Comments
contractualist OP t1_j4hzw02 wrote
The article relates to whether democracy is an inherent good with inherent political authority, or derives its authority from something else (I argue the latter). Based on how I use means vs. ends for instance, I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good. Yet I wouldn't say the same for democracy, which is only useful to the extent it is able to produce those goods.
EyeSprout t1_j4iav6e wrote
>I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good.
I don't think most people would agree that economic development is inherently good, though.
From my point of view, it needs a bit of reframing. In the context of a discussion about politics, it can be useful to assume that the things you mentioned are inherently good, if only as an approximation. Otherwise discussions would take too long and delve into irrelevant topics; there's a practical limit there. But assuming democracy is an inherent good is a really bad approximation for many reasons.
NotAnotherEmpire t1_j4j05fe wrote
The forms of legitimacy broadly are:
- I have a lot of popular support
- I have a lot of thugs with weapons and fear factor
- I have divine authority.
2 is extremely flimsy and 3, once no longer taken seriously, is just 2. And 3 is no longer taken seriously today, worldwide.
So if popular legitimacy is needed, counting votes is a good way to do it.
contractualist OP t1_j4j3a7a wrote
I argue that not even 1 has political authority. Popular support can't make an unjust law just.
zhibr t1_j4kr15c wrote
Aren't you conflating moral authority and political authority?
contractualist OP t1_j4krvf1 wrote
Good pick up and I should clarify. The argument I make in my substack argues that political authority requires moral authority.
Basically it’s: reason>moral principles of social contract> constitution> formal legal rules.
If you have any questions regarding this argument, I’d be happy to address them here and in future posts.
zhibr t1_j4lth5n wrote
So I assume political authority and legitimacy are somewhat equivalent here.
You are talking about legitimacy as a philosophical term (some kind of objective legitimacy, similar to universal morality), rather than empirical (i.e. whether people factually behave in a way that makes ruling/governing possible)? If so, what is the difference between moral and political authority?
[deleted] t1_j4trv3m wrote
[deleted]
kyajgevo t1_j4kfrqw wrote
Yes but don’t people often disagree on what is a just law and what isn’t? So at that point you have to figure out whose opinion to go by. And going by the one with the most support seems like the most “just” way of choosing. Even if I’m in the minority and believe that a law is unjust, I’ll still believe that the process through which it was chosen was just. And crucially, democracy contains an internal mechanism for those who want to change unjust laws (convince enough people of my position).
[deleted] t1_j4tsdrq wrote
[deleted]
Eric1491625 t1_j4js5zw wrote
There is an elephant in the room with (1) - I have a lot of popular support - that people don't talk about. It is a problem that is the cause of most violent conflicts today.
And the problem is this: Yes, let's say we accept that popular support is the source of legitimacy. But popular support among who? What should the divisional unit even be?
The Alabamans don't want to have their policies dictated by a Californian's vote. A deep Red community within California may even want their government to "get their hands off" interfering with their life.
Meanwhile, the Kurdish minorities in Turkey and Iraq demand autonomy from Turks' and Arabs' votes. Catalonia and Hong Kong want autonomy. Who gets to separate, and why? Yes, more votes within the voting arena wins - but what are the boundaries of that voting arena, and what is the basis for it?
The world has never arrived at a satisfactory answer for this. In the 20th century, the international community applied a strongly racial logic, separating nations post-WW2 and post-colonialism on the basis of race (and sometimes, religion). But this was always deeply flawed because of multiculturalism. So what is the rightful divisional unit? There is no solid answer.
BobQuixote t1_j4l7pxv wrote
2 also devolves to 1 in enough cases that democracy tends to be more stable, producing more of the aforementioned "inherently good" benefits.
HotpieTargaryen t1_j4i0mdg wrote
Yeah, I think the second the term “inherent good” comes up the actual understanding of the situation becomes muddled. It moves from understanding the relationship and benefits and detriments of a systems and policies. Inherent values are arbitrary, cultural, and subjective; they obscure the subject you are attempting to understand, especially empirically.
Sniffy4 t1_j4j4a2r wrote
>Yet I wouldn't say the same for democracy, which is only useful to the extent it is able to produce those goods.
True on its face, but what is the alternative to democracy that produces better results?
