Democracy: protect the two party state!

[Posted in off topic, because I think discussions about it will be, but I also think this article may have important lessons for SAFEnetwork in terms of both democratising Apps and indeed it’s own governance - so I encourage anyone interested in these to read it, and perhaps start some “on topics” to discuss implications for apps and SAFEnetwork (you can use “Reply on new topic” to do this).

I’ve been so unhappy with the UK system and the way it is being corrupted lately (as is the US, and indeed the EU) that I’ve seen proportional representation as an important step forward. But after reading this, not so much! :slightly_smiling:

The following (old) article by Karl Popper argues that PR is to be avoided because it will entrench parties even more, discourage them from being open to change and new ideas, and remove accountability of elected representatives to their constituency - in fact making them entirely accountable to party and not their electorate.

Popper argues that democracy is good only in so far as it has, inadvertently, created a system that allows bad leaders to be removed without recourse to bloodshed and revolution. Really, he says, this, and not “rule of the people” (or rather rabble), should be the fundamental aim of any system of government, and that it should be made impossible to subvert this, including by popular vote. We can see how this has been subverted and turned democracies into de facto dictatorships or oligarchies such as Zimbabwe, Russia, and - gradually - even the UK where incremental changes are being made to make it harder and harder for us to elect anyone but the Conservatives ever again (even though 67% of us, or thereabouts, did not vote for them).

I think I’m now with Jeremy Corbyn that any change should retain the representative part of UK democracy, but soon any attempts to improve it may become impossible.

1 Like

Read the whole article once. It has some interesting points. Bad leaders removed without bloodshed - Great. I think we can do this much better today by limiting the use of capital through the technologies we know and love. I’ve been working on another article about this very thing.

Regarding this article:

What happens when the blame cannot be laid at the feet of either party. Each party tries to blame the other but we know both are responsible. Both are walking in lockstep toward greater and greater control by the ruling class, the ones who buy the law makers. Often by creating bureaucracies that have no real accountability to any election cycle. In fact they have created the coalition government (the establishment if you will).

Tyranny is real and when some acronymed police force breaks through the door, you know it. Where is the accountability then? Who stops these little militaries? Can we blame one party or the other when they both formed a coalition to bring it about?

2 Likes

I await your solution with anticipation. Go for it Chadrick!

Both US and UK are headed for tyranny or revolution at present.

2 Likes

Agreed. I wish decentralized Governance Protocols got more discussion going. Like Safe vote: http://wkgallo3.github.io/Appsitev2/SAFEvote.html

3 Likes

Why do we need leaders at all? Just give people the power to make decisions about their own lives. Decentralize power and crowdfund any projects that need collaborating on.

“It is said: “Proportional representation gives a new party a chance to
rise. Without it, the chance is much diminished. And the mere existence
of a third party may greatly improve the performance of the two big
parties.” This may well be the case. But what if five or six such new
parties emerge? As we have seen, even one small party may wield quite
disproportionate power if it is in the position to decide which of the
two big parties it will join to form a coalition government.”

I’d say this would be a good thing. And yes they can join to form coalition governments as happens in Canada from time to time. But I’d opt for having all perspectives represented rather than a fight between Red vs Blue.

“The point is that in a two-party system the defeated party is liable to
take an electoral defeat seriously. So it may look for an internal
reform of its aims, which is an ideological reform. If the party is
defeated twice in succession, or even three times, the search for new
ideas may become frantic, which obviously is a healthy development. This
is likely to happen, even if the loss of votes was not very great.”

Not really they just cycle back and forth. Red, Blue, Red, Blue, Red, Blue, over and over again. Don’t like voting for the Ass? Vote for the Elephant instead. Don’t like Dumbo? Here’s Ee-or for you.

2 Likes

Frankly I think representational government and parties is absurd. If you insist on having democracy people should just subscribe to follow whoever appeals to them. The person with the most subscribers wins. Think Youtube. Have people subscribe and follow whatever ruler they choose but the ruler’s rules only apply to those that subscribe to them. So you subscribe to Joe, Larry’s Laws don’t apply to you, only Joe’s.

