What to do when democracy fails.

[coberst]

What to do when democracy fails.

 

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

 

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

 

Our financial system’s abrupt collapse is one manifestation of this problem. Few of our experts, if any, have the sophistication to mange this high tech economy that we have created. Certainly few if any of our (USA) citizens have the sophistication to make decisions about this matter.

 

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

 

We have tried Monarchy, Oligarchy, and now Democracy.

 

Where can we turn when our technology outstrips our intellectual sophistication?

 

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

[Moontanman]

What to do when democracy fails.

 

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign; when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

 

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

 

Our financial system’s abrupt collapse is one manifestation of this problem. Few of our experts, if any, have the sophistication to mange this high tech economy that we have created. Certainly few if any of our (USA) citizens have the sophistication to make decisions about this matter.

 

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

 

We have tried Monarchy, Oligarchy, and now Democracy.

 

Where can we turn when our technology outstrips our intellectual sophistication?

 

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

 

I disagree, that very technology should be used to govern. a sophisticated computer could perform all the functions of government and the courts without any emotional or financial baggage and be completely fair no matter who was being scrutinized. a computer could be programed to govern completely Fair and honestly.

[ChunTzu]

I had the opportunity to go to Convergence08 this November in Silicon Valley. One of the featured discussions, titled "Digital Serfs and Cyborg Buddhas", was hosted by Dr. James Hughes, executive director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and Michael LaTorra, a Buddhist priest. Their thesis was that in the not-too-distant future, when computers can do everything for us, becoming our digital serfs/slaves, humanity will for the most part be free to enrich our lives in the best way, to all become Buddhas, or whatever religion one ascribes to. This can happen because 1) we'll have more time because the computers are doing our work and 2) we'll have the technologies to overcome any kind of negative human trait which may keep us from attaining spiritual creaminess (i.e. emotional instability, physical disability, etc.).

 

I don't know if I agree with them but it's an interesting game of "What if..." that has implications throughout all of our current manmade structures.

[questor]

What is happening now is a failure of people, not technology. It is a failure of oversight, of greed, of a lack of understanding of human nature and an attempt to ''spread the wealth''.

[coberst]

What is happening now is a failure of people, not technology. It is a failure of oversight, of greed, of a lack of understanding of human nature and an attempt to ''spread the wealth''.

 

The point of the post is to say that the citizens of all democracies are not sophisticated enough to make responsible decisions. It appears that they never will be sophisticated enough to make the judgments required by our high tech society. If citizens do not have the sophistication demanded in a democracy what can we do to prevent the destruction of the species as a result?

[questor]

What happens when the members of a society discover they can vote in people who want to ''even the playing field", or ''spread the wealth"?

[CraigD]

In a democracy the citizens are sovereign…

This is an strange definition of democracy.

 

Sovereignty is most widely defined as “the exclusive right to control something”. For example, the absolute monarch of a state is its sovereign, because everything in that state, from its natural resources to the labor and lives of its inhabitants, is under his control. In a state with a pure parliamentary government, its parliament is sovereign, because it controls everything. In a presidential system, such as in the US, no single branch of government is sovereign.

 

Only in a true anarchy are individual citizens sovereign, and then, only over themselves, and arguable any property they can hold. In a true direct democracy, the body of all of the citizens are sovereign. Other than over small entities in unusual circumstances, such as military and business partnerships in collapsed states, direct democracies do not and have never existed de facto, and only rarely, such as the case of ancient Athens, de jure.

 

Most states that are commonly termed democracies are more correctly republics. Although the precise definition of a republic is controversial, the most widely accepted attribute of republics are that their governments, to borrow from the US Declaration of Independence, are “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. In a real sense, republics are entirely incompatible with the idea of sovereignty, as under such a system, neither the government nor the governed have an exclusive right to control anything

… when the citizens of a democracy haven’t the capacity to comprehend the problems of that democracy that democracy will fail.

…

A large democratic state cannot consistently function within a world that is beyond the comprehension capacity of the citizens of that democracy.

This claim appears to me to have no basis in objective reality or historic data, but rather be a reflection of an unspecified model of society and government.

 

By definition, few of the citizens of any state of any kind have an extraordinary comprehension of anything. Narrative history and statistical surveying shows that few citizens can even associate names with most of the problems their societies face. Yet ancient and modern states with citizenries among the least capable of comprehension are often those with the most stable governments.