Lankpants t1_j4kwy4j wrote
You'll have a hard time convincing me economic development is an inherent good. Right now we live in an age where economic development has driven overconsumption and self destructive climate change. This is why degrowth is a philosophy that exists. Economic development being an inherent good is not an opinion that is actually universally agreed upon and there's some very good arguments as to why it needs to slow or even reverse.
I'd strongly recommend the YouTube channel Our Changing Climate for more information about the links between economic growth and climate change and why infinite growth is a suicide charge.
[deleted] t1_j4tsz54 wrote
[deleted]
XiphosAletheria t1_j4nie5a wrote
>Based on how I use means vs. ends for instance, I would say that economic development, higher literacy, better health outcomes, and robust human rights protections are inherently good.
Nothing is inherently good. Those things are all things that tend to be good for modern urbanized centers. To the extent that "economic development" has meant shifting from primary and secondary economic activities to tertiary ones, it has been deveststing to many rural areas and small towns. Literacy is of course very important in a knowledge-based economy, which is good, if you happen to be in a position to thrive in such an economy. "Better health outcomes" sounds like it might be one of those things you could get universal agreement on, but after watching a parent die of Alzheimer's at 80, you might wonder if helping them avoid a heart attack at 75 was really such a good idea. And of course, by "robust human rights protections" I assume you include a variety of policies opposed by solid majorities of those living outside major metropolitan areas.
contractualist OP t1_j4hy95t wrote
Summary: The article reviews the main defenses made on behalf of democracy and argues that they are insufficient to provide it with inherent political authority. Instead, reason, which creates and shapes the moral principles of the social contract, has authority. And it’s these reason-based moral principles that must be reflected in our laws.
While these moral principles would often require democratic rule due to the outcomes of democratic regimes, to the extent that moral principles and democracy conflict, we should side with those moral principles. As a consequence, the article then argues that courts should recognize natural rights and become more active in striking down arbitrary laws like interest group legislation.
Any comments, questions, or critiques would be much appreciated!
Perrr333 t1_j4iy9zz wrote
I think concluding with things like "interest groups are bad" (to simply dramatically) is a little lackluster, seeing as most people would agree with that anyway. What more extreme things are implied by the ideas the article tries to support?
contractualist OP t1_j4j33xe wrote
Not interest groups themselves, but laws that only serve as interest group protection. My theory of natural law argues that reason is the only justifiable restriction on freedom. These reasons create moral principles and those moral principles applied to social facts create just laws. To the extent laws are arbitrary, they are unjust laws.
The example I provide is the trade restriction in Williamson v. Lee Optical. Basically, since courts have recognized rights in the social sphere (as shown by equal protection and substantive due process rulings) similar rights should be recognized in the economic sphere to strike down laws that lack a rational basis.
Perrr333 t1_j4kopd4 wrote
How does this apply to government actions which are not passing laws? Like regulations on planning permissions, budget for construction of infrastructure, support for industries like agriculture (ensuring farmers receive enough revenue so that farming always continues), and import and export tariffs and subsidies. It seems that this rather Libertarian view of law and ethics either sees all these activities as unjustly arbitrary or binding on freedom, or simply doesn't have anything to say on whether they should or shouldn't be implement and how.
[deleted] t1_j4to72n wrote
[deleted]
ProfMittenz t1_j4job1e wrote
I think you should read Fabienne Peters work. Her book Democratic Legitimacy is a good place to start. She also wrote the sep article on political legitimacy. This will help you categorize these various views you want to engage (normative v descriptive legitimacy, procedural v. Instrumental legitimacy, moral v epistemic approaches).
One challenge you're going to have is that if democracy is entirely instrumental then who is deciding these outcomes the democracy is meant to achieve? The point of democracy is that we all get together and debate what the good life or good society is without one person or group imposing their view on another without sufficient justification.
A second area to work on is defining what you mean by reason. One of the big debates within this field is what counts as a public reason and what limitations can be placed on reasoning. Kevin Vallier and G Gaus have written extensively on this. You argue that reason has legitimacy but not democracy, yet democracy is the arena where we share and debate reasons. If we had a God's eye view or AI computer that knew all the correct answers then we wouldn't need to share reasons but since we don't have that, democracy is the opportunity for us to deliberate as equals without imposing our own conception of whats easonable on others.
contractualist OP t1_j4nm3wv wrote
Thank you for the review and I'll check out the literature you cited!
