USA Bashing

Post Reply New Topic

Although I disagree with Orwell on hs choice of government basically on the concept that a monarchy provides leadership by random selection and his choice indicates he feels it really doesn't matter who is in charge. I feel it does matter and our present system of plutocracy masquerading as a republic still provides a bit of response to current problems in the choice of leaders. Ideally there would be some form or government by competent people and the fundamental problem is that the citizenry as a whole is required to be well informed and sensible in their choice of leaders. Orwell has a good point in that the bulk of citizens are not minimally well informed nor aware of how to judge competence. I think these things can be remedied. He thinks they cannot. He is not whining when he presents his viewpoint, merely convinced an authoritarian system is worthwhile. I disagree.

I see your point, but I disagree with you still. Direct action, forming large groups of people to petition the government, etc is still possible outside of a democracy. Democracy's main distinctive characteristic is the system of elections or referendums. The examples you have cited of working to directly make a positive difference in your community are possible (and worthwhile) endeavors under almost any governmental system. But that's not what I was talking about. People tend to falsely conflate democracy with any number of other things, such as civil liberties. The two do not necessarily go together, nor is one required for the other.


Out of curiosity, how do you think this can be done? Purely through education? I have seen people go through some of the best schools available and still come out as complete morons, so I am pessimistic about the potential of education to remedy such issues.

[b]Orwell wrote

I understand and am sympathetic with your pessimism. It's not a matter of how as I am no expert in the matter. But you are insisting that is is impossible and I am saying it is not as it is vital in a democratic form of government and it must be done and regressing to an authoritative government form is to accept failure. It seems to me it is more a matter of culture than just policy. Over a period of time things like slavery, mistreatment of women and animals (please, do not imply the two are the same) and brutality towards children have gradually changed in western culture for the better. The middle east and Africa, amongst other cultures, are still primitive in these areas but advance is not just possible, it is necessary. I don't see it as easy but technological advances in communication are helping. It must be seen, and grasped as a goal.

Thank you for finaly understanding:

But power non the less.


Let me just say that I'm glad you're not anyones king.


Non-negligible = not negligible = significant. As to the rest of your comment, :facepalm:. You haven't studied economics either, have you?[/quote]
Ahh, thank you, my translator made a "smart" translation by automaticly change word to what it though I meant.
Please enlighten me why it's too expencive to let people vote.


Ruled by the vice king of India.


"Of course not."


I wasn't asking you, I was asking the readers. (If we have any. ^^)

*facepalm*

OK, so you didn't understand either of my physics analogies. I'm not sure how else to describe the concept to you. Fuzzy gave it a shot as well a few posts back. When a value is so small as to not matter, it is just counted as 0. We say that this value is negligible. The value of 1/x is negligible for large values of x. Honestly, a vote is more negligible than air resistance or time dilation at low speeds, because an individual vote has absolutely 0 effect. The result of an election is discrete (either this candidate or that candidate) rather than continuous (faster- or slower-moving car after accounting for air resistance). Air resistance and time dilation do make a difference... just not one that's big enough to matter or even be measured. A single vote simply does not make a difference.


I'm not interested in the job.


I never said that. If you don't have at least a basic background in economics, then a good explanation of my argument would take way too long.

Let's see if I can make it concise: 1/x is the power of the vote. When x is big, 1/x is small. Very small. Small enough that the outcome is not affected by 1/x, and never will be. But people have to invest a lot of time reading up on political issues if they are going to make an informed decision (which most do not) not to mention all the time and hassle on election day to cast a vote. So from the individual perspective: the cost of voting is high (you have to get informed about the issues and candidates, deal with the bureaucracy in charge of elections, and wait in line to vote) and the payoff is basically 0 (you will not affect the outcome of the election). Thus, the rational (utility-maximizing) decision for an individual is to choose not to vote.

That's the gist of it, at least.


Well, it's true. Your hail and seed have nothing to do with the vote, which is the defining feature of democracy. At the ballot box, the power of one vote is more or less static. It doesn't grow from something unimpressive to something substantial. It just is always worthless.

Ohh, I do understand them, but they are not used correctly, there for I ignore them.
No, a single vote don't make the difference, and it shouldn't unless it's exactly 50-50. But it still contributes. And that was not what you said either, you said that one person can't effect the government:

I (and history) have proved you wrong. Several individuals has forced governments to change. In a true democracy, (much) less violence is needed. Less violence = less suffering = better system.


I think I can handle it. (If my translator is up for the job. ^^)


Yes! You will affect it, but you won't settle it. No matter who you are and what you do, you won't have any more voting-power than anyone els, that's the good part.


That would depend on your view.

