The problem with democracy.
January 6, 2009 by Patrick
Filed under .Articles, Patrick's plog
Democracy isn’t a perfect system, it’s just the best one we’ve found yet. And as with anything that’s not perfect, you’ve got issues that can become pretty freakin’ annoying after a while. On the Internet, which is probably the most extreme form of democracy we have, everyone can express their opinion equally. And it seems that most of these are: “THIS SUCKS!”
I’m sure you’ve come across this idea yourself: whether it’s on the net or in real life, it sometimes seems like people are never happy. About anything. “People” will bitch and moan all day long, and all you hear about in the news is controversy. And from there it’s easy to go to the conclusion the rest of the world is a bunch of dumb saps that will always be unhappy, no matter what the topic is.
Well, while I agree that most people are probably dumb saps, I still think that this view is a sort of optical illusion. The thing is, there is no idea in the world that will get a unanimous approval. And I mean none, like, ever! Go with me on this: try to think of an idea that would garner universal approval in a modern western society. Even the brightest, shiniest, happiest proposal would get a couple of groups of people who would violently oppose it. As long as it’s something “realistic”, it will make some people unhappy.
- Universal healthcare is a great idea in theory (give medical care to the sick), but you get the obvious and valid question of “who’s gonna pay for it?”
- Stopping the wars and the horrors in the world would be awesome, but who has the right to decide what’s right for other people? Some will say “why the hell aren’t we doing something?!”, and others will aswer “you had no right to go in Iraq”…
- Let’s give condoms to teenagers so they don’t get STDs! “Oh yeah, but they shouldn’t have sex in the first place!” Well, let’s prevent them from having sex then. “Dude, have you ever met a teenager? They will have sex no matter what, seriously.”
- Let’s tax cigarettes and prevent people from smoking indoors, surely noone will opose the idea of not getting sick. “Hey, you’re taking away my freedom to do whatever the hell I want!”
- Give free puppies to every sad little boy and girl in the world. “Yeah, and who’s gonna clean their crap off the floor?”
I guess you get the idea.
So my premise is this: there will always be some people sincerely opposed to any idea you put out, no matter how great it sounds to you and yours.
Now think of a world where everyone can express their opinion. We don’t actually have a lot of experience with this concept. When democracy was first conceived, it was very loose on the definition of “everyone has a voice”. But in a modern democracy, for every single idea in the world that is expressed in a public forum you will find a group of people that will be very critical about it.
And they will have the rights (democracy) and the means to express themselves (Internet or traditional media).
Is that really a good thing? Is there such a thing as too much democracy? Boy is that a can of worms…
So anyway, from there it’s very easy to think that “people” criticize everything. Of course, in reality you only have one have a fraction of the people actually complaining about each topic, but the result is that every idea and opinion gets shot down and criticized. And this gives the impression that “people” in general are never happy.
Well, I’m probably not saying anything that you don’t know already. I just wanted to formalize this a bit, because I tend to be very cynical and declare that “people always complain”. I should remember: it’s not that everyone complains all the time, it’s that there’s always someone that will complain.
And it’s just… Sometimes I wish they would just shut the fuck up. But they’re entitled to their opinion. And that’s the problem with democracy.
I completley agree with you Patrick, and I have an opinion about those Smokers. They can still have their right to smoke, but they have to find a way to do it without causing any ‘harm’ to anyone else.
My favorite quote on the subject:
We’ve heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true.
–Robert Wilensky, speech at a 1996 conference
I think the problem is that negative people are a VERY vocal minority. They tend to hang around, too, due to lack of repercussion for being a jerk. The result is that you have to have somewhat thick skin to survive in new media. Else it isn’t worth the grief you get by putting yourself out there.
You’d think people would be happier about free entertainment.
Hi Patrick,
I think the difference between a democratic country and the Internet is that there is no limitations or society-imposed responsibility/accountability.
