Democracy and Government Action

[3Vee]

On another forum, we've entered our bi-monthly European/American socialism/capitalism dust-up period, the issue this time being most healthcare. Now, on the whole I've tended towards the capitalist/individualist side of this argument, but I had a thought recently on a more theoretical level which I found somewhat disturbing.

The world in general has accepted democracy as a very viable if not the preferable method of government. Due to limitations like sheer physical impossibility, we've mostly gone with representative democracy, where we elect people to represent us.

So, the question: how far does this legitimize the government (our representatives) to do things with our stuff? The American (conservative, at least) mindset seems to be that we want government to do as little as possible while still maintaining law and order; in general social issues should be taken on by social action apart from official government acts. On the other hand, as I understand it the general European model is of a government which manages as much of the necessities (welfare, healthcare) of life as possible in order to better equalize opportunity.

Regardless of which works better (and there are multiple opinions, naturally, depending how you define "working", and what the ultimate goal is), my question then is, which is more legitimate philosophically or rationally? I'm starting to think that democracy does really lead logically to governmental socialism, but I can't construct a particularly solid argument either way.

[Oblongato]

I propose that it is a government's responsibility to offer equal opportunity to its citizens, at least from a legal perspective. This would be the logical justification behind laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, age etc.

I could easily see this principle being extended to cover health care for children, since health is a necessity for any opportunity. It could even be extended to adults by this logic, I would argue.

I believe it would be necessary to restrict health care to basic treatment. There is not enough money in the world to give everyone the most expensive treatments available, and things like transplants can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. My justification for establishing the boundaries of basic health care, therefore, would be a balancing act between cost and benefit. This would be a difficult thing to decide indeed, which is likely why many governments just pretend that the most expensive treatments are available to everyone.

Other aspects of socialism, welfare, for example, I consider far more dangerous. In some European societies, people actually consider welfare a lifestyle to which they have a right.

Because I don't believe a society should allow its citizens to starve, I would make available very basic, life-sustaining services for those completely without funds. But the emphasis would be on equipping these people to reenter the workforce. I would make sure that those on state assistance would be required to make progress towards finding work or receive only the barest minimum necessary to survive.

Again, I see it as the state's role to provide opportunity, but not support. The emphasis should be on individual responsibility, which I see as essential to the long-term survival of the state.

Key to the availability of work is for me the establishment of what I will call "true" competition. Currently, products manufactured in countries without worker safety or environmental protection may be sold even in countries where such protections are law. Obviously, they can undercut the prices to the extent that they put local industry out of business. I would end this by establishing a state organ to establish the status of worker and environmental protections in countries from which products are imported. Countries without equal protections would have tariffs applied to their products to the extent that competition favored the local products. Countries with such protections in place would be allowed to sell their products without tariffs. This would in turn motivate countries without protections to establish them, and would prevent local industries from having to compete against industries unrestricted by the necessity to protect their workers or the environment.

[3Vee]

Oddly enough, I would tend to agree with your outline of the ideal(ish) state. At least, assuming democracy is a good thing, which I'm occasionally inclined to doubt when mobs do stupid things. But hey, that should be fixable.

The real question is how to define natural rights - an essential underpinning of democratic reasoning. Securing "equal opportunity" seems reasonable, but leaves all the odd questions open. What about the handicapped? There's no real way to make their opportunity equal. At what point can the government no longer interfere to promote "opportunity" because it starts limiting freedom?

[Oblongato]

I think it's pretty clear that whether democracy works depends on the intellectual ability of the populace (as we've been discussing in other threads). In cases where the majority of potential voters are religious fanatics, for example, it should be no surprise if democracy lasts exactly one election. Still, combined with excellent schools, I'm convinced that democracy is the way to go because at its best it is self-perpetuating. By this I mean that good education combined with individual responsibility (e.g. in the voting booth) will ensure that each succeeding generation is intellectually equipped and motivated to handle new problems as they arise.

Systems that take responsibility away from the individual also remove the motivation to carry responsibility.

The question of natural rights is an excellent one. When it comes right down to it, I would argue that they do not exist outside of system of morals and ethics we humans have created. This is the reason that I normally dodge the question and fall back on the "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," which seems to me as good a basis as any. Since it has been demonstrated to work for a period of over 200 years, it seems to have some staying power.

What's your take?

All of the questions you mention that are left open are indeed left open. These are all very complex issues, and in each case I would say it is the responsibility of the legislature to work out compromises in which no one gets completely screwed. These are also issues that are in constant flux due to the development of new technologies, and they must be constantly re-defined.

[Prozerran]

Democracy and Government action is sort of assuming what it sets out to show for us. In essence, the real question is what role should government play in organizing society and to what extent should it perpetuate and endure? If we simply keep looking at it from the standpoint of reorganizing a Democratic society, we'll just keep reinventing democracies instead of looking at alternatives. There are many ways to view this kind of organization. We need not limit it to a democratic state.

