Government.

[Sage JoWii]

Yo dawgz.

So I finally have some time riiiight before this tournament here in StL. I thought I'd give some food for thought.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So idk who else listens to SYG so I'll like the vid from youtube so ppl will know what I'm referencing when I put my thoughts down for examination. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTfMtDGuuQk particuarly 3:00-3:30ish. Disregard taste of music and understand the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"In this vast network of sharks and minnows,
where the minnows outnumber the sharks a million to one,
why is it that we have yet to converge?
To take on the upper hand?
Why have we been so scared?"

America is ruled by the people, for the people; but it's actually not. Those in powers are 'people' in the same sense that sharks are minnows (see what I did thar?), being as they are similar but vastly different as well w/ one being 'stronger'. The reason we let those in power stay in power is because it's easier to have someone else run everything, to be lazy, and sit there complaining. But, in a completely hypothetical way, what if something were to pass that that the general public doesn't agree w/? What is the dissent over that 'hypothetical law' was so great, people lost faith in their gov't? At that point the people no longer approve of the gov't and it loses power because it is no longer 'for the people' yet, through various laws and red tape, it's still techincally in charge. Should the gov't continue to try and govern? Should they be allowed to protect the gov't from the people if the people decided to overthrow it? How should the gov't be allowed to protect themselves? Through police? army? And to what end, should they be allowed to protect themselves especially if no one wants them in power?

It's a lot of questions but I figure that is a good thing.

My Stance:
The government has implied powers imo. The laws are all there, all the red tape and legal speak, and the government exist in a way that it seems to have always existed. But when a few hundred people are in charge of a million people, what TRUE degree of control is there if the millions decide to rebel? Well I suppose the police, who are the hybrids, could intervene on the behalf of the governing officials but they are hybrids in that they are 'the people' too. And even with that option available, what RIGHT does the gov't "For the people, by the people" have protecting itself if people don't want it? None really.

In school they teach that America has fail-safes for minor spurt of dissent (one being that senate elections are divided up into thirds so that if society ever wanted control of the gov't they couldn't do it through the senate in one fatal swoop.) and I'm certain there's probably a few other ways the gov't has of protecting itself. My thoughts ask though, why should the government be allowed to protect itself? Obviously if people are against it, then there's something wrong w/ the gov't, the way America is being governed, the laws, or something; and if it's a big enough deal that America can actually unify in disagreement, something our two main parties are impossible at doing, then it's a big enough deal that the gov't needs to be re-examined. It's extremely hard to be a country w/o gov't because communication between states is diminished as far as politics go, and even at the lowest level of mayor and police the communication is diminished because gov't means ALL gov't. Even still, with that being said, it's possible to re-examine the gov't, restructure it, implement change and go forth into a new era w/ a more people pro-active gov't.

Anyone else's thoughts?

 

[A1lion835]

Get Skynet to govern for us.

...That's kinda deep, in a weird way. Your question seems to me to be extremely (or purely) hypothetical, since I'm not aware of any country with a large population (within a factor of 10 of the US, let's say) uniting as one against their government and attempting to tear it apart. As such, discussing this at any level involves high amounts of theory-crafting.

The problem with a true democracy (every individual has as much say as another) is that once you pass the two-digit numbers, it takes a ridiculously long amount of time to do anything. Imagine if we had every individual in the US debating over whether to legalize abortion! We'd have people debating, people trying to hear a bunch of debates at once, babies (who have equal voting rights) wailing, etc. It doesn't work at all. So, we decide to give up some of our power to officials in the government. It's a compromise between "by the people" and "starving the people while babies are voting."

I don't really have much to say about whether the government can defend itself from mass riots. If the vast majority of voting-age ("Be 18+ or GTFO, no one cares what you think") Americans thought that the vast majority of government officials were doing a crappy job, they'd probably be camping out on people's lawns shouting what to do at them. If that didn't work, suck it up and wait for the next elections. The only situation where I think mass riots would be justified is if the government passed laws which took any power out of the people's hands, by taking away their power to choose their representatives.