 

The obvious explanation for this in the case of republics is that they are governed by small numbers of citizen leaders who do have extraordinary comprehension of both the problems of the state, and the specialized political problem of securing the consent of the governed. That is, that political systems work because of, rather than in spite of, politicians. Though I’m fairly sure it’s true, I’m also fairly sure this statement is among the least accepted by the governed of any republic. This illustrates another important distinction: consent is not the same as approval.

Human ingenuity has proven to be capable of producing very sophisticated technology. But humans seem to be unable to develop the intellectual sophistication required to guide and control that technology. That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.

Other than with its use of the ambiguous, emotionally loaded term “sophisticated”, I agree with this statement. However, my reaction to it is “so what?”

 

At nearly all times in human history, people have considered their tools and resources sophisticated high technology, and have almost never accurately anticipated the consequences of its use, or how to guide and control it. Yet even when this lack of foresight and control was at its worst (which IMHO peaked in mid 20th century’s brief nuclear war), its failed to kill more humans worldwide in a year that were born. The lethality our most lethal technology has not equaled that of natural phenomena, such as influenza, and despite many apocalyptic depictions in popular fiction, and dire predictions by the technically ill-informed, such technology seems as far off now as a few generations ago.

 

In short, our species’ capacity for self-extinction appears to me little different than any other’s. Our belief that we have an extraordinary capacity for self-extinction, and the attendant belief that only we can cause our extinction, is, I think, one of our greatest conceit.

To me the only direction that seems available is that since we cannot achieve the commensurate intellectual sophistication demanded by our technology then we must curtail the use of such sophisticated technology.

To me, this begs the question “you and what luddite army will curtail the use of technology?”

 

Human history is sprinkled with instances of self-styled sovereigns seeking to curtail technological progress, sometimes with selfish, sometimes altruistic motives, but no record of such efforts ever succeeding. Progress appears to be like a ratchet. We can better learn to use technology, and replace more harmful technology with less, but it does not appear that the option of making it go away is available.

[Zythryn]

The point of the post is to say that the citizens of all democracies are not sophisticated enough to make responsible decisions. It appears that they never will be sophisticated enough to make the judgments required by our high tech society. If citizens do not have the sophistication demanded in a democracy what can we do to prevent the destruction of the species as a result?

 

This is nothing new. People have voiced concerns over letting individuals vote ever since the founding fathers set up the system.

 

I don't believe this is an unsurmountable issue. Education is critical, and rational/critical thinking is also critical. Lack of those things are what may lead to a downfall, not (in my opinion) technology.

[Steve Davis]

One of the problems with modern democracy is that it's too open to manipulation. For example, it has facilitated the establishment of market mechanisms that have no social use or value. If you go into a pawn shop and try to sell something you don't own there's a good chance you'll be arrested, yet that is exactly what happens in our more sophisticated financial markets, the very markets that have proved so destabilising recently. But is there a push to dissolve those markets? No way. We'll just stumble on from crisis to crisis until the majority realise that representative democracy is not all it's cracked up to be.

[coberst]

The point is that whether you call it a democracy or vegetable soup we live in a form of government wherein the citizens are sovereign and in most cases lack the sophistication required for that task. Furthermore they often lack the will to perform their task adequately.

[questor]

If citizens lack the sophistication to cope with technology, what is the bottom line? Do we halt all research, limit research, or deal with the lack of sophistication?

People are NOT created or born as equals.

[coberst]

If citizens lack the sophistication to cope with technology, what is the bottom line? Do we halt all research, limit research, or deal with the lack of sophistication?

People are NOT created or born as equals.

 

Once we recognize the problem we can then begin to create a solution.

[CraigD]

The point is that whether you call it a democracy or vegetable soup we live in a form of government wherein the citizens are sovereign …

Coberst, you’re just repeating the claim you made in post #1, which I criticized in post #7, without addressing the criticism. :)

 

That we agree on the meaning of words is important in any use of language. Sovereignty does not mean “having the right to vote” or “not a subject of a monarch”. When applied to an individual, it means being a monarch. It is, therefore, technically incorrect to assert that US citizens are sovereign.

