Chomskyrion
22-09-2005, 22:03
(Here is the essay that I said I would write on direct democracy, rebutting all modern criticisms and further establishing it.)
It is a shame that America was influenced more by Locke than Rousseau. Because essentially it has made our country a second-rate democracy, if you could even call it "democracy," which I do not. But, of course, it was inevitable, because what should we expect? That the aristocratic founding fathers would advocate a philosophy which said they had no intrinsic qualities that made them special? That the average wheat farmer is just as qualified to govern as they? Of course not. Even if it were true, it is something that they could never accept.
First of all, I must explain that I will not refer to the American republic as a "representative democracy." The latter term was not used until the early 20th century. Before then, it was well-established that we are not a democracy, but a republic. The founding fathers rejected democracy, on the basis that people are not intelligent enough to rule themselves and that, somewhat akin to Plato's Republic, they need philosopher kings to rule over them. Democracy's origins in Athens was direct democracy. Our historical government documents (and the Pledge of Allegiance) mention "republic," and not "democracy." Furthermore, even according to its current formal definition, our country's politicians are not elected by "the people," but by "a body of citizens." I cannot vote for every politician, nor can non-citizens vote at all. Thus, it is a republic, not a democracy. And direct democracy is the only kind of democracy, even if one could say that America's system of referendums and voting is somewhat democratic in nature.
And what I hope to emphasize is that democracy is not flawless in the full sense of the word, because it is run by human beings. And anything run by human beings, as further elaborated by the field of psychology, can *never* be flawless. However, the flaws in democracy are, at the least, equal to republics, in some cases, probably outright eliminated.
The most common charge against democracy is that it is merely mob-rule. They say, "Direct democracy killed Socrates." In response, I must ask: are the hands of republics so clean? Athens' direct democracy killed one innocent man. But how many innocent men has the American republic killed? Only a fool would say none.
Furthermore, it is human nature, not ignorance of facts, which creates this mob-rule. Yes, psychology has shown that a person's ability to reason increases with their amount of education, but a person's emotional intelligence, the only thing that could restrain their tendency towards mob-rule, does not change at all. Human nature, that which has spawned all that is "immoral," can only be overcome by experience and self-deliberation. Mob-rule is, in itself, foolishly giving into the immorality of a group. Regardless of one's definition of morality, it always inherently violates all definitions of morality, because you are forsaking your own moral values, whatever they may be, for the ignorance of the group. Therefore, saying that democracy creates mob-rule, but republics do not, equates with saying that a college education not only makes you more knowledgeable, but also more ethical and wise. But morality and wisdom are not gained from wealth or law school, but from experience and self-deliberation.
Republics also do not limit mob-rule, but rather, they magnify it. A distinct majority can only occur if people agree. But people do not naturally agree in such large majorities, unless there are social structures that systematically encourage people to agree. Republics are one of these systems. In all other human circumstances where conformity is possible, there is never a clear majority. In musical taste, there is no majority, in race, there is no majority, in religion, there is no majority. Only when republics set up electoral systems which in turn naturally create 2-party systems do we end up with a majority. And it has been proven that it *is* electoral systems which create these large, monolithic parties. Because, being that it's a competition, people have a greater chance of winning at the competition if they ally with a large group. Whereas, in democracy, that is not the case.
Also, even when there are minorities and majorities, minorities have the tendency to grow and majorities have the tendency to shrink. Because minorities tend to be discriminated against by the majority, and are therefore poor and thus, use contraception less, are more communal-based, and require more children for the family to survive. Majorities tend to have more power, and therefore are wealthier and thus, use contraception more often, are more individually-based, and see children as an optional joy rather than a necessary investment. There are some exceptions, however, such as wealthy Jews and Christians who, for cultural reasons, have a great deal of children. But these exceptions are fairly rare and the general trend works.
It is also ridiculous that in our modern age, we still seem to support republics on the basis of meritocracy. "Might is right," was disproven many, many years ago and it's outrageous that it must be disproven yet again today.
In republics, only those who are the most wealthy and most educated can be politicians. But one's wealth and education has absolutely no basis on whether or not anyone is moral or legitimately cares about the people voting for them. But rather, the skills most needed to be a politician are wealth and deception -- thus, our politicians will be inherently immoral, because their craft requires them to be crafty. Now, you could say that politicians have the incentive to serve their constituents or else face losing their jobs. But a politician's mistakes can almost always be blamed on others, downplayed, and are quite frankly, usually irrelevant because it is extremely rare for people to actually vote based on the issues that the politician supports.