 

[fragbait]

Why hasn't it happened? Because the population at large is lazy, pretty much.
Furthermore, current political campaign is based on Mudslinging and false promises, basically praying on the stupidity and aforementioned laziness of the average American Voter.


It's really surprising though, that something hasn't happened. In one of our founding documents, one of the most important rights that our founding fathers thought that a people should have is the right to overthrow government that has become unfit. I figure with all the Conspiracy Theorists, Government Haters, and just general Anarchists in the US, something already would have happened.

Also, a1lion, Just remember: A representative, once elected, has no real reason to continue to serve their electors. And don't even start with me on the electoral college.

 

[A1lion835]

A representative has reasons to continue to serve their electors if he wants to seek re-election. And, in the extreme case, some guy who voted for him could get EXTREMELY pissed and assassinate him. So yea, the incentive is to not have people hate you.

I would agree that current politics is based on lying, but it's like...a Nash Equilibrium (game theory). One guy started making moving promises, and so the best individual outcome is for everyone to do it. If Obama had come up and said "hey guyz, hate to say it, but our country has got pretty ****ed up recently, it's gonna take a lot of work and I'm not sure I can do it," I can promise you he wouldn't have been elected.

There are lots of people angry about the government, but there are also lots of people, who are, on the whole, pleased with how it's working. If the unhappy people were to break off and form their own country called the Confederacy and secede from the US, idunno what would happen...

 

[1048576]

Other people are stupid. I don't trust them to vote in their own best interests, let alone mine.

True democracy has two main problems, which I will illustrate with 3 friends who want to go out for pizza.

Problem 1: A want mushrooms, B and C want pepperoni. You order pizza 3 times per month. Optimally, you'd get pepperoni twice, and mushrooms once during a month. However, in a democracy, people would vote 3 times, and get pepperoni all 3 times. This is oppression of the minority.

Problem 2: A is a vegetarian, and can only eat mushrooms. B + C are pretty much indifferent, but they prefer pepperoni maybe 51-49. Put to democracy, pepperoni wins, and the optimal social utility is not met.

 

[fragbait]

So you're saying that democracy doesn't work because not everyone is happy?
*facepalm*
Democracy doesn't work because people are liars. It's never going to be possible for everyone to be happy, hence why there's something called Compromise. A bill in debate almost never stays the same, it's always changing because this state wants this, this state wants this.

Using your example, Yes, if it was put to a vote, then there would always be that pepperoni. HOWEVER, you forget one major problem: our system of democracy is a Representative Democracy, where we elect people to make our decisions for us. These people then make COMPROMISES with others to come to a fair middle ground.
SO, if using the 3 friends as an example is your style, I'll use it too.
Yes, Friend A and B want Pep, and C wants 'shrooms. They, being friends, decide to compromise, and either get a 1/2 and 1/2 or one large 'za for the Pep guys to share, and pitch in a little extra to get a personal for the Mushroom guy.


Furthermore, of course the system of Democracy is built around the Majority, because you want to please as many people as possible. Hence, you cater to the Majority. There's nothing preventing the Minority from promoting a representative/senator for an election, and him getting elected.

And this "Optimal Social Utility" stuff you talk about is pure philosophical garbage. It doesn't exist.

 

[1048576]

Strawmanning is fun. I think I'll try it too.

So you're saying eating babies is good because they have delicious feet?
*facepalm

Wow man, debating is so much easier this way. I think I've been doing it wrong. Thanks for the insight, baby eater.

I made no claims as to the merits and costs of a representative democracy. Taking your logic up the chain though, you'll find that a benevolent monarch provides the best govt.

There is something wrong with catering to the majority when you have essentially a series of binary decisions. I just explained it.

As far as the optimal social utility, it's not so much an objective measure as a guiding principle. But the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns is very real, and very clear cut in this case. Giving 100 people one piece of chocolate each increases utility more than giving 51 people 2 pieces of chocolate and letting the other 49 go without.