2 Likes

From TFA:

The new problem, as distinct from the old “Who should rule?”, can be formulated as follows: how is the state to be constituted so that bad rulers can be got rid of without bloodshed, without violence?

He’s asking a wrong question.
The fundamental question is how to make it possible for an individual to live freely.

In order to make a majority government probable, we need something approaching a two-party system, as in Britain and in the United States.

Popper is (was?) a dangerous collectivist who wants the unsuspecting sheeple to accept the “reality” of eternal two-party round-tripping. And without violence, so that it appears civilized, even though people are equally shackled under any democratically elected government.

Democracy is worse than any feudal oligarchy. Back in the day people could stage an uprising and finish off a misbehaving ruler.
Now you can’t do anything because your local SWAT team is so armed that they can kill thousands within an hour.

Those who suspect something’s wrong with Popper’s recommendations may want to check out Hoppe’s “Democracy - The God that Failed”.

1 Like

But people are oblivious and can’t be helped. Just look at @happybeing (and some others on this site) the SAFE network is just around the corner and his thought is how to replicate this completely failed system on to the SAFE network. Go figure…

And I have to add that Popper’s theory has been completely debunked for at least 10 years now - now the two party state is associated with fascism which it is. More importantly, that is by no means a coincidence - that is exactly what F.A. Hayek claimed that democracy leads to fascism before Popper published that garbage.
(The Road to Serfdom was published in 1944 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom ) whereas the Popper’s book came out in 1945.)

Edit:

  • Fixed the URL formatting
  • For those lazy to click over, I’m adding a quote from the W article on the Hayek’s book:

He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Significantly, Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (and National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.

  • Now compare that to the collectivists’s claim from Popper: “Complete openness would, of course, be self-defeating, as would be complete freedom.”
1 Like

But Popper with was the Austrian group who looked at WWII and wanting to make sure it never happened again wanted to keep states small because they felt that having large states is what allowed people to be led around by the nose. But the converse where you can’t travel becasue you can’t afford to go anywhere because of the system of toll roads or where you’ve become your neighbor’s property because there was nothing in place to stop that kind of thuggishness is just as bad. In theory the Austrians where trying to prevent the rise of another HItler.

The rabble the kids of social media in America seem to be leaning toward Sanders as opposed to the more demagog and Hitler like Trump. The rabble seems to be choosing cooperation and peace over fear and division and bigotry or conservatism. That’s a function of increased communication getting away from sponsorship.

As for the British system. I have to recognize that its achieved a more liberal result than the current American system which is wonderful, but in so many ways from my tainted American perspective its so utterly grotesque. Its symbology is horrid. Scrap the useless eugnic stupid beyond belief imported conqueored monarchy and stop glorifying that sewage. Punch out anyone who calls themself a lord. How can you have a house of lords?! Its time to put the British culture, accomplishments and history in perspective. Its not one big family with a central place in history. Its people living today who have a need to be free of a very often retchid past. The monarchy should be a burnt offering. Toss it in the nearest volcano. End the rule of superior genitalia with its superior seed. It was a nightmare.

But if you didn’t want to travel you saved a decent amount of money over the years because you wouldn’t have to pay for public roads. That seems more just to me. Today even carless people have to pay for that crap. (Another GM and Tesla subsidy, economically speaking - so little wonder Adolf was big on autobahns, a tax on the populace to subsidize German car makers.)

1 Like

This is where I’d like to keep the in place road ways but cover them over with that cheap 7mm solar glue on road surface and use batteries and inductive slats to smart charge the vehicles that drive the surface. Assuming no testicular cancer as a result, this is a nice time of use fee for service model that pays for the fuel and road infrastructure. Nothing to stop one from charging at home but no worry here about running out of charge. Nice clean model. If its a truck it will get a higher fee for greater depreciation costs.

So much of politics is a game of pointing out the thief. Is it a capitalist pig like Trump or a beat cop like Sanders? Who is the real pig?