But I'm not speaking about large groups petetioning the government. I'm talking about the ability to form large groups, or a political party, within the democracy, for which citizens may cast their vote. This is not possible in a monarchy, and probably not possible in most, if not all, other governmental systems (I cannot speak with complete certainty on this one, but I'm pretty sure that this is true).

Please don't mistake my defense of democracy for an affinity for democracy. There are absolutly many faults within it, particularly in our own country, but I do believe that it provides the best basis for government. To say that only the best and the brightest should be able to have a say is both arrogant and ignorant. There's no way that some urban Harvard grad has any idea what is best for a farmer in Oklahoma. Besides, stupidity is a very subjective term. Who's to say which voters are making their vote for the wrong reason. I'm pretty sure that most voters feel that they are making the right choice. We all vary in opinions, and what may seem smart to one person may seem stupid to another. I do think we should be doing a better job at educating our youth, but that does not address the radical differences in opinion we all have. We should all be free to vote with our own best interests in mind.

They are used correctly.


Um... that's what I've been saying the whole time. One voter has no power in an election. It "contributing" is meaningless because then you are viewing people as aggregates, not as individuals.


No, neither you nor history have done any such thing. The means you and number5 have listed as ways for people to change government do not involve voting and are thus available to people even without a democratic system being in place. If you are acting outside of politics, then the political system is irrelevant.


No, I will not affect it. The last time I voted, not only did my vote not affect the outcome in my state, my state did not affect the outcome of the election. You are right only in that no one has more voting-power than anyone else (in theory at least, in practice this is false at least in the US). So everyone is equally impotent. I don't see how this is a good thing.


No, it is objectively true. One vote is one vote is one vote. It does not change. It is always one vote. The seed and hail analogies could work to describe community action, like starting a grass-roots organization where your initial small contribution could snowball into something significant, but they certainly do not apply to voting.

Orwell wrote

You seem to make the principle of aggregate judgment in democracy a fault in that one person cannot determine the outcome whereas you find it laudable that in a monarchy some random individual who could be easily an egomaniac or totally insane as well, it should be conceded , as being competent. The principle of democracy, of course, is that a large number of people must believe a decision is worthwhile before their mass opinion becomes effective. Why is that not a good thing? Why should one vote overwhelm a general decision?

The point is largely that I don't think the advocates of democracy understand this aspect of it. An individual does not matter in a democracy. If one wants to defend this state of affairs, it is certainly possible to do so. I disagree with the notion that what the majority of people believe must be true. And I also have tried to point out that when an individual has little to no influence, they are less likely to find it worthwhile to exercise that little influence responsibly. Thus, the bulk of votes will be from grossly uninformed voters, because it is not worthwhile to keep up to date on all relevant political issues.


Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one already. (Henry David Thoreau)

And the point you make is that a grossly misinformed public defeats the purpose of democracy. No question about that. So the problem then is to inform them properly. Perhaps a single individual could do something about that. Obviously a functioning democracy requires a dynamic citizenry that is well informed.

well, if enough individuals feel the same way, their vote does affect elections.

You can change the facts
you change points of view
you may change your vote
you may change the world...

My criticism of democracy is that, as you said, it requires a well informed electorate, and yet the structure of the democratic system gives no incentive for people to be informed. When an individual has very little power, they also have very little incentive to be careful using that power. So you have a lot of people casting careless votes. For example, in 2004 most people who opposed the war in Iraq voted for John Kerry, who repeatedly stated that he was going to escalate the war in Iraq by sending more troops over. People simply don't know what they're voting for much of the time. If there are fewer people who hold power, then the importance of an individual becomes clear and each person who has power will take pause to consider whether they are making the best use of that power.

Again your criticism of democracy boils down to a badly informed public. The events in Iraq are totally confused by no one really knowing what the USA is doing there in the first place. From establishing a democratic regime to controlling the oil to securing the whole middle east militarily the confusion boils on continuously and no one seems to know. Democracy becomes potent when the public is personally affected by policy and Iraq , aside from the financial fiascoes, has no personal effect on the US public. Loss of jobs and incomes and health problems are affecting people and their interest in these things is high and is causing democratic political efforts.

I'm just going to laugh at that statement for a while.

...

"If there are fewer people who hold power, then the importance of an individual becomes clear and each person who has power will take pause to consider whether they are making the best use of that power."?
You mean people like a president and his advisors? Or a monarch and his puppets? No, people only makes decisions who gains them, and the benifit with democracy is that if the person want to stay in power, it had better benefit the people too, since it's them he's answering to.

I can merely say that it seems that you lack faith in american people, and there for rule out democracy all thogether. And all your arguments are a screen to hide that.

Only if you believe that "the people" are keeping close tabs on those in power.


I lack faith in people in general, not just in American people. There are a few other problems with democracy, but a good portion of my arguments are based on a lack of faith in people.