Republican Senator John McCain is certainly more liberal than Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Yet if they both ran for president, McCain would be supported by conservatives and Lieberman would be supported by liberals. Because we do not care about the issues, but by their identities. It's ridiculous to believe human beings are too stupid to make laws for themselves, but are somehow brilliant enough to pick people to make laws for them. Because doing something yourself is far easier than finding the right person to do it for you.
And people definitely do not vote based on actual issues. The overwhelming majority of people in the 2000 and 2004 political campaigns voted based on "moral values." And yet, American politicians have put forth almost no policies that could actually change or encourage moral values, especially the Democrats. The issue of "moral values," thus far, has been a seemingly insolvable problem. If the government even enforces morality, philosophically-speaking, that isn't morality at all. So why, then, is this such an important issue when it's something that Republicans may bring up, but never can or do actually act on?
There is also the famous debate between Nixon and JFK. Nixon looked old and tired, but had superior arguments. JFK looked young and virile, but had horrible arguments. And so, those who witnessed it live and on TV said that JFK won the debates. Those who witnessed it on radio said that Nixon won the debates. Once again, we see that human beings do not vote based on issues, so the foundation for republics' legitimacy is invalid.
In America, we have about a 90% incumbency rate. Out of the 435 seats in Congress, there are only about 30 or 40 actual competitive political campaigns each election. Most congressmen serve several decades, such as the Republican Strom Thurmond, a racist segregation-supporter who served in Congress for half a century. Then there's also the Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-KKK member. And when we have such people in our Congress today, especially Robert Byrd, whose constituents are primarily blacks and minorities, I think it is poignantly obvious that republics are a failure.
Democracies are also the only governments that won't collapse because they are the only thing which truly has checks and balances. In the United States, the power of both the legislative and executive branch has grown. For example, never in our history, has "emminent domain" been practiced so frequently. Never in our history has our president been able to spy on citizens or start a war, by calling it a "police action." Never in our history could a politician revoke a person's Constitutional rights on the grounds of suspected criminal acts (terrorism). Never in our history were the Kings of the Supreme Court, who can quite literally strike down any law, at any moment, for their entire lives, chosen because of their political affiliation. Nixon was a reflection of republics' inherent tendency towards corruption will continue. And without democracy, attempting to encourage freedom of information and political transparency is ultimately futile. Because if there are only one or two parties operating through our three-branched government, then how can there be checks and balances for organizations that are politically allied with eachother by being of a single party? They are not engaged in a three-way tug of war (checks and balances), but rather, they're one, politically-unified, self-interested group, with three arbitrary and meaningless divisions.
In republics, politicians' incentive are to be wealthy and cleverly deceptive, and do the bare minimum to keep their jobs, because they are usually not personally affected by the bills they pass at all. Why should men that make six-figure salaries (or did before entering politics) have any interest at all in the welfare of the poor? They don't. And the low class also tend to vote less, while the wealthy tend to vote more, once again, ensuring that republics tend to encourage tyrrany.
Whereas, in democracy, it is perfect representation with what statisticians call an "unbiased sample." People engaged in direct democracy are not Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians, but they are simply Americans. They are equally affected overall by the bills that they pass. Therefore, they are encouraged to do far more than the bare-minimum, for their good quality of life does not just depend on keeping their jobs and doing the bare-minimum, but by passing good legislation. They do not merely have the negative incentive of failure, but also have the positive incentive of success that politicians do not have. In other words, in a sense, republics are similar to the welfare trap. Government bodies run by elites thrive on their own failures. This is true of public education, the military, and virtually every government agency, to some extent. They fall into a republican trap, where, although they receive the incentive of losing their jobs for not working at all, they receive the greatest incentive by doing the bare-minimum.
In America, they say that we have a social contract, but we do not. We have "social exortion." A contract is one where you are approached, made an offer, and have the opportunity to agree or decline, without repercussion. In America, you face punishments, not merely lack of opportunity, for rejecting the social contract. Therefore, it isn't a contract at all, because you automatically sign it by merely being born.