I argue in the piece that democracy lacks inherent moral and epistemic value. I'll argue for its instrumental value in a later piece though. It lacks moral value since democratic decisions may stray from ethical principles of the social contract (tyranny of the majority) and it lacks epistemic authority since there are certain systemic biases of the electorate (anti-market, identitarian biases, etc.) that inhibit any resulting wisdom of crowds. Especially as laws require more complexity to deal with modern issues.
On the first point, I argue that certain decisions would be better handled through expert-led agencies and courts. They already perform this role in some regard. For example, courts have been enforcing social rights in the face of democratic legislation, but not economic rights.
On the second point, I mean reason as publicly recognized justifications. The SEP on Public Reason captures my view fairly well.
If you have any more reading recommendations, I'd be happy to review them and address their arguments in later posts.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4ki475 wrote
You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.
Your alternative is to say good decisions are better than popular decisions. Unfortunately you cite only hypotheticals of perfect AI and "impartial" courts to provide this.
How could we decide which cabal of intellectuals is granted tyranny over us? Right and wrong are quite orthogonal to politics unless you spell out your meta ethics first. I.e. there are rational defences of both left and right policies. The differences are in our values.
So, policy guided by reason doesn't tell us anything about how to organise ourselves.
zhibr t1_j4krdqj wrote
Right. Democracy isn't a solution for how to get a moral society, it's a solution for how to have a functional society at all when the people in it disagree on morality.
[deleted] t1_j4tohrx wrote
[deleted]
imdfantom t1_j4lgrq9 wrote
>You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.
Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.
In a nutshell it is the method we have decided to do this:
>How could we decide which cabal of intellectuals is granted tyranny over us?
Not saying that we can do away with representative democracy, we can't (at least not for now if we want a functioning society)
Just that although a useful tool, it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4lj6k4 wrote
> it is just a popularity contest to see which king will be ruling over us.
Well yes but the cliche response is evergreen: any other system for nominating leaders is worse.
imdfantom t1_j4lk79c wrote
I did say that we can't do without it in the previous sentence.
JoKing311 t1_j4rmmji wrote
>Direct democracy would provide maximum dispersion, what we have in most countries is representative democracies.
Isn't the reason for representative democracy to maximize dispersion while also allowing minorities a voice? Like in the 2 wolves v 1 sheep case mentioned in the article, allowing the sheep a voice that actually matters, even though they're in the minority, can keep the majority from having complete power.
contractualist OP t1_j4ksraj wrote
I actually think power distribution and enshrining national values are the best arguments for democracy and I’ll be discussing them in a future posts. Yet these are only good to the extent they lead to good decisions.
If power distribution instead lead to factionalism rent seeking, or poor policymaking overall, and if a better method of policymaking was available, then we’d be better off with that other method instead.
For instance, international data shows that a more independent central bank leads to lower inflation. If we cared about lower inflation, we should give more discretion to a central bank rather than elected politicians in creating monetary policy.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4l8lfp wrote
The rational / best solution is a matter of values, not intellect. I'd like you to take a stab at that problem.
And who exactly decides? What kind of person is worthy? Philosopher kings?
contractualist OP t1_j4la0wm wrote
One’s religious, artistic, or personal values can’t have any political authority over others who don’t share those values. What has political authority is reason, more specifically, those principles which can’t be reasonably rejected. Those are our moral principles, which any legitimate political and legal institution needs to be based on.
And it would be either private parties or experts (judges, admin agencies, etc.). Although this power would be based on degrees rather than purely categorical. There are instances where reason would require majority rule vs expert judgment.
I’ll be writing in article discussing this further that addresses the trustee vs delegate issue.
ProfMittenz t1_j4lknen wrote
So this sounds like Rawl's argument from Political Liberalism, but even Rawls changed his mind, see "Public Reason Revisited." Excluding personal or religious reasons from public deliberation is just a way of imposing a set of moral values on a democratic public without/before the process of democracy. Wolterstorff talks about this in his book with Robert Audi. A really good take down of this point of view is Christopher Eberle, Religious Conviction in liberal politics. Check out the sep article on public reason and all of the criticisms. Even the arch rationalist Habermas changed his mind about religious reasons in the public square.
