You begin your tirade by suggesting that "representative democracy [is] only ever viable up to a certain population size, after which it [is] unable to effectively scale".
Looking at for example the Scandinavian countries, you might appear to be right - but have you ever given any thought to the very obvious difference in electoral systems? By various means these countries make it impossible for any one party ever to have a majority in their parliaments - which again has the result that each and every political decision must be a compromise between a number of parties or individuals. All first-past-the-post electoral system (e.g. the UK and the US) in effect create a period of what actually amounts to one-party tyranny : the exact opposite of real democracy.
This also makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to follow Jordan Peterson in his fundamental philosophy of concentrating on (living and enacting) "the Integrity of the Individual" - which, if you look carefully at it, was the real basis of what became known as European Enlightenment. Soeren Kierkegaard (known as the father of existentialism) is the Christian philosopher who is closest to Jordan Peterson here
I’d be interested in a definition of real democracy. In the Westminster system as I understand it democracy is the tyranny of 51 over 49. The numbers might vary, but inevitably it’s the more numerous over the less numerous. To sell that model we are told it’s representative, which is logically impossible unless we have one representative per voter.
Which brings us to anarchism as a basis for government, instead of democracy.
That’s anarchy not as an absence of rules but as an absence of rulers.
And if we are concerned about where the rules come from that would be from ourselves. Along the lines of my natural rights exist up to the point where they impinge on yours and vice versa.
So perhaps it’s not a question of scaling democracy but replacing it with something much more local. Perhaps democracy can work when each of us can touch the person making the decisions to signal our accord or disagreement. Beyond that level scaling up is space for corruption and tyranny.
Sorry -- I got a little confused with who I was replying to before, hence the deleted comment. I hesitate to call myself an anarchist as I just don't see how any large (or small) community of people can operate without a ruler of some kind, but I have a lot of sympathy with the anarchist perspective. Michael Malice in particular has plenty to say on this. Essentially I think you're right: "replacing it with something much more local. Perhaps democracy can work when each of us can touch the person making the decisions to signal our accord or disagreement." Here I am totally with you, and I think it may be the only way forward (or back, as the case may be).
It seems likely that it is, as you suggest, the only way forward.
I was being optimistic when I suggested that 51 - 49 was a likely outcome from democracy and that it was a tyranny of the more numerous.
Schoolboy mistake; in our system a tyranny of the less numerous is concreted when you consider those who voted for a more entertaining and smaller party, or those who ate, or otherwise abused their ballots in the privacy of the voting booth will eventually be the majority. It ends with the activists controlling from a very small percentage while we in the greater percentage shrug and think that’s the way of the world.
Michael Malice in one of his discussions with Tom Woods and many other comments has a lot to say on this subject and is pretty forthright on solutions. Gerard Casey is worth a look as well if you haven’t already come across him. I think he might persuade on the options available for us to operate as communities within touching distance.
Hi Andy, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your thinking here though. Are you saying democracy can scale up infinitely? And that the proportional representation system is the way to go? Personally I've seen this fail miserably in New Zealand. But then again, as per my thesis above -- I don't see any Western electoral system that is actually serving its people. The agenda is coming from higher up and is simply rolled out by our politicians regardless of what the people want.
I'd like to understand more about why you feel it's impossible to follow Peterson/Kierkegaard's philosophy? To expand on my own thinking here -- I believe that only once individuals have resumed full responsibility for their own wellbeing and that of their immediate communities, can a democracy function at scale. I'm not saying our democracies can't function, just that if the people are to hold power, then the people must be focused, energised, capable and above all moral. And such a scenario demands a complete cultural overhaul which I don't see happening without a lot of pain and suffering first.
I was of course responding to your long article in which you realise that the remarks of “PlasticinaBag” had some truth to them. Generally I disagree with both of you – for the simple reason that both of you look at the issue as a “black or white” issue, Either – Or : Present form of democracy works – or it does not. You have seen “[proportional representation] fail miserably in New Zealand” (and presumably also in other democracies) – And you “don’t see any Western electoral system that is actually serving its people”. I can easily demonstrate that both of those statements, if applied to all our western democracies are wrong to a degree – in other words, our Western democracies all work to a degree. Likewise PlasticinaBag makes no exceptions : “not a single one of them” – he/she is totally “black or white”.
But on the other hand you state : “[you’re] not saying that democracies can’t function, just that if the people are to hold power, then the people must be focused, energised, capable and above all moral”. I absolutely agree with you here : above all moral. But demonstrably, politicians in various democracies vary greatly in their personal, moral integrity - for the very same reason our many democracies also function to a better or worse degree. History shows that democracies come and go – Caesar had good reasons (he thought) to cross the river Rubicon : the republic had deteriorated in many ways, it is thought, with much internal dissension, corruption, expansion of citizenship, slave-revolt or whatever (all problems we also meet with in our democracies now). But I am sure you are right : for a republic to function, politicians must remain “focused, energised, capable – and above all moral”.
