Contemplating Longman’s latest baby bust thumbsucker, The Munger asks a good question:
What does this say about democracy? Does the will of the majority contain moral force? Or does it just reflect different rates of reproduction, rather than persuasion?
Good question!
If I’m the Netherland’s, or some other small liberal country, my immigration policy will have a lot to do with restricting entry by people who do not share our evolved liberal values and taste in designer eyeglasses. The problem is worse if the illiberal would-be immigrants breed at rates outstripping the native population. I am, in effect, rigging elections by rigging who has standing to vote. If we democratically choose to prevent our democracy from changing democratically in ways the present majority dislikes, is that a triumph or failure of democracy?
Suppose it was discovered that Indonesians are just natural Republicans and seldom fail to sow their seed and multiply. So the Republican administration gives immigration priority to Indonesians. What would that do to the moral force of the will of the majority? Better or worse than gerrymandering? (What if Indonesians promised to vote Republican in a secret pact?) Democrats like to think that young people and poor people will vote Democrat if only they would vote. So that well-known Party organs bombard us with “rock the vote” and “vote or die” nonsense in order to make grape drink out of the sour grape of electoral dependency on demographic classes that don’t like to vote. That’s also why Dems scream bloody murder about “disenfranshisement” every election. What if Namibians are natural Democrats? If a Republican adminstration puts Namibia on to immigration shit list, are they disenfranchising future voters? I want to know!
The harder you think about democracy, the harder it is to see it as morally super-special. But it’s still special. Not everything needs to be super-special.
Is it democracy when the voters choose the politician with the brightest smile and biggest war chest while having not the foggiest notion of what that politician actually stands for? Not that this happens mind you, it’s just a rhetorical question.
Is it democracy when the voters choose the politician with the brightest smile and biggest war chest while having not the foggiest notion of what that politician actually stands for? Not that this happens mind you, it’s just a rhetorical question.
I’m a student studying games design at uni, but I did an A-Level in politics. I loved it and I hated it at the same time, democracy has never been democatic! (why does minority=unimportant, FPTP Elects with a consolidated minority!low turnout etc). Well ok it seems better than living in a dictatorship but when people are pursuaded by “personality” over policy surely they have missed the point(and surely a clever and manipulative dictator could still have a Nice, likeable personality). It amazes me how many people don’t even understand how our political system works. Obviously I was also guilty of this lack of understanding before I did an alevel but you would’ve thought it might be something important enough to be taught in school to Everyone. My parents weren’t completely sure, none of my friends knew, most of my new flatmates (all in their final years) don’t know exactly either, my uni friends don’t, but worst of all they dont care! People are uneducated and uninterested, and in a world where people are uninterested how can democracy ever truly exist anyway?
I’m a student studying games design at uni, but I did an A-Level in politics. I loved it and I hated it at the same time, democracy has never been democatic! (why does minority=unimportant, FPTP Elects with a consolidated minority!low turnout etc). Well ok it seems better than living in a dictatorship but when people are pursuaded by “personality” over policy surely they have missed the point(and surely a clever and manipulative dictator could still have a Nice, likeable personality). It amazes me how many people don’t even understand how our political system works. Obviously I was also guilty of this lack of understanding before I did an alevel but you would’ve thought it might be something important enough to be taught in school to Everyone. My parents weren’t completely sure, none of my friends knew, most of my new flatmates (all in their final years) don’t know exactly either, my uni friends don’t, but worst of all they dont care! People are uneducated and uninterested, and in a world where people are uninterested how can democracy ever truly exist anyway?
How strongly can some of this be distinguished from gerrymandering, another case of politicians choosing their voters? Certainly effective gerrymandering techniques can distort the idea of democracy.
How strongly can some of this be distinguished from gerrymandering, another case of politicians choosing their voters? Certainly effective gerrymandering techniques can distort the idea of democracy.
I’m not sure that rigging immigration would have a tremendous effect on elections based on human nature versus our system (district maps/electoral college). People tend to move to a place that makes them comfortable. Those places are already populated with people of the same voting tendencies.
I think it would take a huge wave of people, all moving to the same place, to make any meaningful difference.
Asking if democracy is super special is kinda like asking if a car is super special. Well, is it a ’78 Pacer or a top-o-the-line Mercedes? In theory, democracy is super special. But what kind of democracy is it? When you consider that:
1. regardless of record, most incumbents on a local level are re-elected.
2. by the end of the current presidential term we’ll have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house for almost 30 years….unless Hillary wins.
I think ours, in it’s present state, is only special.
I’m not sure that rigging immigration would have a tremendous effect on elections based on human nature versus our system (district maps/electoral college). People tend to move to a place that makes them comfortable. Those places are already populated with people of the same voting tendencies.
I think it would take a huge wave of people, all moving to the same place, to make any meaningful difference.
Asking if democracy is super special is kinda like asking if a car is super special. Well, is it a ’78 Pacer or a top-o-the-line Mercedes? In theory, democracy is super special. But what kind of democracy is it? When you consider that:
1. regardless of record, most incumbents on a local level are re-elected.
2. by the end of the current presidential term we’ll have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the white house for almost 30 years….unless Hillary wins.
I think ours, in it’s present state, is only special.
Democracy is not all that special. I would rather live in Monaco or Liechtenstein without a democracy than in India with one.
Democracy is not all that special. I would rather live in Monaco or Liechtenstein without a democracy than in India with one.
Grumpy,
I’m not trying to start a debate with you (honestly, I wouldn’t want to live in India either) but can you name a larger country in which you’d like to live that’s not a democracy? The countries you mentioned only have a few thousand citizens and don’t have militaries, airports or many of the other ‘problems’ of a larger country.
Grumpy,
I’m not trying to start a debate with you (honestly, I wouldn’t want to live in India either) but can you name a larger country in which you’d like to live that’s not a democracy? The countries you mentioned only have a few thousand citizens and don’t have militaries, airports or many of the other ‘problems’ of a larger country.
Glancing over a list of countries ranked by population…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop
…there aren’t that many large yet liberal non-democracies to choose from, though there more than enough large illiberal democracies to avoid. There just aren’t that many non-democratic countries to choose from these days.
Through much of the 19th Century, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not democratic. They were also large. Would not have minded living in those places.
Glancing over a list of countries ranked by population…
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_pop
…there aren’t that many large yet liberal non-democracies to choose from, though there more than enough large illiberal democracies to avoid. There just aren’t that many non-democratic countries to choose from these days.
Through much of the 19th Century, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were not democratic. They were also large. Would not have minded living in those places.
Singapore is often considered a liberal nondemocracy. It’s a couple orders of magnitude larger than Monaco or Lichtenstein, about the size of New Zealand.
Singapore is often considered a liberal nondemocracy. It’s a couple orders of magnitude larger than Monaco or Lichtenstein, about the size of New Zealand.
Pingback: Buy Paxil