![[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 11:30 pm (UTC)That's the lesson of history.
Another lesson of history is that a receipe for screwing the body politic is to be ruled by aristocrats. Hint, you don't have to have 'lord' before your name to be an aristocrat.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:36 pm (UTC)An Empire can afford to have groups which believe the others would like to see them eliminated, so long as the Powers That Be, are seen as strong enough to prevent it.
So long as that belief lasts, then there is no need for the parts to be, at all, homogenous.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-03-10 11:50 pm (UTC)Empire is as empire does, on the basis of it it waddles, quacks and swims it is a duck, whatever it calls itself.
no subject
Date: 2007-03-11 12:19 am (UTC)Empires are not democracies.
An empire can afford to have Serbs, and Croats, Muslims, Hindus, Christians and Sikhs; Japanese and Ainu.
So long as each group believes that to try and rise against others is to be destroyed; by a groups which is not the object of their ire, then peace (in a general sense) will be the order of the day.
The empire doesn't care that the Christians hate the Jews, that the Lutherans hate the Catholics.
What it cares about is they don't have unrest. So long as the various members are quiescent, there will will calm.
A democracy has to have a different sense of idenity, and one that isn't based on fear of the gov't coming in and beating the snot out of you; because you disagree with policy.
Rather peace and order rise from a sense of shared identity.
TK
no subject
Date: 2007-03-11 09:27 am (UTC)Democracy is not inimical to empire - for most of its lifetime the British Empire was a functioning democracy. The USA is a functioning democracy but it is behaving like an imperium (and the Monroe Doctrine goes way, way back)
When the shared identity is deliberately diminished - as appears to be the case in your country at present - the question remains, 'Cui bono?' I return to my remark about aristocracy.
Change, however, is constant. Francis Fukuyama was utterly wrong.
We are living in interesting times - but we are living, and able to learn our lessons, if we are willing. If we aren't, there is only one conclusion. That's the lesson of evolution.
Picture a raised glass. Here's to today, and all the promise it holds, and to tomorrow, which holds still more.
MT
no subject
Date: 2007-03-11 04:13 pm (UTC)Because I don't think the British Empire was a democracy, for anyone who wasn't living in the confines of he United Kingdom (and not really for many of those).
Until the voting reforms granting suffrage to one and all, most of those in England didn't have a say in who represented them.
And the countries outside of Britain had even less say than that (and yes, I know the United States has other problems with franchise but beasts are different).
India was ruled, until Victoria's day, by a chartered monopoly; as if Chrysler were the legal gov't of Michigan, with an army (subsidised by some separate Gov't) and the power to enter treaties, etc.
The only reason I'd say an empire is a "bad" thing is that the common good at hand isn't that of the people, because the people to whom the government answers aren't those who are directly affected by policy (with the exception of a very small group, whose interests are personal).
TK