For example, if someone went ranting and raving and yelling and screaming with off-the-wall stuff calling everyone else immature names and threatening them in a shopping mall then the police would come and check to see if he’s insane and goes to the hospital or just rude and goes to the jail for disturbing the peace.
On the internet there is no such control imposed by the community. Sure we can ban people from forums but they pick a new name and come back and act stupid again.
Then there’s the whole issue with “I’m entitled to this” and “I have freedom of speech” which is blown so badly out of proportion that people are destructive in the name of “rights”. They just don’t get it.
Even murlocks are better behaved than some people I see on the Internet.
@Bryan
Best quote ever!
@Bryan & Jim
Indeed, lack of repercussion / accountability does inflate the problem, and I like your image of someone yelling and screaming in real life.
But I still think the “it can be bad when everyone has a voice” argument stands; it’s amplified on the net where there is no accountability, but even in contexts where people *are* accountable you can see how people always complain about everything. It’s really about freedom of speech bringing its baggage of annoyance more than anything…
And just so we’re clear, I’m not saying we should get rid of freedom of speech and democracy. But just like you think your wife or husband is incredibly annoying sometimes and you’re still very much in love with him/her, sometimes the bitching and moaning of “the people” makes me want to sleep in democracy’s couch instead of her bed, and it doesn’t mean I don’t still think she’s the best thing ever…
Ahem.
Wow, ok, that was a weird metaphor.
We’ll Patrick, there is one big difference between the internet and true democracy. Most democracies are some form of a representative democracy. The internet is the complete opposite of that; instead of 100 senators (who work with each other every day) hammering out compromises, anyone who has an email address and 5 spare minutes can say whatever they happen to be thinking on the internet.
Your right. Complete democracies, where every citizen has a vote on every finance bill and land ordinances don’t work. The vast majority of people might want to give out condoms to kids. However, I might be a fundamentalist christian, or allergic to rubber, and oppose the idea. However extreme, minorities will be vocal. In representative democracies, the more moderates tend to win elections, and they also tend to make compromises, if only in order to get things done. However, on the internet, the outspoken minorities get into flame wars, and give all of free speech a bad name.
@Micheal
My point exactly: if the Internet is an extreme form of democracy, maybe we should stick to elective democracies and not have this fantasy that everyone’s voice should be heard on every issue…
There should be some sort of voice filter, I agree. Not sure how it can be implemented, but when people with no real knowledge about a subject try to push their views on it, it just makes a lot of extra work for those trying to solve the real problems. Trick is that you have to somehow get the right people in decision making places, and all too often the person who displays the most confidence will appear like an expert to the layperson, regardless of their actual capabilities.
Also, does your analogy mean that all single people are anarchists?
democracy, wow. actually, it is not the best possible idea out there. democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. it is majority rule, and there will always be a minority out there who does not like what the majority has decided. what is the best method? well, in my opinion, it is a matter of personal responsibility and respecting the sovereign rights of the individual.
what does all that mean? basically, leave me right the fuck alone and i will leave you right the fuck alone.
now, let’s apply that to situations around the world. you know all of those problems in the middle east? well, we are still dealing with fall out from lines on a map drawn by white people in the aftermath of world war I. maybe, if the rest of the world were to leave them alone then they could do one of two things, resolve their disputes by redistricting themselves however they want, or wipe each other off the map. either way, problem solved.
war in iraq? if the iraqis wanted to be free from the rule of saddam, then they could have risen up against him and had a nice little revolution all to themselves.
the situation in darfur? if i lived in a town of 137 people i would go crazy as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur,_Minnesota
just kidding.
it is a war between the sudanese people, and for them to fight. individuals who want to help in whatever way they can, well, can, but no one is saying anyone has to.
essentially, democracy is just a load of crap. freedom of speech protects your right to say whatever you want, until you step on my property. if we, as individuals, learned to respect each other, and the rights of each other, as individuals (and not see each other with the labels we apply, i.e. black, white, asian, european, kurd, shia, muslim, et.al.) then maybe we, as a world society, could actually live in a little bit of harmony for a change.
