![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumDemocracy is hard. It is, in fact, probably the hardest system of goverment people have tried.
It is fundamentally unstable. Get a large enough group together, and it will fail, because it becomes too unwieldy (the estimates of largest stable size which come to me are about 5,000 people; for direct, one person: one vote, on all decisions of note). Too many people, and too much lag time in the making of decisions, as well as the ablity for a demagogue to sway a majority, and so oppress a large enough minority that things fall apart.
We get around this, in the modern age of large states, but having a system which puts my vote in the hand of another, who is holding a number of other proxies. This has flaws too, because the population can get so large that either the number of proxies is guaranteed to make it impossible to satisfy the constiuency, or the number of delgates to the "thing" will become too large to get business done.
But, so long as some criteria are met, these are both survivable.
But, right now, according to this poll of Rightwing bloggers, it seems we're screwed.
First, the good news. This is a small, and non-random poll of self-responders, so it's not likely to be really accurate.
If it is, the one of the fundamental requirements of democracy is in grave danger.
Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?
Yes (53)-- 84%
No (10) -- 16%
That's a terrifying ratio.
Because the primary belief required of the citizens of a democracy is that the general interest of all is pointed in the same direction. That those in political opposition aren't evil, merely mistaken, at worst misguided. It's why democracies value a level of homogeniety; why the myth of the melting pot is so strong in the United States.
When a significant part of the population believes the rest aren't looking out for common interests... the system is in trouble. If the belief gets to be too large, if too many of the minority come to this way of thinking, that state is doomed.
A smaller number, will leave. A larger number will foment discontent. In some cases they will rebel. The U.S. did this to create itself. Later it had several rebellions testing just what the social contracts were (Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions, as well as the Civil War).
The things these bloggers believe isn't that the "Democrats" think the war is lost, fruitless, a waste of blood, treasure and stature in the world; no, they think the "Liberals" want us to lose, and so lose place in the world and become a lesser power.
They don't believe this is because of a difference of opinion, or understanding... they think it is being done, just to gain political power, and lord it over them.
That's a problem, even if they are just a small segment of the Republican Party it's a problem, because these are the people who have the pulpit. They weren't chosen at random, they were chosen because they have fame. They are shapers of seconday opinion and this is a corrosive idea.
If this is what they believe, they are likely to poison the well, and make a happy medium impossible, which will further the spread of this way of thinking, and so the cycle will continue, until the strain is more than can be borne, and the United States could pass from the stage.
It is fundamentally unstable. Get a large enough group together, and it will fail, because it becomes too unwieldy (the estimates of largest stable size which come to me are about 5,000 people; for direct, one person: one vote, on all decisions of note). Too many people, and too much lag time in the making of decisions, as well as the ablity for a demagogue to sway a majority, and so oppress a large enough minority that things fall apart.
We get around this, in the modern age of large states, but having a system which puts my vote in the hand of another, who is holding a number of other proxies. This has flaws too, because the population can get so large that either the number of proxies is guaranteed to make it impossible to satisfy the constiuency, or the number of delgates to the "thing" will become too large to get business done.
But, so long as some criteria are met, these are both survivable.
But, right now, according to this poll of Rightwing bloggers, it seems we're screwed.
First, the good news. This is a small, and non-random poll of self-responders, so it's not likely to be really accurate.
If it is, the one of the fundamental requirements of democracy is in grave danger.
Do you think that a majority of Democrats in Congress would like to see us lose in Iraq for political reasons?
Yes (53)-- 84%
No (10) -- 16%
That's a terrifying ratio.
Because the primary belief required of the citizens of a democracy is that the general interest of all is pointed in the same direction. That those in political opposition aren't evil, merely mistaken, at worst misguided. It's why democracies value a level of homogeniety; why the myth of the melting pot is so strong in the United States.
When a significant part of the population believes the rest aren't looking out for common interests... the system is in trouble. If the belief gets to be too large, if too many of the minority come to this way of thinking, that state is doomed.
A smaller number, will leave. A larger number will foment discontent. In some cases they will rebel. The U.S. did this to create itself. Later it had several rebellions testing just what the social contracts were (Shay's and The Whiskey Rebellions, as well as the Civil War).
The things these bloggers believe isn't that the "Democrats" think the war is lost, fruitless, a waste of blood, treasure and stature in the world; no, they think the "Liberals" want us to lose, and so lose place in the world and become a lesser power.
They don't believe this is because of a difference of opinion, or understanding... they think it is being done, just to gain political power, and lord it over them.
That's a problem, even if they are just a small segment of the Republican Party it's a problem, because these are the people who have the pulpit. They weren't chosen at random, they were chosen because they have fame. They are shapers of seconday opinion and this is a corrosive idea.
If this is what they believe, they are likely to poison the well, and make a happy medium impossible, which will further the spread of this way of thinking, and so the cycle will continue, until the strain is more than can be borne, and the United States could pass from the stage.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:02 pm (UTC)When a significant part of the population believes the rest aren't looking out for common interests... the system is in trouble. If the belief gets to be too large, if too many of the minority come to this way of thinking, that state is doomed.
I am seeing that in the reaction to the lack of federal response to the Feb. 24 tornado in Dumas Arkansas. FEMA has been slow to non-responsive in helping this city get back on its feet, and our congressional delegation thinks that the problem might be political- our state 'flipped' Democrat this past election. I heard it not only from the state House member, but also from our senators, the governor, and the congressmen. FEMA basically told us that we're on our own, citing out state's budget surplus as the main reason that they won't help out financially. OTOH, they rushed to help out the tornado victims in Georgia and Alabama- both Republican strongholds. It's gotten really ugly.
The well is being poisoned even as we speak. Between things like this and the onslaught of the theocratic right into government, I don't see a bright future for this country. It isn't a 'liberal' thing at all- it's religious.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:15 pm (UTC)Add to that Domenici's interference in ongoing investigations and so on, the Plamegate ordeal, widespread meddling in elections in Ohio and elsewhere....but frankly, the well was poisoned long ago. You can see signs of this in the GOP's constant gunning for Bill Clinton and back further than that to Watergate, maybe even earlier. I really think Watergate was when people stopped believing anyone was in national politics for anything other than self-aggrandizement and greed.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:21 pm (UTC)The problem is when each side has found a way of pointing at every other side and saying "see? they're destroying us!" and making it believeable. The problem, then, is: What if some of them are right. When the question is where to go, not how to go there, and the answers differ so deeply that 4 years is a lifetime rather than a drop in the bucket...
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:29 pm (UTC)I think that it might be high time to start putting together a hexagram 36 continuity kit: gather technical data, build the library, hunker down and lay low.