 

[fragbait]

...hence why I talked about that magical thing called Compromise.

 

[1048576]

If you only need 51%, there's no incentive to compromise with the other 49%.

 

[fragbait]

...but that's how the system is built. It's built around pleasing as many as possible.

And you keep pushing the 51/49 issue. Do you forget that nothing passes without a 2/3?

 

[A1lion835]

I think that we should be thinking about our hypothetical pizza situation as an average.

Since the 2 meat-eaters' preferences are 51/49, we'll say that their pleasure from having pepperoni is 51 while their pleasure from vegetable is 49. The veggie's got a pleasure of 0 (minimum) from pepperoni pizza and a pleasure 100 (maximum) from the vegetable. The average pleasure from getting the pepperoni is (0+51+51)/3=34. The pleasure from the veggie is (100+49+49)/3=66, so the vegetarian is clearly the better choice.

 

[ballin4life]

Hey guys,

I'm going to jump straight to Godwin's law here and say that Democracy doesn't work because Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected.

That fact is the ultimate illustration of the oppression of the minority.

Also, in democratic elections the truth is that your vote has little meaning. The chances of your vote swinging the election are billions to one, leaving you with little true incentive to vote.

Now right here most people say "But what if everyone thought that?"

1) Most people don't think that, so these aggregate concerns don't affect your individual decision.
2) If everyone thought that, ironically your vote would be much more likely to matter (e.g. in a vote of 3 people, your vote counts way more than a vote of 300).

 

[jaswa]

Also, in democratic elections the truth is that your vote has little meaning. The chances of your vote swinging the election are billions to one, leaving you with little true incentive to vote.

Just so you know in some countries, such as Australia, everyone over the age of 18 has to vote. So in Government elections we truly get what the majority wants.

P.S. "billions to one" is slight hyperbole - I think it'd be closer to "a few hundred millions to one"

 

[Aesir]

Hey guys,

I'm going to jump straight to Godwin's law here and say that Democracy doesn't work because Hitler and the Nazis were democratically elected.

That fact is the ultimate illustration of the oppression of the minority.

Also, in democratic elections the truth is that your vote has little meaning. The chances of your vote swinging the election are billions to one, leaving you with little true incentive to vote.

Now right here most people say "But what if everyone thought that?"

1) Most people don't think that, so these aggregate concerns don't affect your individual decision.
2) If everyone thought that, ironically your vote would be much more likely to matter (e.g. in a vote of 3 people, your vote counts way more than a vote of 300).

What is the alternative? What's the ideal form of government?

 

[Sage JoWii]

The ideal would be for everyone to drop their egos and admit that a singular opinion dictating the way things are in our country is probably the best idea. With that said I volunteer myself.

 

[ballin4life]

What is the alternative? What's the ideal form of government?

Minarchy/anarchy

But at the very least we should vote on as few things as possible, to prevent oppression of the minority.

 

[Nicholas1024]

The only government I'd trust further than I could throw would be one incapable of actually doing anything. That was basically how the founding fathers designed ours: They knew if they didn't set up a government, somebody would, so they set one up and sabotaged it as much as possible.

Government is bad, because it's the only institution that can use force freely without any repercussions. Don't like what a private company is selling? Don't buy it and that's that. Don't like what the government is doing? Don't pay taxes and get tossed in jail. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We don't need more than just a figurehead for government. If every citizen can handle a weapon, that eliminates the need for police and armies. The courts and roads and such can be kept up via a VERY tiny tax (or possibly donations). As for laws, I'd go with those of the original constitution.

 

[Ballistics]

In my opinion we just need to get rid of the presidency, and adopt England's strategy of ruling with a parliamentary system. Where we elect the parliament/senators, and they elect the Prime Minister.

This way corruption won't have a streamlined system to go through.

Hell even 13 presidents would be better than the way we have set up now.