@Grimmlock
I think you’re missing the point of democracy here. You’re saying “everyone should leave everyone else alone”, and while I strongly disagree with the example you give, the issue is not that people won’t leave each other alone. They do most of the time, even in a democracy, but the problem is more something like: what happens when they don’t leave each other alone?
I have a feeling you’re leaning towards anarchy more than democracy. You can’t decide that “leave everyone alone” is what you want and still expect things like roads, water, electricity… To get these kinds of infrastructure you need some kind of body to organize it all, and that doesn’t happen if the community doesn’t get together to decide what to do. From then on, you can’t really go back to “leave me the fuck alone”. If you don’t want to take part you have to give up the benefits and unplug your computer right now…
the idea is not for complete and total isolationism, but to respect the rights of the individual. that is the main problem throughout the world. others feel the need to impose their ideas as to what is right on them. that is what i mean by leave me alone. not that we should each be these tiny little islands all by ourselves not associating with anyone else in the entire world. that is just plain silly.
yes, you are correct, i am a bit of an anarchist (really more minarchist, i can see some small need for government). it’s funny, though, that you bring up the same ideas that everyone else does: roads, water, and electricity.
roads, well, let us take for example wal-mart. wal-mart needs customers. the only way to drive to wal-mart, on a road. so why can’t wal-mart make roads to take you to wal-mart? or, what about ad supported roads? banners that run along the retaining walls at the same speed as traffic for companies that sponsor the roads, or who knows what else the free market could come up with?
water, i am guessing you mean what if someone bought up all of the controlling interest in the water within an area and starting selling it at such a horrible price no one can afford water anymore and everyone dies of thirst. well, the only way to have a monopoly is with government involvement, where they prevent any competition from moving into the area.
electricity, i am not sure how it is in france, but here in the states electricity is provided by private companies. unfortunately, because of the government involvement, they tend to have a monopoly and you don’t get to choose who will be your provider, so the company can essentially set the price without fear of having someone come in and undercut them.
the same holds true for almost any “service” that you can bring up. police? why can’t a community decide that they want to hire a private security force to keep the peace within their neighborhood?
looking at just community, why can’t everyone there enter into a contract that you must accept in order to live there? don’t like what the area you are trying to live in decides it should be like? don’t live there, hence the leave them alone, they will leave you alone.
yes, people will always form some type of ruling body when a community forms, but the issue is that what we currently have is not something that everyone wants. it is what, at the very least, 51% of the people want, which is not enough, in my opinion. two wolves and a sheep, deciding what is for dinner.
I can see several problems in the way things would play out with the “extreme capitalism” you’re suggesting.
“Let the market run regulate itself” is a good idea, but you can’t just let it run wild in every area of society… I think recent events should have tought that to everyone.
The issue is that the market tends to evolve towards profit at the cost of fairness, and some things can’t just be ruled by profit. Ad supported roads? Dude, I don’t think you realize how expensive roads are…
And take health services for example; can you really imagine that a hospital would work efficiently if the only rules were the market and profit?
I keep joking that I live in a socialist country and that I dislike this extreme form of socialism, but I do believe that you need quite a bit of government for some things, because the government insures some measure of fairness. And yes, I do think fairness counts for something; paint me a tree hugging pinko if you like, but I’ll still be right about this.
So maybe we shouldn’t be as socialist as we are here, but definitely not as extreme as you suggest. You can’t just let the system work itself and expect it not to go nuts. Again, recent developments in the economy should have proven that.
The thing is, it might be a good idea in theory but in *practice* it just doesn’t work. Your views remind me of communists who say “yeah well, what happened in eastern Europe wasn’t *true* communism, it was Marxists dictatorships. True communism would work perfectly”.
