioral disorders is not a choice; the person with the disorder did not choose to develop the pattern of behavior whereas the person taking the drug has chosen to temporarily develop a set of behaviors which will likely lead to a trespass against another. That example is quite silly really.
There is no unfair exercise in probability here. Ingesting a substance which leads to violent behavior, has been proven empirically to do so, and is under scrutiny in a democratic context as to whether or not it should be legal given its concomitant effects is likely to be rejected by the public mandate I should think.

You failed to justify how there was "probability' involved. You failed to justify why people should ".. have / should have the right to self ownership (in this case, the right to use drugs which cause violent behavior) with all the inherent risks and benefits that come from this" when the rights involved will inevitably detrimentally affect the person who contributes in creating the rights.

People have free will so could one deem it criminal to not seek help knowing that they are a risk to people around them?

No.

It really doesnt matter to me if I get beaten up by someone who is drunk, high, has anger management issues or because of mob violence at a football match.

Thanks for that piece of irrelevant information. It's nice to share.

Denerick

I didn't bother to read any of the other posts, but will insist on giving my two cents regardless.

I've had hundreds of conversations with friends who've experimented with the whole far left craze at university. Often they go through a metamorphis of playing at being an anarchist, with only a rough understanding of the political theory but a hell of a lot of chips on shoulders. Eventually they come out the other side and realise, for the most part, that the theory is completely vacuous and out of kilter with human nature. In my opinion these kids consistently overlook the vital fundamental; mankind is not inherently good, or inherently bad. Its inherently self interested.

In any political system it is vital to control all political power, under the overused yet ever true mantra that power corrupts. Liberty unrestrained is merely a tyranny of the mob. Democracy unrestrained is a tyranny of the majority. It is a sham majoritarianism, not dominated by logic or reason but by demagoguery, often by those who shout the loudest or have the most cash to run a propaganda campaign.

Democratic Republics are flawed, flawed beasts but the alternatives are worse. Without recognising those alternatives it is easy to say the cause of mankind is lost. It is not. We are not so far above the animal kingdom - we are fallible mammals, and capable of self destruction on an epic scale. The Democratic Republic is in my humble opinion the greatest advance of any civilisation in the history of ideas.

It is based almost singularly on principles of moderation: precedent, justice, order, equity, egalatarianism, liberty and security, both in a balanced manner. It prevents and punishes, within the bounds of a liberal constitution, abuses of power, excessive corruption, and a justice system based on fairness. It provides for a judiciary independant of the executive (The History of the U.S. Supreme court is both an inspiring and sobering tale - it has taken on prejudice and government abuse over the years but has also become a haven for political partisanship)

What is liberty without personal security? What is security without liberty? (Don't ply out the overused Franklin quote, people often choose to ignore the word 'essential' in that vignette) The balance between these two vital concepts, which regulate human existence and enable our co-operation in a humane, law abiding and relatively peaceful community, is what makes the modern world possible. Our civic duty is to protect the limitations of power as responsible and educated citizens. Our duty is as a check and balance on the power of the executive. Without the power of the people, the government could with ease resort to tyranny. Without the power of independent legislators, the people would make decisions in the chaotic and haphazard (And most importantly, fickle) manner that only the easily led mob are capable of.

Be thankful for the world we live in. Too many have died trying to create 'a perfect world', and many others fell at hands of ideologically enraged savages, determined to stamp out contradictory beliefs with the full power of the sword. Violence, in my opinion, is the birthchild of any revolution. I'm prepared and happy to live in a system based on compromise, reason, and order; and I defy anyone else to prove some theoretical system could possibly be superior.

Joycey

Denerick wrote: »

I defy anyone else to prove some theoretical system could possibly be superior.

Well unless you believe (a la Hegel) that the society you live in today is the absolute best, most perfect of any possible society, and as a result have no suggestions of how to make it better, then any one of those suggestions will be based (hopefully) on some theoretical system
=> point proven.

Denerick

Joycey wrote: »

Well unless you believe (a la Hegel) that the society you live in today is the absolute best, most perfect of any possible society, and as a result have no suggestions of how to make it better, then any one of those suggestions will be based (hopefully) on some theoretical system
=> point proven.

I could fashion a theoretical system right now that would be perfect in the scenario I create. It wouldn't have the actual longevity and experience by precedent that the Demoratic Republic has. The Republic learns by mistakes, is constantly changing (Though very gradually) and moulds itself to meet the threats of its generation. No other system is so versatile (IE, it can accomodate extreme capitalism and social democracy within the one jurisdiction) or as moderate (The independent judiciary is vital)