For instance, and this is just an example, one could propose that we structure society in more of a community-based structure where government plays little to no role in our everyday lives. A friend of mine actually proposed an idea for competitive government. Essentially, all borders would become non-existent, and many governments would be left to offer services to the citizenry that would best serve their needs (eliminating this notion of a larger, more unified governmental body). In effect, this competition for tax dollars would encourage the governing bodies to offer more competitive benefits to the society lest they become bankrupted by competing governing bodies. The whole world would essentially become a free market.

And these are just a few of many ideas we could come up with in regard to governance. I'm just sad to see so many people so fixated on democracy, not bringing their minds out of the box more. Too bad.

[Anoiktos]

In my mind, there are three things necessary for a truly democratic government to exist:

1. Elected officials
2. For those officials to be accountable for their actions
3. For the electorate (those electing) to be well-informed

The United States follows - at best - the first, and only the first of these criteria. For the second two to be followed, several things must happen;

1. The Media must be made more open, and efforts made to ensure a lack of bias. To this end, I would propose federally subsidizing a neutral, nonprofit organization that is accountable (and whose heads are elected) to the people but not the government, with the sole goal of maintaining a wiki-like news center and making its articles easily parsable, rateable, editable, with history, etc. Abolishment of conventional news sources. Decentralization of this data, and rotating election of administrators/moderators.

2. All actions the government makes must be open to the people, either immediately or within a time delay of less than one week (subject to approval by a monthly rotating board of elected representatives) , allowing both short-term secrecy and government official accountability with enforcement of a solid impeachment *and subsequent punishment/litigation* option.

3. Equal access to schools and resources for children of all ages (until they satisfactorily finish school), and a school system based around the idea of preparing children for both meaningful contribution to society in both physical (work) and mental (political activism) capabilities.

Now, I personally am a fan of capitalism (as you may be able to tell), but not of corruption. The state of our current economy is capitalist and corrupt, with little accountability to the future or to citizens due to that corruption. Eliminate advertising (let products be introduced through the independent media source, and subject to the scorn and derision or not therein implied), create laws to harshly punish false advertisement or misleading advertisement. This can easily be abused ("They said that spaghetti was great-tasting, but I hated it"), so an overhaul of the judicial system would also be wanted to rid the country of the litigious society it has evolved into.

All in all, democracy leaves a lot to be desired; it is difficult to adjucate between dictatorship, mob rule, and anarchy. Through web-2.0 methods, accountability, and nonpermanent, constructive solutions (no death penalty, constructive imprisonment that builds job skills in the worker's chosen area and works towards reform instead of segragation), I believe that it can be made to work.

[3Vee]

Oblongato, despite your points, I think this post I'll leave 'em alone to deal with some other stuff. Besides which I think we'd just end up quibbling over details as long as we accept the premise of democratic government.

In my mind, there are three things necessary for a truly democratic government to exist:

1. Elected officials
2. For those officials to be accountable for their actions
3. For the electorate (those electing) to be well-informed

To have a true democracy, there would be no real government. So in that sense, a democratically elected government is a contradiction in terms waiting to happen - if you give people power for whatever reason, you create an elite. Because even if we had to choose new officers every year, the majority of people still will not serve in office.

So yes, two and three are necessary to carry on any government trying to be democratic.

For the second two to be followed, several things must happen;

1. The Media must be made more open, and efforts made to ensure a lack of bias. To this end, I would propose federally subsidizing a neutral, nonprofit organization that is accountable (and whose heads are elected) to the people but not the government, with the sole goal of maintaining a wiki-like news center and making its articles easily parsable, rateable, editable, with history, etc. Abolishment of conventional news sources. Decentralization of this data, and rotating election of administrators/moderators.

It would be a good thing. Except for the federal funding. Money = power, and no matter how many safeguards you try to build in, the people with control of the money will find a way to run things (see: income tax).

2. All actions the government makes must be open to the people, either immediately or within a time delay of less than one week (subject to approval by a monthly rotating board of elected representatives) , allowing both short-term secrecy and government official accountability with enforcement of a solid impeachment *and subsequent punishment/litigation* option.

I disagree here. This is hugely subject to mob rule and demagoguery.

3. Equal access to schools and resources for children of all ages (until they satisfactorily finish school), and a school system based around the idea of preparing children for both meaningful contribution to society in both physical (work) and mental (political activism) capabilities.

Not sure about this one, because trying to "equalize" education often ends badly. I am simply not as good at math as Einstein. So it sounds good in theory, and may be in some sense necessary to at least try, but I can't see how to actually make it work.

