Athenian democracy didn't prevent crazy and disastrous military adventures, which got on Thucydides' nerves. And Aristotle highlighted what some today might call the populist problem: the tendency of an excited minority, influenced by firebrand rhetoricians, to disregard the rule of law in favor of popular decrees. Plato's stab at rational philosophy was largely a reaction to the influence of the sophists, who short-circuited critical thinking. I've just been reading Plato's republic, which is an inept but sincerely framed attempt to go beyond both democracy and aristocracy. Plato had his own short circuits.
I honestly think that rank-choice voting may be the best compromise we can come up with. But I also think that the jury duty principle applied to the idea of government oversight committees would make a lot of sense. I could even imagine a way of building an AI helper into it. At every level of government we could have a randomized selection of citizens with oversight powers who would evaluate the quality of political debate and make recommendations on laws and methods of governance. One of the advantages would be that the media would have to report on their impertinent observations, breaking down the grip commercial media has on public political discourse.
I always love hearing from you Peter, thank you! It's true that this concept isn't exactly "plug and play" but I am very happy that you see some potential there.
I see not only potential but necessity. Representative democracy mediated by expensive elections has failed. It inevitably morphs into plutocracy. And not just in the sense that the wealthy rule. In the more worrying sense that the public ends up worshipping wealth. How else could Trump have ever been elected or Bloomberg presented as a credible candidate? So yes, let's find a way of giving citizens not just a vote but a voice, and not just a voice but a chance to put their signature on important decisions.
Wild! With juries, lawyers explain the relevant law (& ethics?), then jurors use their own judgment. Sounds good to me. A damn sight better than the same things that are not working!
Athenian democracy didn't prevent crazy and disastrous military adventures, which got on Thucydides' nerves. And Aristotle highlighted what some today might call the populist problem: the tendency of an excited minority, influenced by firebrand rhetoricians, to disregard the rule of law in favor of popular decrees. Plato's stab at rational philosophy was largely a reaction to the influence of the sophists, who short-circuited critical thinking. I've just been reading Plato's republic, which is an inept but sincerely framed attempt to go beyond both democracy and aristocracy. Plato had his own short circuits.
I honestly think that rank-choice voting may be the best compromise we can come up with. But I also think that the jury duty principle applied to the idea of government oversight committees would make a lot of sense. I could even imagine a way of building an AI helper into it. At every level of government we could have a randomized selection of citizens with oversight powers who would evaluate the quality of political debate and make recommendations on laws and methods of governance. One of the advantages would be that the media would have to report on their impertinent observations, breaking down the grip commercial media has on public political discourse.
I always love hearing from you Peter, thank you! It's true that this concept isn't exactly "plug and play" but I am very happy that you see some potential there.
I see not only potential but necessity. Representative democracy mediated by expensive elections has failed. It inevitably morphs into plutocracy. And not just in the sense that the wealthy rule. In the more worrying sense that the public ends up worshipping wealth. How else could Trump have ever been elected or Bloomberg presented as a credible candidate? So yes, let's find a way of giving citizens not just a vote but a voice, and not just a voice but a chance to put their signature on important decisions.
Yes, yes! Amen to that
Wild! With juries, lawyers explain the relevant law (& ethics?), then jurors use their own judgment. Sounds good to me. A damn sight better than the same things that are not working!
That's what I'm saying!
You say it so well! 😀
Aw thanks!