I think your best bet is to go with including everybody and all their reasons in the most robust democratic deliberation possible. Go with an epistemic defense of democracy that argues the legitimacy of democracy comes from its epistemic ability to identify and solve social problems. Check out Helene Landemore and David Estlund. Epistemic democracy is a super hot topic right now and I think it makes the best argument for Democratic legitimacy.
contractualist OP t1_j4lo65c wrote
Thank you for the recommendations! I will review that literature and will incorporate those ideas into my next post.
I agree with Rawls's original formulation of Public Reason since I believe certain moral values should be imposed on constitutional deliberation for political authority to be legitimate. This means that religious/aesthetic based arguments would be excluded from deliberation.
I argue in the piece that epistemic defenses of democracy are also insufficient. The empirical literature on deliberative democracy is weak and given certain anti-market/identitarian biases of the public (Caplan 2007 and Bartels and Achen 2017 respectively). This is why I believe experts should play a greater role as lawmaking demands more complexity.
ProfMittenz t1_j4lq6no wrote
If you want to go with the old school.Rawlsian position, Jonathan Quong would be useful for you. But I think that position has been pretty roundly rejected for its antidemocratic implications. Two other things: "deliberative democracy" is an umbrella term that basically encompasses all democratic theory these days. It just means that deliberation is at the heart of political legitimacy but in lots of different forms (so this includes Rawls and political liberalism). Also I wouldnt be so quickly dismissive.of epistemic democracy. The first citation you gave is from 2007 and epistemic democracy theory has really exploded since then. Some of what you sound like you're arguing is in fact for epistocracy or rule by experts, but if you read Helene landemore, she utilizes the "diversity Trump's ability theorem" which claims that a plurality of thinkers are better at solving problems than a small group of experts. The diversity approach also helps solve the problem of who counts as an expert since in a democracy we all have to debate who the expert is anyway.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4lg43j wrote
I don't mean aesthetic values, I mean fundamental politics. I.e. hierarchy vs egalitarianism. The left and right can both make rational arguments for these opposing values. How do you decide if the experts should push left or right wing policy?
I would say democratically.
contractualist OP t1_j4lhipv wrote
Yes, I wrote in another comment that values and power distributions are the best arguments for democracy.
I’ll be arguing that democracy is useful for establishing these overarching values where the moral principles of the social contract are ordered in terms of priority. These are the values of a society which may be expressed through voting. Although this is different than policy making, which turns those national political values into concrete legal rules. The former applies moral principles to social and cultural circumstances to create constitutional values whereas the latter applies those constitutional values to social facts to create legal rules. Yet reason is applied in both cases. Values that can’t be publicly justified aren’t values that have political authority.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4liy59 wrote
That just sounds like most democracies today. The public guide meta ethics and (theoretically) experts develop policy to further our community's choices.
contractualist OP t1_j4ln7a7 wrote
That's what I argue it should be. Yet from a US standpoint, too much discretion is currently given to democratic majorities and legislative action. At the end of the piece, I argue that courts and agencies should play a greater role in curbing the actions of majorities when they conflict with reason.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4logzd wrote
But who's on the court? Just philosophers?
fjaoaoaoao t1_j4ln34y wrote
I definitely think an expansion of how reason and values are formed, agreed upon as worthwhile, and adapted to changing times could help further the thoughts you shared in your article more. Looking forward to more!
XiphosAletheria t1_j4nh6qb wrote
>One’s religious, artistic, or personal values can’t have any political authority over others who don’t share those values. What has political authority is reason, more specifically, those principles which can’t be reasonably rejected. Those are our moral principles, which any legitimate political and legal institution needs to be based on.
This just sounds like you lack self-awareness of your own biases. Because all moral principles are at base personal preferences. Politics is always about whose values get to be imposed on everyone and justified as "reasonable". Religion only fell out of favor as a good source of such values because society changed to quickly to keep up, and so it lost too many adherents to make its influence stick.
[deleted] t1_j4tpgcn wrote
[deleted]
fjaoaoaoao t1_j4llk6m wrote
You are right that the author is talking about an ideal that doesn't exist. Right now that AI would be heavily influenced by a "cabal of intellectuals" (but probably not even intellectuals).
