The Problem with Democracy

[August1991]

Imagine, for a moment, that we had a world government decided by universal suffrage (one adult, one vote) from around the world.

With some 6 billion people around the world, or with about 3 billion adults, a world government would be decided by the votes of about 1.5 billion people, assuming a 50% turn out.

Who would these 1.5 billion people likely choose for world democratic leaders?

[i have often argued that, from the perspective of a single voter, a vote in an election is a waste of effort. It changes nothing and most voters, as a result, invest little time in learning about candidates and many of them don't even bother to vote. If you spend time researching what car to buy, the end result is that you get a car appropriate for your needs. If you spend alot of time researching candidates before voting, the end result is that your single vote changes nothing. Between spending my time looking for a new car or looking for a new political party, I know where my time is better directed.]

I'll put that argument aside. Instead, I'll accept that 1.5 billion people (half the world's eligible electorate) spend at least a few moments learning about the candidates and even bothering to vote.

What kind of candidate would they choose? What kind of candidate would win? A leftist or someone on the right? An Obama or a Bush?

-----

It seems obvious to me that any World candidate who promised to take all the wealth of Canadians and distribute it to other people in the world would likely win a democratic (majority) vote. Canadians are rich people - by world standards - but there are only 30 million of us. In Africa and Asia, there are billions who are poor.

Would our planet be a better place if a democratic world government existed and had the power to take from "rich" Canadians (ie. all Canadians) and distribute their wealth to far poorer people elsewhere in the world?

-----

Final corollary: When the NDP (or Obama) advocates taxing the rich to pay for transfers or services to teh ppor, why do they stop at the borders of Canada? Are the poor eslewhere in the world less deserving than Canada's poor? By world standards, Canada's "poor" are well off.

Edited October 17, 2008 by August1991

[Renegade]

Ultimately this is the problem with democracy. In a democracy the majority (no mattter how small a majority) can run roughshod over a minority 100% of the time. To mitigate this situation, there needs to be limits on what a majority can and cannot do. A Charter of rights is one example of such a limitation. Unfortunately unless such a charter also protected a minority's property rights and protected against wealth redistribution, there is nothing to stop a majority from plundering the wealth of the rich minority. At a country level, there is always the threat that the rich could pack up and leave but no such threat exists at the world level. There would be little advantage to Canada being part of a world democracy because its wealth and resources would be redistributed and if it resisted it would be told that it is being "selfish".

The end result of a world democracy is that you would see a redistribution of incomes from the richer countries to the poorer ones. Certainly this trend would not be good for Canadians.

When the NDP (or Obama) advocates taxing the rich to pay for transfers or services to teh ppor, why do they stop at the borders of Canada? Are the poor eslewhere in the world less deserving than Canada's poor? By world standards, Canada's "poor" are well off.

I too have wondered this. The only conclusion I have come to is that the philosophy of redistribution ends when the philosophy of self-interest is at stake.

[eyeball]

When the NDP (or Obama) advocates taxing the rich to pay for transfers or services to teh ppor, why do they stop at the borders of Canada?

Because that's where their authority stops. Of course if we were talking about plundering the natural resources of poorer countries I doubt if the GOP or lap dogs like Harper would worry about things like borders. Their philosophy of self-interest recognizes few borders, usually only their own.

Edited October 17, 2008 by eyeball

[guyser]

I will think about it but....can you imagine the campaign timeline? Not to mention the ads in 200 different languages.

Six weeks was almost unbearable....six years would be needed.

[M.Dancer]

Lets not forget that a certain type of culture is needed for democracy to even function. Zimbabwe is (ahem) democratic.....so I here is Russia.

Japan went from feudalism to democracy in less than 100 years...how long will Russie take?

[charter.rights]

Lets not forget that a certain type of culture is needed for democracy to even function. Zimbabwe is (ahem) democratic.....so I here is Russia.

Japan went from feudalism to democracy in less than 100 years...how long will Russie take?

Yes. And Hitler was also elected through a democratic process.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Who would these 1.5 billion people likely choose for world democratic leaders?

Half of them would be Chinese.

Hu Jintao will win by a landslide

[myata]

Direct democratic delegation in the system of that size probably wouldn't be functional. The only viable alternative is a federated structure where smaller entities delegate certain (very specific and limited) responsibilities to the higher level of management. Theoretically it can go on forever, but in practice creates very cumbersome and slow to response system. Europe made the farthest advances on this path, and its results are far from perfect; with no better alternative anywhere in sight.

The greatest concern is that our ability to create problems by far exceeds the one to come together to solve them. In the next few generations, the ability (or lack thereof) to enact meaningful global action would undoubtfully become crucial for the survival of our civilization.

[Renegade]

Because that's where their authority stops.