In America, they say that we have the right to "life, liberty, and property." On life, my healthcare must be earned, the government can force me to go to war at any time, and if a police officer or government agent accidentally shoots a family member, I don't have the right to sue. On liberty, I cannot smoke marijuana, I cannot reject taxes for moral reasons, I cannot own certain types of guns or any gun if I commit a crime, whether or not my organization is a 'religion' or a 'charitable cause' must be approved by the Internal Revenue Service, I cannot insult people through the mass-media without being sued for slander or libel, and virtually nothing I do cannot be tracked by the intelligence agencies. And on property, I may not make the laws (or quite often, even defend myself) on my own property, I must pay the government for the privilege of even owning property, which they do not directly maintain, the government may arbitrarily take my property away at any time through emminent domain, and if I reject the social contract, I must either sell my property to another citizen or face imprisonment for tax-evasion and treason. No, it is well-established, we do not have the right to "life, liberty and property." And this is all simply because, in republics, the elite enjoy exercising power simply for the sake of exercising it.
And probably worst of all (and a further reflection of the previous statement), contrary to the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, our law does not apply equally to all citizens. The president has the right to pardon any criminal he sees fit and these individuals are quite frequently simply friends and business associates of the president. In other words, if you are friends with the president, the law pretty much does not apply to you at all. State politicians also somewhat have the power to pardon criminals as well. And even in our Constitution and our laws, it states that congressmen may not be arrested for any crime, unless it gravely endangers the security of our state. Some argue that congressmen must always be able to attend congress to make laws. Well, why is it that they may willingly decide to filibuster and refuse to participate in congress, in order to block a law by lack of a quorum, and yet criminal congressmen may still participate? In fact, why should we even *have* criminal politicians at all? If we are going to have a republic, as flawed as it is, shouldn't we at the very least require that politicians have a clean criminal and drug record, like any other well-paying job? It may seem something so pathetically simple and the fact that we do not have it further demonstrates the inherent corruption of republics.
And today, most people reject democracy for the same flaws that are apparent, or even more apparent, in republics. And they reject democracy simply because it is not what they are used to, and therefore, it seems automatically inferior. Just as colonial Europeans viewed Native Americans as savages and Native Americans viewed colonial Europeans as barbarians. In other words, due to humanity's poor insight and self-absorbed arrogance, that always says, "This is as good as it can possibly be," the grass is greener on *this* side of the fence. This is also why republics were originally somewhat rejected in favor of monarchy, and how in modern times, democracy is somewhat facing rejection in Afghanistan and Iraq. But major political change did not occur through lobbying or deliberation, but through movement and revolution. We've already moved closer towards civilization, going from tribal communism to monarchy, to oligarchy, to republicanism. Now, civilization must either perish in corruption or continue on in a democratic revolution.
It is a shame that America was influenced more by Locke than Rousseau. Because essentially it has made our country a second-rate democracy, if you could even call it "democracy," which I do not. But, of course, it was inevitable, because what should we expect? That the aristocratic founding fathers would advocate a philosophy which said they had no intrinsic qualities that made them special? That the average wheat farmer is just as qualified to govern as they? Of course not. Even if it were true, it is something that they could never accept.
First of all, I must explain that I will not refer to the American republic as a "representative democracy." The latter term was not used until the early 20th century. Before then, it was well-established that we are not a democracy, but a republic. The founding fathers rejected democracy, on the basis that people are not intelligent enough to rule themselves and that, somewhat akin to Plato's Republic, they need philosopher kings to rule over them. Democracy's origins in Athens was direct democracy. Our historical government documents (and the Pledge of Allegiance) mention "republic," and not "democracy." Furthermore, even according to its current formal definition, our country's politicians are not elected by "the people," but by "a body of citizens." I cannot vote for every politician, nor can non-citizens vote at all. Thus, it is a republic, not a democracy. And direct democracy is the only kind of democracy, even if one could say that America's system of referendums and voting is somewhat democratic in nature.
And what I hope to emphasize is that democracy is not flawless in the full sense of the word, because it is run by human beings. And anything run by human beings, as further elaborated by the field of psychology, can *never* be flawless. However, the flaws in democracy are, at the least, equal to republics, in some cases, probably outright eliminated.
The most common charge against democracy is that it is merely mob-rule. They say, "Direct democracy killed Socrates." In response, I must ask: are the hands of republics so clean? Athens' direct democracy killed one innocent man. But how many innocent men has the American republic killed? Only a fool would say none.
Furthermore, it is human nature, not ignorance of facts, which creates this mob-rule. Yes, psychology has shown that a person's ability to reason increases with their amount of education, but a person's emotional intelligence, the only thing that could restrain their tendency towards mob-rule, does not change at all. Human nature, that which has spawned all that is "immoral," can only be overcome by experience and self-deliberation. Mob-rule is, in itself, foolishly giving into the immorality of a group. Regardless of one's definition of morality, it always inherently violates all definitions of morality, because you are forsaking your own moral values, whatever they may be, for the ignorance of the group. Therefore, saying that democracy creates mob-rule, but republics do not, equates with saying that a college education not only makes you more knowledgeable, but also more ethical and wise. But morality and wisdom are not gained from wealth or law school, but from experience and self-deliberation.