You imply that in large societies this is more unlikely to occur than in smaller societies. Basically, I responded to your article because this does not make sense to me. There must be more weighty reasons than that, I believe. And I think you put your finger on the exact right place : a democracy will deteriorate along with the general deterioration of its politicians’ personal moral. Everything hinges on the mental calibre of politicians. Irrespective of size, a democracy will crash or survive only if all individual politicians are seen as, and reported to be, diligent, conscientious and moral in their personal life and behaviour.
And if free speech is thwarted in any way it becomes impossible for an individual to “follow the Peterson/Kierkegaard philosophy”. That is what happening right now – again, ominously, mainly in our large, first-past-the-post democracies.
Sorry about previous deleted comment -- I got a bit lost in the thread and attributed someone else's reply to you. All good points you make Andy, and I agree with you -- I'm not so black pilled that I think none of it has any value at all and that it's a black and white situation, especially when viewed historically. For instance I believe that in the mid-twentieth century in places like NZ, Australia, the UK and US democracy did largely serve the people, for a multitude of reasons, and we had strong and mostly moral politicians who personified that. Where we are diverging here is on the point of the crucial qualifier that PlasticINaBag gave and which I noted in my essay: "in the current system". I believe this is what allows us to speak in black and white terms and I stand by it. In the current system (that is, entirely controlled by massive multinational corporate interests and rogue intelligence agencies and bureaucracies with no loyalty to any nation of people, only the perpetuation of their own power) there is no politician who will work for us -- not one. This is not to say that some of them (Kennedy for instance) don't want to work for us -- but because they can't. They have no real power. So what I'm saying is the system must change for democracy to begin functioning again, and unfortunately our weak and morally repugnant politicians have ceded so much power to the corporations that it has become virtually a prerequisite of political office to be a weak and morally repugnant individual, and so nothing can change via the current political system. It must be reformed from the bottom up, which in turn necessitates a moral rebirth at the individual level.
You begin your tirade by suggesting that "representative democracy [is] only ever viable up to a certain population size, after which it [is] unable to effectively scale".
Looking at for example the Scandinavian countries, you might appear to be right - but have you ever given any thought to the very obvious difference in electoral systems? By various means these countries make it impossible for any one party ever to have a majority in their parliaments - which again has the result that each and every political decision must be a compromise between a number of parties or individuals. All first-past-the-post electoral system (e.g. the UK and the US) in effect create a period of what actually amounts to one-party tyranny : the exact opposite of real democracy.
This also makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to follow Jordan Peterson in his fundamental philosophy of concentrating on (living and enacting) "the Integrity of the Individual" - which, if you look carefully at it, was the real basis of what became known as European Enlightenment. Soeren Kierkegaard (known as the father of existentialism) is the Christian philosopher who is closest to Jordan Peterson here
I’d be interested in a definition of real democracy. In the Westminster system as I understand it democracy is the tyranny of 51 over 49. The numbers might vary, but inevitably it’s the more numerous over the less numerous. To sell that model we are told it’s representative, which is logically impossible unless we have one representative per voter.
Which brings us to anarchism as a basis for government, instead of democracy.
That’s anarchy not as an absence of rules but as an absence of rulers.
And if we are concerned about where the rules come from that would be from ourselves. Along the lines of my natural rights exist up to the point where they impinge on yours and vice versa.
So perhaps it’s not a question of scaling democracy but replacing it with something much more local. Perhaps democracy can work when each of us can touch the person making the decisions to signal our accord or disagreement. Beyond that level scaling up is space for corruption and tyranny.
Sorry -- I got a little confused with who I was replying to before, hence the deleted comment. I hesitate to call myself an anarchist as I just don't see how any large (or small) community of people can operate without a ruler of some kind, but I have a lot of sympathy with the anarchist perspective. Michael Malice in particular has plenty to say on this. Essentially I think you're right: "replacing it with something much more local. Perhaps democracy can work when each of us can touch the person making the decisions to signal our accord or disagreement." Here I am totally with you, and I think it may be the only way forward (or back, as the case may be).
It seems likely that it is, as you suggest, the only way forward.
I was being optimistic when I suggested that 51 - 49 was a likely outcome from democracy and that it was a tyranny of the more numerous.