I seriously doubt that if Jack Layton or any party offered to redistribute wealth from Canada to elsewhere, the recepient would let the border impede that largesse.

[Riverwind]

Because that's where their authority stops.

Actually, that is one of the reasons why GW warming is so popular with the left - it gives them an excuse to tax people in rich countries and transfer it to the poor countries. This is one of the reasons why the left wing will likely cling to GW nonsense long after the real data demostrates that it is an imaginary problem.

[Kitch]

Does this hypothetical not lend support to the idea of more localized governance? Canada is too big and too diverse for people to live under the same umbrella.

[xul]

Half of them would be Chinese.

Hu Jintao will win by a landslide

Honestly, if he won it would be better to Canadian. Do western capitalists's factories exist "harmoniously" in China under his party's rule at present, don't they? But I guarantee there will be a far worse one will win due to the fact that most supposed voters in this assumption only concentrate on their own interests without any respect of others rights.

Edited October 18, 2008 by xul

[xul]

Imagine, for a moment, that we had a world government decided by universal suffrage (one adult, one vote) from around the world.

Maybe those western "vote=democracy" formula-prescribing doctors who have created a lot of messes in some third world countries could find a way in this worldwide-democracy system to protect their own insterests just as some people in those third world countries who were often accused by them were just trying to protect their own right in their home town from their peasant majority's plundering under a exterior-enforced and tolerance-lacking "majority rule". Maybe it is better that those western guys can modify their method of "universal suffrage" to a capitalistic directorate democracy way---one $, one vote so "their kind" can still keep to rule the world in this world-democracy.

Edited October 19, 2008 by xul

[xul]

Does this hypothetical not lend support to the idea of more localized governance? Canada is too big and too diverse for people to live under the same umbrella.

As a foreigner, I'm not sure but I think maybe "More localized governance" is a way but it is not the best way for Canadian. I have never been to Canada but I have no doubt that not each inch of Alberta territory is filled with same oil sand and not everybody in Quebec used to speck French. So if these provinces were "more localized", they could also not stop some town or cities asking for "more localizing" form provincial authorities according the same theory.

Edited October 18, 2008 by xul

[Riverwind]

So if these provinces were "more localized", they could also not stop some town or cities asking for "more localizing" form provincial authorities according the same theory.

The division of powers amoung multiple levels of government is essential to any society. The responsibilities delegated to each level should depend on what makes sense. For example, cities are best able to manage roads and water but a national government is best able to handle military and trade agreements.

[Pliny]

The division of powers amoung multiple levels of government is essential to any society. The responsibilities delegated to each level should depend on what makes sense. For example, cities are best able to manage roads and water but a national government is best able to handle military and trade agreements.

This is the crux of the matter - the division of powers.

If the global government did into have the mandate to engineer society or "redistribute wealth" but was just a limited mandate of say stopping wars between nations then it would be easier to have a global government.

The idea that government be the nanny and social engineer of the world is the problem.

Even though the provincial mandates include health care, highways, education the Federal government controls some of the purse strings and "redistributes the wealth" in the form of transfer payments. The provincial governments redistribute the wealth to a degree as well. Basically, Canadian governments are money managers. Shoveling it from where it collects in the economy, the producers of wealth, into their own pockets in order to buy votes with handouts, a particular failure of democracy. It seems "community organizers" have the best chance of becoming successful politicians. The best place to get experience working with other peoples money while developing "relationship" and do-gooder skills to save everyone and the community from self-destruction.

The concept that your property is government property and is thus public property results in lack of respect for private property and the sanctity of the individual.

If we are all one blob then that concept makes it easier to think in terms of "egalitarianism". Globally that would be disastrous. It is bad enough on a national level. On a more localized level it is perhaps more feasible, as individual action can affect a community. But that does not give a more localized government authority to disrespect the property of it's members by extracting it to spend on it's own interests.

I am kind of glad that the economy has come to the fore as the primary social issue and placed the idea of "global climate change" on the back burner. I do not think that politicians can tax away climate change. If they say they are doing that they are lying. They are just "capitalizing" on an opportunity to extort money from the economy. If they manage to bring in carbon taxes all over the place then what interest will they have in reducing their revenues through reducing greenhouse gas levels? Just like they had no interest, until recently threatened with mid-eastern oil embargoes, in finding alternate energy sources. The taxes and tariffs on oil are a major source of revenues - they have no reason to hurry up and find alternatives until they figure out a way to tax them - perhaps the reason for carbon taxes. They realize energy will always be necessary and will thus always be around to create greenhouse gases, while we fruitlessly search for "clean" energy.