Republics also do not limit mob-rule, but rather, they magnify it. A distinct majority can only occur if people agree. But people do not naturally agree in such large majorities, unless there are social structures that systematically encourage people to agree. Republics are one of these systems. In all other human circumstances where conformity is possible, there is never a clear majority. In musical taste, there is no majority, in race, there is no majority, in religion, there is no majority. Only when republics set up electoral systems which in turn naturally create 2-party systems do we end up with a majority. And it has been proven that it *is* electoral systems which create these large, monolithic parties. Because, being that it's a competition, people have a greater chance of winning at the competition if they ally with a large group. Whereas, in democracy, that is not the case.
Also, even when there are minorities and majorities, minorities have the tendency to grow and majorities have the tendency to shrink. Because minorities tend to be discriminated against by the majority, and are therefore poor and thus, use contraception less, are more communal-based, and require more children for the family to survive. Majorities tend to have more power, and therefore are wealthier and thus, use contraception more often, are more individually-based, and see children as an optional joy rather than a necessary investment. There are some exceptions, however, such as wealthy Jews and Christians who, for cultural reasons, have a great deal of children. But these exceptions are fairly rare and the general trend works.
It is also ridiculous that in our modern age, we still seem to support republics on the basis of meritocracy. "Might is right," was disproven many, many years ago and it's outrageous that it must be disproven yet again today.
In republics, only those who are the most wealthy and most educated can be politicians. But one's wealth and education has absolutely no basis on whether or not anyone is moral or legitimately cares about the people voting for them. But rather, the skills most needed to be a politician are wealth and deception -- thus, our politicians will be inherently immoral, because their craft requires them to be crafty. Now, you could say that politicians have the incentive to serve their constituents or else face losing their jobs. But a politician's mistakes can almost always be blamed on others, downplayed, and are quite frankly, usually irrelevant because it is extremely rare for people to actually vote based on the issues that the politician supports.
Republican Senator John McCain is certainly more liberal than Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. Yet if they both ran for president, McCain would be supported by conservatives and Lieberman would be supported by liberals. Because we do not care about the issues, but by their identities. It's ridiculous to believe human beings are too stupid to make laws for themselves, but are somehow brilliant enough to pick people to make laws for them. Because doing something yourself is far easier than finding the right person to do it for you.
And people definitely do not vote based on actual issues. The overwhelming majority of people in the 2000 and 2004 political campaigns voted based on "moral values." And yet, American politicians have put forth almost no policies that could actually change or encourage moral values, especially the Democrats. The issue of "moral values," thus far, has been a seemingly insolvable problem. If the government even enforces morality, philosophically-speaking, that isn't morality at all. So why, then, is this such an important issue when it's something that Republicans may bring up, but never can or do actually act on?
There is also the famous debate between Nixon and JFK. Nixon looked old and tired, but had superior arguments. JFK looked young and virile, but had horrible arguments. And so, those who witnessed it live and on TV said that JFK won the debates. Those who witnessed it on radio said that Nixon won the debates. Once again, we see that human beings do not vote based on issues, so the foundation for republics' legitimacy is invalid.
In America, we have about a 90% incumbency rate. Out of the 435 seats in Congress, there are only about 30 or 40 actual competitive political campaigns each election. Most congressmen serve several decades, such as the Republican Strom Thurmond, a racist segregation-supporter who served in Congress for half a century. Then there's also the Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, an ex-KKK member. And when we have such people in our Congress today, especially Robert Byrd, whose constituents are primarily blacks and minorities, I think it is poignantly obvious that republics are a failure.
Democracies are also the only governments that won't collapse because they are the only thing which truly has checks and balances. In the United States, the power of both the legislative and executive branch has grown. For example, never in our history, has "emminent domain" been practiced so frequently. Never in our history has our president been able to spy on citizens or start a war, by calling it a "police action." Never in our history could a politician revoke a person's Constitutional rights on the grounds of suspected criminal acts (terrorism). Never in our history were the Kings of the Supreme Court, who can quite literally strike down any law, at any moment, for their entire lives, chosen because of their political affiliation. Nixon was a reflection of republics' inherent tendency towards corruption will continue. And without democracy, attempting to encourage freedom of information and political transparency is ultimately futile. Because if there are only one or two parties operating through our three-branched government, then how can there be checks and balances for organizations that are politically allied with eachother by being of a single party? They are not engaged in a three-way tug of war (checks and balances), but rather, they're one, politically-unified, self-interested group, with three arbitrary and meaningless divisions.