Schoolboy mistake; in our system a tyranny of the less numerous is concreted when you consider those who voted for a more entertaining and smaller party, or those who ate, or otherwise abused their ballots in the privacy of the voting booth will eventually be the majority. It ends with the activists controlling from a very small percentage while we in the greater percentage shrug and think that’s the way of the world.
Michael Malice in one of his discussions with Tom Woods and many other comments has a lot to say on this subject and is pretty forthright on solutions. Gerard Casey is worth a look as well if you haven’t already come across him. I think he might persuade on the options available for us to operate as communities within touching distance.
Thanks -- I'll take a look at Casey, I have heard the name before for sure. I agree also -- the tyranny is by the minority.
Hi Andy, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your thinking here though. Are you saying democracy can scale up infinitely? And that the proportional representation system is the way to go? Personally I've seen this fail miserably in New Zealand. But then again, as per my thesis above -- I don't see any Western electoral system that is actually serving its people. The agenda is coming from higher up and is simply rolled out by our politicians regardless of what the people want.
I'd like to understand more about why you feel it's impossible to follow Peterson/Kierkegaard's philosophy? To expand on my own thinking here -- I believe that only once individuals have resumed full responsibility for their own wellbeing and that of their immediate communities, can a democracy function at scale. I'm not saying our democracies can't function, just that if the people are to hold power, then the people must be focused, energised, capable and above all moral. And such a scenario demands a complete cultural overhaul which I don't see happening without a lot of pain and suffering first.
I was of course responding to your long article in which you realise that the remarks of “PlasticinaBag” had some truth to them. Generally I disagree with both of you – for the simple reason that both of you look at the issue as a “black or white” issue, Either – Or : Present form of democracy works – or it does not. You have seen “[proportional representation] fail miserably in New Zealand” (and presumably also in other democracies) – And you “don’t see any Western electoral system that is actually serving its people”. I can easily demonstrate that both of those statements, if applied to all our western democracies are wrong to a degree – in other words, our Western democracies all work to a degree. Likewise PlasticinaBag makes no exceptions : “not a single one of them” – he/she is totally “black or white”.
But on the other hand you state : “[you’re] not saying that democracies can’t function, just that if the people are to hold power, then the people must be focused, energised, capable and above all moral”. I absolutely agree with you here : above all moral. But demonstrably, politicians in various democracies vary greatly in their personal, moral integrity - for the very same reason our many democracies also function to a better or worse degree. History shows that democracies come and go – Caesar had good reasons (he thought) to cross the river Rubicon : the republic had deteriorated in many ways, it is thought, with much internal dissension, corruption, expansion of citizenship, slave-revolt or whatever (all problems we also meet with in our democracies now). But I am sure you are right : for a republic to function, politicians must remain “focused, energised, capable – and above all moral”.
You imply that in large societies this is more unlikely to occur than in smaller societies. Basically, I responded to your article because this does not make sense to me. There must be more weighty reasons than that, I believe. And I think you put your finger on the exact right place : a democracy will deteriorate along with the general deterioration of its politicians’ personal moral. Everything hinges on the mental calibre of politicians. Irrespective of size, a democracy will crash or survive only if all individual politicians are seen as, and reported to be, diligent, conscientious and moral in their personal life and behaviour.
And if free speech is thwarted in any way it becomes impossible for an individual to “follow the Peterson/Kierkegaard philosophy”. That is what happening right now – again, ominously, mainly in our large, first-past-the-post democracies.
Sorry about previous deleted comment -- I got a bit lost in the thread and attributed someone else's reply to you. All good points you make Andy, and I agree with you -- I'm not so black pilled that I think none of it has any value at all and that it's a black and white situation, especially when viewed historically. For instance I believe that in the mid-twentieth century in places like NZ, Australia, the UK and US democracy did largely serve the people, for a multitude of reasons, and we had strong and mostly moral politicians who personified that. Where we are diverging here is on the point of the crucial qualifier that PlasticINaBag gave and which I noted in my essay: "in the current system". I believe this is what allows us to speak in black and white terms and I stand by it. In the current system (that is, entirely controlled by massive multinational corporate interests and rogue intelligence agencies and bureaucracies with no loyalty to any nation of people, only the perpetuation of their own power) there is no politician who will work for us -- not one. This is not to say that some of them (Kennedy for instance) don't want to work for us -- but because they can't. They have no real power. So what I'm saying is the system must change for democracy to begin functioning again, and unfortunately our weak and morally repugnant politicians have ceded so much power to the corporations that it has become virtually a prerequisite of political office to be a weak and morally repugnant individual, and so nothing can change via the current political system. It must be reformed from the bottom up, which in turn necessitates a moral rebirth at the individual level.