Governments should be charities that thrive upon the volunteered funding of it's citizens. In times of economic hardship, which means it was doing a bad job governing anyway, it will all but disappear. If things are going well people will contribute. They will fund what they wish to fund and that is where their responsibility and participation to the community lies. If they do not that is their choice and they will live as recluses in the community. If funds go to support wrong choices in direction for the community then they will result in the aforementioned economic hardship. People will be a lot wiser for it instead of politicians telling them they know better how to spend their money for them.

[Kitch]

The division of powers amoung multiple levels of government is essential to any society. The responsibilities delegated to each level should depend on what makes sense. For example, cities are best able to manage roads and water but a national government is best able to handle military and trade agreements.

And I believe that's about all they should handle. Anything that is common to human beings is what the federal government should handle. Provinces are, in my opinion, too large to govern effectively as well. People who live in the same communities don't necessarily more in common with each other, but their lives are more intertwined with each other than with people from different communities. Therefore, government should be very local, in my opinion.

[Pliny]

And I believe that's about all they should handle. Anything that is common to human beings is what the federal government should handle. Provinces are, in my opinion, too large to govern effectively as well. People who live in the same communities don't necessarily more in common with each other, but their lives are more intertwined with each other than with people from different communities. Therefore, government should be very local, in my opinion.

I agree with this. Plus the government should not attempt to run the economy of the country.

The bank bailout is a failure of people in the financial industry and bankruptcy is the lesson that the stewards of the industry should learn. Average citizens will of course have a price to pay as well but it was up to them to be vigilant of government, it's policies and how they affect capitalist behavior. If the government promises to bailout banks and save the economy Capitalists, almost to a man, will act without restraint. It is not pressure from government regulation that is most feared by Capitalism or entrepreneurial endeavour it is bankruptcy resulting from loss of investor and client or customer confidence. Government regulation is simply an annoyance and/or a cost of doing business.

The current failure is called a "credit crunch", basically banks have no more money to lend. Why is that? Because they have no reserves backing any more lending. How can injecting 7-800 billion dollars of further credit to save the banking industry be possible and how can it improve the situation. In the short term, it gives the financial industry some ability to continue to extend credit to keep the economy on life support. The government through the taxpayer will have to pay it all back. The House finance committee were so happy to pass this act but all they did basically was save their own investments from becoming worthless, in the long run the taxpayer is being used to pay it all back.

[xul]

The division of powers amoung multiple levels of government is essential to any society. The responsibilities delegated to each level should depend on what makes sense. For example, cities are best able to manage roads and water but a national government is best able to handle military and trade agreements.

I agree the principle your said. I just meant that in Canada or America the provincial or state governments have divided enough power from federal government so any more power division would lead to the USSR style result.

[eyeball]

I agree with this. Plus the government should not attempt to run the economy of the country.

Count me in, I'm all for local control of our own affairs. I'd scrap provinces altogether and subscribe to a more natural biogeoclimatic division of powers myself.

The bank bailout is a failure of people in the financial industry and bankruptcy is the lesson that the stewards of the industry should learn. Average citizens will of course have a price to pay as well but it was up to them to be vigilant of government, it's policies and how they affect capitalist behavior. If the government promises to bailout banks and save the economy Capitalists, almost to a man, will act without restraint. It is not pressure from government regulation that is most feared by Capitalism or entrepreneurial endeavour it is bankruptcy resulting from loss of investor and client or customer confidence. Government regulation is simply an annoyance and/or a cost of doing business.

The failure of vigilance is the key problem and it should be laid at the feet of the people. So long as we refuse to take measures to make our governance utterly transparent we deserve the screwing we get.

The current failure is called a "credit crunch", basically banks have no more money to lend. Why is that? Because they have no reserves backing any more lending. How can injecting 7-800 billion dollars of further credit to save the banking industry be possible and how can it improve the situation. In the short term, it gives the financial industry some ability to continue to extend credit to keep the economy on life support. The government through the taxpayer will have to pay it all back. The House finance committee were so happy to pass this act but all they did basically was save their own investments from becoming worthless, in the long run the taxpayer is being used to pay it all back.

It just ain't gonna happen and all I can say is caveat emptor. I can't say I feel very sorry for people in China for example that keep buying US government bonds. Apparently they're motivated to because they're desperate trying to keep their own savings from becoming worthless.

The fact this is all happening in a world of declining natural capital, an issue that needs to be on all burners, is not a coincidence. Its just not as easy to sustain the production of wealth by exploiting natural resources as it used to be which probably explains why the banks and such created the various paper ponzie schemes that are now at the heart of the present financial crisis.

Confidence is definitely the issue and I'm convinced more people are confident the world is definitely not what it appears to be - which is something they should rightly be scared of.

[xul]

This is the crux of the matter - the division of powers.

If the global government did into have the mandate to engineer society or "redistribute wealth" but was just a limited mandate of say stopping wars between nations then it would be easier to have a global government.