In republics, politicians' incentive are to be wealthy and cleverly deceptive, and do the bare minimum to keep their jobs, because they are usually not personally affected by the bills they pass at all. Why should men that make six-figure salaries (or did before entering politics) have any interest at all in the welfare of the poor? They don't. And the low class also tend to vote less, while the wealthy tend to vote more, once again, ensuring that republics tend to encourage tyrrany.
Whereas, in democracy, it is perfect representation with what statisticians call an "unbiased sample." People engaged in direct democracy are not Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians, but they are simply Americans. They are equally affected overall by the bills that they pass. Therefore, they are encouraged to do far more than the bare-minimum, for their good quality of life does not just depend on keeping their jobs and doing the bare-minimum, but by passing good legislation. They do not merely have the negative incentive of failure, but also have the positive incentive of success that politicians do not have. In other words, in a sense, republics are similar to the welfare trap. Government bodies run by elites thrive on their own failures. This is true of public education, the military, and virtually every government agency, to some extent. They fall into a republican trap, where, although they receive the incentive of losing their jobs for not working at all, they receive the greatest incentive by doing the bare-minimum.
In America, they say that we have a social contract, but we do not. We have "social exortion." A contract is one where you are approached, made an offer, and have the opportunity to agree or decline, without repercussion. In America, you face punishments, not merely lack of opportunity, for rejecting the social contract. Therefore, it isn't a contract at all, because you automatically sign it by merely being born.
In America, they say that we have the right to "life, liberty, and property." On life, my healthcare must be earned, the government can force me to go to war at any time, and if a police officer or government agent accidentally shoots a family member, I don't have the right to sue. On liberty, I cannot smoke marijuana, I cannot reject taxes for moral reasons, I cannot own certain types of guns or any gun if I commit a crime, whether or not my organization is a 'religion' or a 'charitable cause' must be approved by the Internal Revenue Service, I cannot insult people through the mass-media without being sued for slander or libel, and virtually nothing I do cannot be tracked by the intelligence agencies. And on property, I may not make the laws (or quite often, even defend myself) on my own property, I must pay the government for the privilege of even owning property, which they do not directly maintain, the government may arbitrarily take my property away at any time through emminent domain, and if I reject the social contract, I must either sell my property to another citizen or face imprisonment for tax-evasion and treason. No, it is well-established, we do not have the right to "life, liberty and property." And this is all simply because, in republics, the elite enjoy exercising power simply for the sake of exercising it.
And probably worst of all (and a further reflection of the previous statement), contrary to the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence, our law does not apply equally to all citizens. The president has the right to pardon any criminal he sees fit and these individuals are quite frequently simply friends and business associates of the president. In other words, if you are friends with the president, the law pretty much does not apply to you at all. State politicians also somewhat have the power to pardon criminals as well. And even in our Constitution and our laws, it states that congressmen may not be arrested for any crime, unless it gravely endangers the security of our state. Some argue that congressmen must always be able to attend congress to make laws. Well, why is it that they may willingly decide to filibuster and refuse to participate in congress, in order to block a law by lack of a quorum, and yet criminal congressmen may still participate? In fact, why should we even *have* criminal politicians at all? If we are going to have a republic, as flawed as it is, shouldn't we at the very least require that politicians have a clean criminal and drug record, like any other well-paying job? It may seem something so pathetically simple and the fact that we do not have it further demonstrates the inherent corruption of republics.
And today, most people reject democracy for the same flaws that are apparent, or even more apparent, in republics. And they reject democracy simply because it is not what they are used to, and therefore, it seems automatically inferior. Just as colonial Europeans viewed Native Americans as savages and Native Americans viewed colonial Europeans as barbarians. In other words, due to humanity's poor insight and self-absorbed arrogance, that always says, "This is as good as it can possibly be," the grass is greener on *this* side of the fence. This is also why republics were originally somewhat rejected in favor of monarchy, and how in modern times, democracy is somewhat facing rejection in Afghanistan and Iraq. But major political change did not occur through lobbying or deliberation, but through movement and revolution. We've already moved closer towards civilization, going from tribal communism to monarchy, to oligarchy, to republicanism. Now, civilization must either perish in corruption or continue on in a democratic revolution.