But it's still an interesting thought to deshrine or at least point out flaws in democracy. Not anything completely new, but I do think the piece adds to the conversation. As the auth points out, majorites don't often reflect proper application of ethical principles. Democracy places some degree faith in the ability of the people and their human nature to govern. Not that people aren't fallible, but democracy intends to be self-correcting.
an AI-ocracy would place faith in the ability of rational, impartial AI to reflect proper application of ethical principles, which in theory would be nice but obviously would need a code of values and morals to build off from to decide what's more rational and ethical in the gray areas, and these values, morals, and working definitions change over time. If it skips the more gray areas, then it's usefulness of a governing body is diminished.
Perhaps AI-ocracy is not feasible or overall better, but blending AI with other governance forms, using AI as a tool might be.
For right now, maybe a practical solution is for AI to review cases or applications of law and offer an opinion on whether it is using application of ethical principles. It's code base should be open and public so anyone can have a look-see. Having a consistent review might be a good testing ground to see how it could be used in other governance contexts.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4llzp3 wrote
In practice I doubt the AI could propose something we think is fucked up without us saying uhhhh no.
fjaoaoaoao t1_j4lp97z wrote
I don't think that's the point though. There are heaps of cases each year and as the article points out, incredibly complex documents that most people cannot bother to review. It's easy for AI to take more subtle choices or make decisions in more morally grey areas, depending on the values and morals it's trained on. Of course, it's not like we have significantly better systems now, but the level of faith in a particular system should always be scrutinized. This is why I suggest a practical solution is to just develop an AI that reviews cases or offers policy examples for now.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4lslgt wrote
It'd be a landmark moment if AI settled deontology vs consequentialism and solved ethics.
XiphosAletheria t1_j4nghyj wrote
>You're missing the inherent virtue of democracy: it provides the maximum dispersion of power throughout a population, which matters because in a free society everyone should have an equal voice, virtually by definition.
Is this its main virtue, though? Or is it just that it gives people desperate for change a non-violent means of pursuing it, and people hungry for power a non-violent way of seeking it? Because I don't think high levels of social power equality is particularly characteristic of most democracies. Elon Musk has a wee bit more power than, say, your average janitor, despite living in a democracy.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4nmba8 wrote
Since it's fundamental to a free society, It is (in my view) the main virtue.
> Musk
In more properly functioning democracies inequality isn't so egregious. I notice almost all criticisms of democracy are explained by a lack of actual democracy, which is encouraging as a democracy enthusiast.
XiphosAletheria t1_j4o79an wrote
>In more properly functioning democracies inequality isn't so egregious.
I mean, most democracies have fairly high levels of inequality, and to the extent you seem to mean "free society" by "democracy" rather than "tyranny of the majority", economic inequality seems baked in - people are not equal, so any system that leaves people with a fair amount of economic freedom is going to end up reflecting that.
> I notice almost all criticisms of democracy are explained by a lack of actual democracy, which is encouraging as a democracy enthusiast.
Or you are no true scotsmanning it.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4obsdi wrote
You can compress income so no one is living like an animal and also have the talented better off. Look at the Nordic model.
> Tyranny of the majority
As opposed to literally every other system which gives power to a smaller handful.
XiphosAletheria t1_j4qgogi wrote
The Nordic model was what I had in mind, yes.
thismightbsatire t1_j4ijl8j wrote
Democracy is just one big game of kick that can down the road.
shockingdevelopment t1_j4ke3ag wrote
So is this basically "we should do philosopher kings"?
Perrr333 t1_j4ivqc1 wrote
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried” - Winston Churchill
WrongAspects t1_j4lh2y0 wrote
Singapore disagrees.
jagerWomanjensen t1_j4krl6w wrote
I don't see why reason can't be a part of Democracy. I know the article does not explicitly state this, but it reads like the goal is to replace democracy with reason instead of arranging them better.
But might have also been that English is not my native tongue.
aconsul73 t1_j4looh1 wrote
Democracy is gives equal weight to all members regardless of their capabilities. The assumption is that the best decisions will be made by the majority.
The problem is that in many cases majority-based decisions are not optimal especially in areas where specialization, expertise, knowledge or experience are necessary. For example in an airplane, decisions about maneuvers should not be governed by the passengers. Engineering decisions should not be voted upon by all the members of the construction team.