Not all wars are for redistribution of money. The wars between Israeli and Arabian for one, are becasue of historical and religionary causes.

In fact, without tolerance each other, people can not even live together in a smallest "society" such as a family under a democratic system.

The division of powers can not entirely solve the problem, though it may partly solve the problem. The key is how many powers the democratical elected leader will have? If his power just likes the Secretary General of the UN, such "democratic election" will be meaningless, just as Canada has a Queen doesn't mean Canada is not democratic.

[Pliny]

Count me in, I'm all for local control of our own affairs. I'd scrap provinces altogether and subscribe to a more natural biogeoclimatic division of powers myself.

The failure of vigilance is the key problem and it should be laid at the feet of the people. So long as we refuse to take measures to make our governance utterly transparent we deserve the screwing we get.

It just ain't gonna happen and all I can say is caveat emptor. I can't say I feel very sorry for people in China for example that keep buying US government bonds. Apparently they're motivated to because they're desperate trying to keep their own savings from becoming worthless.

The fact this is all happening in a world of declining natural capital, an issue that needs to be on all burners, is not a coincidence. Its just not as easy to sustain the production of wealth by exploiting natural resources as it used to be which probably explains why the banks and such created the various paper ponzie schemes that are now at the heart of the present financial crisis.

Confidence is definitely the issue and I'm convinced more people are confident the world is definitely not what it appears to be - which is something they should rightly be scared of.

I am surprised! We rarely agree.

[Pliny]

Not all wars are for redistribution of money. The wars between Israeli and Arabian for one, are becasue of historical and religionary causes.

You don't have to believe me but they were wars of economics, not religion. The people thought it was about religion and have always been told they were about religion but they were about economics and the distribution of wealth. "Wealth" is not "money" by the way.

In fact, without tolerance each other, people can not even live together in a smallest "society" such as a family under a democratic system.

The division of powers can not entirely solve the problem, though it may partly solve the problem. The key is how many powers the democratical elected leader will have? If his power just likes the Secretary General of the UN, such "democratic election" will be meaningless, just as Canada has a Queen doesn't mean Canada is not democratic.

It seems democracy itself needs an authoritative hand to say, "No, we can't afford that!" once in a while.

[xul]

You don't have to believe me but they were wars of economics, not religion. The people thought it was about religion and have always been told they were about religion but they were about economics and the distribution of wealth. "Wealth" is not "money" by the way.

I think I should be better believe you because I also have a strong feeling that ideology or religion are mostly just a pretty pretext when people think going into wars would benefit their interests.

It seems democracy itself needs an authoritative hand to say, "No, we can't afford that!" once in a while.

If majority of people in a nation are very sure that knocking down their king, emperor or something will benefit their interest, they will do it and nobody, neither the king himself nor any authoritative hand, could stop it unless the king has bred a million princes to be his army soldiers to defend his royalty. But people would not suppose British would rebel their king just for obeying Napoleon's will.

And I guess everyone here does not know that the CPChina still keeping in power in China just works as the same way as the CPCanada still keeping in power in Canada (not offence to any CPC supporters, just a joke). Both the CPCs have not gain enough support from the majority of their people, but since their opposite are divisive and can not compromise their interests each other, they can keep in power just like a capitalist----holds 30% shares of a corporation, then dominates it for others are many small share holders and can not unite together against him.

From political point of view, division of power seems like a solution. If the capital of a country could be independent, I think Beijing would be one of the best place in China to fit democracy. But from economical point of view, such division is obviously not good to this country though it may be good to western countries for manipulating some small countries is always easier than manipulating a big country.

The another question to the division of power is, if the principle of democracy is "majority rule", why people needs seeking division of power just for they do not agree with or their interests are not coincident with the decision of majority? (I agree division of power has its function, but it is not correlative for settling the debate in a democracy system. Even under a king or an emperor rule, division of power would be adopt if the kindom or empire was big enough.)

Just imagine that if God migrated 50 million Afghan mountain marijuana growing peasants to be Canadian and they were scatterd everywhere so any division was impossible; then being the majority of this country, they elected a guy of their kind to be the PM of Canada(someone may think Kharzai is acceptable, but I guess the one they elected might be worse), would you prepare to accept the leadership of this guy?

Edited October 25, 2008 by xul

[August1991]

This is the crux of the matter - the division of powers.

If the global government did into have the mandate to engineer society or "redistribute wealth" but was just a limited mandate of say stopping wars between nations then it would be easier to have a global government.

I think you've missed the point of my OP, or rather you've understood only too well.

If a world government should not have the power "redistribute wealth", why should a government over a smaller territory have that right? What makes that inherently better? In some ways, it makes it less fair.

You would have the familes of Westmount share their wealth only among themselves and the families of East-end Montreal share their meagre wealth among themselves.