i've got a loverly bunch of coconuts

[lauralh]

There's not been as much rhyme or reason on my democracy poll, except the more cynical people seem to think it's a bad idea and vice versa. But it's not that tight a correlation. Perhaps I phrased it badly, but I think if you vote for people to run the government, they should just run it and not ask the people every time a new issue comes up. The only time direct democracy comes close to working, as Asa said, is in a really small group of people. In Parliament of Whores, PJ O'Rourke goes to a town meeting in his small New England base of operations, and it's utter chaos. Probably fewer people than Congress, too.

---

Last night we watched the first part of Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's pretty similar to the book so far, except that they have some new archaelogists showing the earliest granaries and villages around the Mesopotamia area. Has anyone read that anti-agriculture rant? It's kind of weird since in the book he postulates that agriculture led to free time which led to CIVILIZATION. Maybe he's lost his mind.

---

Hey, no-fault laws increased divorce. WHAT A SHOCKER!

Comments

[llarian.livejournal.com]

In all fairness, you did ask if its a terrible idea WRT the direct democracy thing. The answer is, of course, no its not a terrible idea for a lot of things. For running a large government? Yeah, sure, it sucks ass. Anything small city sized or larger and it'd almost certainly fail miserably. It does work for a lot of organizations however.

I realize that's not exactly what you were asking, but the question was worded in such a black and white way that I decided false was the only appropriate answer. =)

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

NO WONDER GIRLS HATE YOU

Actually, no

[llarian.livejournal.com]

I never wonder much about that at all. It seems fairly obvious to me.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

I tried running a direct democracy within my company for a while. THe worst aspects of mob mentality came out. It's hard enough for people to be informed on one issue (The president or even the party) nonetheless all the issues on a ballot. As we've seen it's hard for representatives to be informed (see F9/11 reference to senators that hadn't read the patriot act). We need people whose job it is to see the big picture.

Of course, as always, the health of a democracy is still dependent upon an informed electorate. The fact that we (re)elect people like GWB despite their political heritage stems in part from value differences but also the weakness of our fourth estate which is prompted by disinterest of the masses.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

disinterest of the masses: do you think that's due to an inherent condition, or because of universal suffrage? Or perhaps a combination of universal suffrage with lack of decent education?

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

I think it depends on the class. And that's ironic (that either extreme can lend toward the same results). I think that the people who have the biggest interest in improving their conditions via government lobbying and legal coverage are the ones without the education and, of equal importance, the confidence to work within the system. I've seen this first hand when working with inner city "at risk" youth; they have this notable lack of ownership over the government.

At the same time, I think white middle class America is "fat and happy". The issues that we worry about don't directly effect us. It's the Brave New World effect. The problems that wealthy whites (read: Seattle propper) care about are in the future, over seas, up in GEORGETOWN; we don't see them first hand. They become idle conversation topics to keep our minds occupied over dinner, not things we're truly invested into.

In both cases it goes back (to an extent) to Jefferson's idea that a democracy is built on ownership of land. I think his main point is that the distribution of ownership gives people a vested interest in the state of the nation. Regardless of land ownership, people are distanced from the government.

The one overarching tendency that feeds all classes, as well, is big government. This is why I tend towards conservative (politically/economically). I think that the more responsibility we push down to the masses the more ownership they are forced to take on. This is another lesson I saw at my company. This is NOT the same as direct democracy, to note. It just means involving citizens in the government processes. New Hampshire is an EXCEPTIONAL case study for this (Although it's a bad political case study as a whole because it's so homogenous culturally).

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

I can't believe I'm discussing politics. I hate discussing politics. I generally don't think there is any purpose; that we are all products of our experience and whether we agree or disagree is irrelevent to discussion.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

I enjoy political theory but actual "issues" make me want to hurl. In general, of course, this is because people are incredibly narrow-minded about their "viewpoint." The other factor is that discussing issues doesn't lead to change.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

wealthy whites also care about taxes!

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Exactly. I get tired of people making broad sweeping character judgments on my intellect and experience based on simple observations of views. For instance, if I note a preference towards conservative/liberatarian ideals, it is inevitable that someone will say "you only believe that because you never had to work for your money and were raised wealthy" which couldn't be further from the truth.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

True. Thus I695. There are some issues that will inevitably gain the attention of the people. This is why we polarize presidential elections on what I see to be otherwise irrelevent social issues.

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

heh, but you've admitted that your money has not arisen from hard work or intelligence, whereas these are fundamental precepts in the "individualism" parties (ie, conservative/libertarian).

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

It stems in part from intelligence, but not the type of intellect that people usually value. It comes down to a work smarter not harder type of mindset. Understanding people and economic systems is more important than understanding english and math and science and engineering and the things that academia usually focuses on. Likewise, hard work often leads to trying harder, even when your approach is failing; this idea that if something is failing it's because we're just not putting enough effort into it. It reminds me of how my one cat shinji will scratch at an ajar door for hours thinking it will magically open, where as it will take Misato about five minutes to try other methods and learn to pull it open.

I don't think everyone has the same access to opportunity and there are issues with individualist models with regard to leveling out the playing field or providing equality/equal opportunity. There are also issues in individualism with regard to the tyranny of the masses, which is a notable concern. I also think, however, that a lot of people do not pursue opportunities because of an entrenched protestant work ethic (this is especially seen in labor).

And last, most importantly, I think this is a CRITICAL basis to our success. It is, again, like BNW; we NEED a Delta and Gamma class. And we need those people to have a cultural mindset that keeps them satisfied or at least focused on their work. We do not need a country of cowboys and entrepreneurs; we do not want the wealth and resources (read: decision making capabilities) evenly distributed; this leads to a too-many-chefs issue. We do not educate people (even in the best of public schools) to run the world; we teach them, at most, to occupy a place to assist leaders to run the world. It's the reason why few MBAs from Harvard START businesses; they usually end up as CEOs (a very different mindset).

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

this is why we just need more fucking robots.

[tyrven.livejournal.com]

Why have robots when you have stupid humans?

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

Because my ISLAND PARADISE won't have them. DUH!

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

Yep.

Also, if the Little House books taught me anything, it's that farmers sure as heck have a lot of free time after harvest!

[bewing.livejournal.com]

> One thing that Diamond always seems to miss is the big personal safety advantage of civilization. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto pointed this out, but I don't think Diamond ever has. Hunter-gatherers tend to get murdered. A lot. By fellow hunter-gatherers. If there's one fringe benefit to this civilization thing it's that my chances of getting my brains bashed in by a neighbor are actually pretty low compared those of ancient Tasmanian.

*YOUR* chances, yes. I'd argue that is a recent development, however. Cities ended up having to build walls around themselves for a reason. The reason was that while, on a day-to-day basis, a farmer was not likely to get his head bashed in by some random hunter-gatherer -- towns DID get razed, raped, pillaged, men killed, women & children enslaved, etc. There is always another tribe of barbarians wandering through. I would guess that if you measured it out as odds, that your odds of getting murdered started out pretty equal. Towns didn't get razed as often as a lone hunter would get whacked, but when a town *was* attacked, *lots* of farmers got their heads bashed.

Which furthers the argument, of course, because the towns had the people with the free time for building the walls -- once they were proven necessary.

[fritz-da-kat.livejournal.com]

Have they made a movie already? I read the book and thought it was quite interesting, but he kept repeating the same thing over and over...

[herbaliser.livejournal.com]

3 part PBS documentary, mondays at 10