Yeah well, the reason why it turned into that is precisely *because* it doesn’t work. You’re thinking in theoretical terms and not accounting for human factors. These pervert the “pure communism” when you try to apply it in real life, and it does pervert “pure capitalism” too… Sorry Grimmlock, but in a way you’re living in a dream world.
The bigger issue in your view of this is way we would get to this “minarchist” system of you though. You keep coming back to the “two wolves and a sheep” image when it’s really just three wolves (or three sheep). You’re taking things backwards: you’re assuming that the wolves will always band against the sheep, where as in a democracy the vote decides who the sheep is in the end: it’s just the wolf that is in the minority at the time. And the “fair” aspect is that this can change any time we vote, which is the beauty of it. If “Johnny the wolf” had the sheep costume last time, it doesn’t mean that he’ll keep it forever; make a good case, and next time you might very well switch with “Billy the wolf”. And I will add that no other system will ensure that this can happen. Any other will keep Johnny in the wolf costume forever.
So anyway, my point is: how do you get to that system you’re suggesting? Don’t we have to all get together and decide that’s where we should go? Well, that’s democracy my friend… And I’ll tell you what: if you leave the door open for an election somewhere down the road, then I’ll even agree with you: if your system gets voted in democratically, then we are bound to apply it!
Which is the beauty of democracy: even if you don’t agree, you bow to the will of the people…
Ironic that I started this article criticizing an aspect of democracy and that I’m ending up defending it.
PS: I keep saying that democracy is the best system we have because of empirical evidence; not only do I believe this intellectually, but the “real life experiment” known as History has proven that democracy is the system that ensures the most freedom, creation and distribution of health, technological and social progress. I don’t really see any other system that works better to this day…
Yes Patrick, Democracy seems to have won the fight for the “best socio-political form of government”…until something better comes along. But which of the different forms that Democracy has taken on is the most perferred? Parlimentary (including Soviet) Democracy (lets vote for some person who will vote in her choice of leader), Constitutional Democracy (I mean, really…should the rights of the citizen to bear arms outweigh the rights of other citizens not to get shot for going to purchase milk?)
Certainly the French form or Canadian form of Democracy seems superior to the US system — if you measure success by the UN’s Human Development Index (http://tinyurl.com/52hrb) . What is it about the US form that limits its success? Why is the French form better? Does a nations willingess to collaborate with other nations to jointly reach a desired goal influence the degree by which a democracy is deemed a success? What about a nation’s geographic proximity to others? The top three countries on the UNHDI are all northern hemispheres countries with limited direct neighbours.
Patrick,
I enjoyed reading this because as you said many think these things. It was nice to hear it cohesively. I kind got an Elitist, Hobbes-ian undertone – which I appreciate. I do not consider myself an Elitist however I really think (in the context of a governmental system) some intellectual elitism is necessary. I personally would rather have 15 people make an educated vote (even if it fits their personal interest) than 100,000 people make a vote based on criteria such as which candidate has the most aesthetically pleasing demeanor or which party their family has been a fan of historically. It is more likely that an intellectually elitist mindset would produce a meritocracy.
Oh, and the bit about Internet being extreme democracy – very true and interesting to thing about. However, I find it capitalistic in some regards because websites that produce the best products earn the most money…. anyways I need to further reflect on this.
Well, I just wanted to comment because it interested me and I enjoyed your perspective.
@GreginVan (does that name mean you’re named Greg and you’re in a van?)
The way we measure the effectiveness of a political system is an interesting topic indeed. I think we all agree that democracy / capitalism is the best combination yet, but beyond that…
@Alex
Indeed, I don’t see elitism as a bad thing per se. There are people who are more capable than others in some areas, and there is nothing wrong with that. I don’t know how elitism became a bad word. It’s sort of like denying the value of education and intelligence.
And I have nothing but respect of average joes by the way. Hell, we’re all average joes in here I’m guessing…
things would be a lot easier if you all just bowed down before me as the emperor of the world.