Now, I personally am a fan of capitalism (as you may be able to tell), but not of corruption. The state of our current economy is capitalist and corrupt, with little accountability to the future or to citizens due to that corruption. Eliminate advertising (let products be introduced through the independent media source, and subject to the scorn and derision or not therein implied), create laws to harshly punish false advertisement or misleading advertisement. This can easily be abused ("They said that spaghetti was great-tasting, but I hated it"), so an overhaul of the judicial system would also be wanted to rid the country of the litigious society it has evolved into.

Capitalism is dependent on capital. The people with the money will have the power. Now, I'm not against capitalism necessarily, but trying to make capitalism a basis is dangerous. And there are laws against false advertising etc., but they're never enforced because the corporations have the money. I know I'm massively oversimplifying, but it is, I think, a fair oversimplification.

All in all, democracy leaves a lot to be desired; it is difficult to adjucate between dictatorship, mob rule, and anarchy. Through web-2.0 methods, accountability, and nonpermanent, constructive solutions (no death penalty, constructive imprisonment that builds job skills in the worker's chosen area and works towards reform instead of segragation), I believe that it can be made to work.

IMO, the essence of a working democracy is simplicity. Simple laws, simple standards, simple ethics, etc. Not "soft", but simple. Every law you add makes it harder for a democracy to stay democratic. This is really the beauty of the Constitution as written, or even as amended.

Your approach, on the other hand, is a much more complicated system that I don't believe would be practical unless we reach a point like that at the end of Asimov's I, Robot. Humans simply can't be trusted to run a complicated system.

For this reason, I don't really believe in democracy as a working system. Complications are introduced by life - when is it murder, when is it manslaughter, what if it was provoked, what if the guy's trying to live on $3k a year? - and for a "community" as large as the US, there is no way to deal with this on a case by case basis.

Now:

n essence, the real question is what role should government play in organizing society and to what extent should it perpetuate and endure? If we simply keep looking at it from the standpoint of reorganizing a Democratic society, we'll just keep reinventing democracies instead of looking at alternatives. There are many ways to view this kind of organization. We need not limit it to a democratic state.

I understand this. In my opening post I postulated that we were assuming democratic government was what we wanted. I personally find an antithesis between democracy and formal government - the more formal, the less democratic, because a form limits the say of the people. I am undecided, however, on whether formal government is really necessary, so I dunno whether an anarchy (not chaos, but "no (unitary) ruler") or similar communally-dependent society would be best, or an essentially authoritarian state.

For the time being, I'm content to live with the ideal of the liberal representative democratic state because it gives, it seems, the best chance we've worked out yet at a good life for the most people.

[Anoiktos]

I disagree here. This is hugely subject to mob rule and demagoguery.

But what is the alternative? Rule by whoever is in charge? At the least, whichever actions that person (or people) does must be made open to the people so that they can be accountable for it by impeachment if nothing else.

Not sure about this one, because trying to "equalize" education often ends badly. I am simply not as good at math as Einstein. So it sounds good in theory, and may be in some sense necessary to at least try, but I can't see how to actually make it work.

I agree; people have different things they are good at. What I *mean* is not that everyone must be at the same level of education, but that everyone be offered similar support for their education. Currently, public schools are less useful than private schools in some cases, and some public schools have far fewer resources than others, and some kids are encouraged not to learn, etc. One cannot apply evolutionary capitalism to a society if its members do not start with 'equal funding', as it were.

Capitalism is dependent on capital. The people with the money will have the power. Now, I'm not against capitalism necessarily, but trying to make capitalism a basis is dangerous. And there are laws against false advertising etc., but they're never enforced because the corporations have the money. I know I'm massively oversimplifying, but it is, I think, a fair oversimplification.

The alternative to making capitalism a basis is making some form of socialism or pseudocapitalism a basis; the reason that I prefer capitalism in this instance is that it encourages those people with qualities that best support society (i.e. are able to make most money) to be most successful, and thus encourages others to emulate them. I do *not* think that capital should influence political power (though I realize it is unrealistic for me expect this not to be so - nevertheless what measure would YOU see as superior for political power? 'Wisdom'? 'Intelligence'? How can one measure these things? One would hope that in a capitalistic society with strict laws against bad faith (advertising and the like) and an equal start (hence the importance of education) the most intelligent, wise, or productive members would become the most powerful)

IMO, the essence of a working democracy is simplicity. Simple laws, simple standards, simple ethics, etc. Not "soft", but simple. Every law you add makes it harder for a democracy to stay democratic. This is really the beauty of the Constitution as written, or even as amended.

A democratic society cannot have 'few' laws; to fawn over the constitution 'as it was written' ignores the entire point of democracy, i.e. that it can be self-correcting, changing, evolving. That it can, and will, become complicated. What part of 'democracy' encourages only the support of an unchanging piece of legislation?