Democracy is not a statement that majority decisions are the best. Rather it is a negative assessment that minority-based decisions will inevitably be worse. It is a reaction to a historical abuse of hierarchical decision-making by aristocracies, kingdoms and empires. It is a statement of distrust rather than an affirmation of an optimal solution. It is designed to prevent abuse of power and resources rather than optimize the use of power and resources.
Democracy's weakest link is the average capabilities of voting members. Should the majority be unable to take the time necessary to make intelligent decisions they may become reactive and make poor decisions based on the latest fad, sentimentality, grudge or impulse or whim. The weight of responsibility falls on the majority and if they fail to take their responsibilities seriously then the results are haphazard at best.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j4i552o wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
blackant89 t1_j4k0hwj wrote
Everything eventually boils down to pleasure and pain.
lolderplife t1_j4ko37e wrote
Humans yeah?
brusiddit t1_j4k6lqe wrote
Can someone ELI5? I'm feeling a bit confused. Is this whole argument for reason as a political system over democracy pointless if the aim of such governance is the welfare of a population who define their welfare based on a variety of social values and ethics?
Seems like a chicken or the egg scenario.
Or is the argument saying that people should base their values solely on reason? Seems like a potentially facist line of reasoning.
IceFl4re t1_j4ks38m wrote
Nope, pass.
This article is just another case of liberalism (see the emphasis on "natural rights") want to reduce democracy to be nothing more than popularity contests of candidates in an election + reducing themselves to technocracy.
It seems like those who says "When conservatives can't win in a democracy they will abandon democracy" are the ones who should look at themselves in the mirror.
AverageGene t1_j4mnv0j wrote
What is reason?
Icy_Collection_1396 t1_j4q47zv wrote
Democracy is a necessary tool for achieving a better society, but it is not an end in itself. It is a means to a higher end, which is an ethical and moral order based on a just distribution of power and resources. Democracy provides the necessary means for the people to recognize their collective power and to work together to create that just order. It is important to remember, however, that democracy only works when its citizens are willing to give up their personal power and to place their trust in the collective power of the people. Without this willingness to sacrifice individual power for the greater good, democracy would be nothing more than empty rhetoric.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j5fmzc5 wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Ok-Librarian4752 t1_j4iw1sx wrote
Great summary of an even better newsletter. I agree with many of these points and also can’t help but point out the small scale that democracy operates in.
When a party is elected to a government, they are concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of profitable citizenry. They are also typically concerned with combatting issues with high media visibility, profitable outcomes, short term fixes, rather than a focus on ethical issues (systemic racism, gender pay gap, the high rates of burnout and workplace incivilities, wealth inequalities) as they are within the system, governments can do little about problems which stem from a politically democratic systemic level.
Most attempts in modern democracies to create fundamental changes in harm reduction or improving systemic issues fail dismally (improving wealth inequalities, gender inequalities, corruption etc) as the problem resides as a systemic level rather than finding a panacea with policies that could be overturned with the next change of government.
fjaoaoaoao t1_j4lmml5 wrote
I wouldn't agree that the party primarily cares about profitable citzenry, unless you think of profits also as votes and attention.
But otherwise I agree with the spirit of your post. Parties and elections have their good side but they can also encourage focus on public image and more immediately gratifying change. It discourages long-term goals and sustained, ongoing collaboration, unless the public can heavily agree on what those goals are. The problem arises is if the public is manipulated, kept ignorant, or even just having largely different lifestyles (e.g. rural versus urban), agreement on long-term goals can be even harder to come by.
contractualist OP t1_j4lsdh8 wrote
Thank you so much! The incentives of politicians and the public good can be misaligned, which is why there is no inherent authority to decisions made by the former.
anon2282 t1_j4jr9ya wrote
>systemic racism, gender pay gap,
Do you have anything from this millennium?
CulHndLuke99 t1_j4k801o wrote
r/enddemocracy
GilligansCorner t1_j4jc1l3 wrote
Democracy doesn’t ensure your voice is heard but drowned out by the herd.
Alphonse123 t1_j4jp6r3 wrote
If you want to see the fate of Democracies, look out the windows....
HotpieTargaryen t1_j4hxlho wrote
Everything is always a mean to some end. And in turn those ends are usually means for something else. Democracy can be conceptualized as a value when framed as a form of structuring political authority or simply a tool for enacting a form of popular political authority. Distinguishing between means and ends conflates issues that are far more complex and dynamic.