 

The belief that US citizens are (or through making certain verbal or written statement can become) sovereign is, to the best of my knowledge, held only by members and sympathizers of the sovereign citizen movement. Though of interest to students of sociology and the wierd, the core claims of this movement – a bizarre collection of political theories typically proposing that the 14th Amendment and/or the early 1970s breakdown of a de jure gold standard made illegitimate some or all governments in the US, resulting in a transfer of sovereignty from the US government to each individual citizen – are not considered correct by most scholars, or by any US court. Because of the movement’s links with racial supremacy groups and high profile criminals such as Timothy McVeigh, most people are uncomfortable being associated with the idea of “sovereign citizens”. An example of a sovereign citizen movement website is Uniform Commercial Code & Sovereignty Rights Overview - Eliminate Credit Debt.

 

Coberst, if you know of people other than yourself or members and sympathizers of the sovereign citizen movement claiming that US citizens are sovereign, please provide a reference to their writing.

 

Practically, I think the following is a good test of sovereignty: If you can have one or more people jailed or executed, you’re sovereign and they’re not. If one or more people can have you jailed or executed, you’re not sovereign, and they are.

… and in most cases lack the sophistication required for that task. Furthermore they often lack the will to perform their task adequately.

This is too non-specific for me to understand what you mean, coberst. Can you give an example of a person failing to perform their task adequately because of lack of sophistication or will? :)

[coberst]

Craig

 

We were born smart enough but we weren’t born intellectually sophisticated enough to handle this high tech world we have invented.

 

What is the difference between “being smart” and “being sophisticated”? I would say that we can use the handyman and his tool box as a good analogy for comprehending this difference. The number and quality of the instruments in a handyman’s tool box is a measure of his smartness and his experience using those tools is a measure of his sophistication.

 

If a handyman has only a hammer then every job is a job that will get hammered on. If that handyman has a great tool box but has experience only with a hammer then that handyman will look for things that can be hammered into place.

 

My answer to the question “how do I become more intellectually sophisticated?” is “become a self-actualizing self-learner of disinterested knowledge.”

 

Most words have many definitions and thus it might be appropriate to identify the definition that I find suitable when trying to communicate the meaning of the word ‘sovereign’.

 

I will start with a definition of the word I found in my dictionary: sovereign--one who exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere. And add the words of Benjamin Franklin “In free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”

 

As you show, the word “sovereign” has been argued vehemently throughout history. The other word that most seem to want to argue is the word ‘democracy’. But I am ‘bird hunting’ here; I do not want to go chasing every rabbit that jumps up.

 

I am perfectly willing to use any other word or even just use the phrase that Franklin uses. I know of no other word to use that means the same thing, perhaps you might have a more suitable word that I might use.

[questor]

Coberst, could you explain the difficulties we are having fuctioning with technology?

 

'' That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.'' Coberst

[coberst]

Coberst, could you explain the difficulties we are having fuctioning with technology?

 

'' That is to say that democracy cannot function adequately in this high tech society we have created.'' Coberst

 

 

 

What are some of the matters that are a result of our technology, which we must deal with sometime before we are swamped by the affect of the problem?

 

World population: We have more than 6.5 billion people in the world now and we are growing exponentially. We must some how stop this growth and I suspect our planet cannot support its present 6.5 billion that we have now.

 

Human destruction of the environment: Global warming is one obvious difficulty, destruction of the oceans, destruction of the forests throughout the world.

 

Depletion of our natural resources: We are consuming the planet and as the rest of the world increases their living standard to approach that of the United States we will consume the planet even faster.

 

Cost of health care is soaring as a result of both new technology and because of the aging of the present population.

 

Nuclear weapon proliferation throughout the world: Each nation is acting rationally in their desire to have a nuclear weapon and those nations with such weapons are acting rationally in the effort to prevent any other nation acquiring such a weapon.

 

The gap between the rich and the poor throughout the world is increasing. I suspect each increase in this gap is creating more discontent that leads to terrorism.

 

Terrorists will soon acquire a nuclear weapon and/or other WMD.

 

New technologies such as the Internet, TV, cell phones, etc. are making the population less and less sophisticated because of the appeal of the superficial exploitation of the titillations afforded by such technology.

[Turtle]

...

New technologies such as the Internet, TV, cell phones, etc. are making the population less and less sophisticated because of the appeal of the superficial exploitation of the titillations afforded by such technology.

 

And yet, here you are on the internet. Ironic, ain't it. :shrug: Tryin' to rub us out with titillation, aren't ya? I feel so...dirty & exploited. :confused: If & when democracy in the US fails, I'll have a ready food source and a new business making Soylent Green. :)