Soliciting people’s thoughts about a couple paradoxes of democracy. I’d be interested to know what countries people live in, to see if their institutions or history has any impact on their thoughts.
Majoritarianism and Moral Legitimacy. Does the will of the majority confer moral legitimacy on policies, or is majority rule simple a bowing to the political realities? Is there a radical moral difference between a policy supported by 51% of the population and one supported by 49% of the population?
Popular Sovereignty vs. Constitutionally Limited Powers: If there are some acts which cannot be morally legitimate even if approved by a majority (or super-majority), how do we determine what those are? Are these limitations timeless, or are they different in various times and places? The latter would seem to make them a function the culture of the majority at that time and place. But timeless limitations would seem to merely imply a compromise between the majority at the time the limitations were drawn up and the current majority.
Paternalism. Suppose we think people are liable to make foolish choices for themselves (not wearing their motorcycle helmets), thus making it necessary for us to lead them to the correct choices. How can we trust them with the power to vote and make decisions for others in addition to themselves? Is the use of more representative democracy instead of more direct democracy a cure for this kind of dilemma?
Federalism. On the plus side, federalism allows smaller geographic units to pursue policies that are more congruent to their local culture. On the minus side, this will mean that instead of some moderate compromise policy that no one is particularly happy or unhappy with, we potentially have some extreme local policies. How does this relate to the issue of Popular Sovereignty vs. Constitutional Limits?
The will of the majority (majority of what? The people?) confers no moral legitimacy on policies, but since the system of government loosely termed “democracy” is, in fact, a system that could be more accurately described as “elective dictatorship” and the will of the majority on a particular issue as determined by way of a plebiscite rarely arises, quibbles about 51% here and 49% there are hardly worth bothering about. The elected oligarchs can pass laws that would not be approved by the majority of the population with gay abandon, once they are in power. That is what having a so called “mandate” is all about and its policies can stray considerably from the original party platform.
Popular Sovereignty v Constitutionally Limited Powers
Pretty slogans, worthy of the “Federalist Papers”. Admired quite widely in the USA. See answer above.
Paternalism.
You have mistakenly assumed that having the power to vote confers upon the voter the power to make decisions for others.
It does not.
Federalism
This is mostly a useful device to hold multi ethnic polities together. It does not mean that the individuals in any particular unit of the federation have any meaningful power over the ruling clique that has been elected with its “mandate” to do basically what it likes for a set period.
However, I’m a minority view. You’ll be pleased to know that most people on SDMB believe that laws made following elections are in accordance with a majority of the people.
I also noticed that you’re curious about other people’s countries. Why don’t you identify your own?
I consider there to be a difference between democracy (of which you speak), and Democracy. By my definitions, the paradoxes you mention in democracy do not apply to Democracy.
My definitions:
democracy – The majority rules.
The majority of the people choose which rights to give, but these rights do not necessarily apply to minorities. If you are a minority in race, gender, religion or lifestyle, you are at best a second class citizen. In a democracy, the dictatorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.
Democracy - The majority rules, but the minorities have rights.
There are no second class citizens. All People are Created Equal. The rights of all people (not just citizens) include the rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
A Democracy has different paradoxes. For example, people that don’t respect the rights to others are subject to forfeiture of their rights.
Does anyone have a better name for my definition of Democracy?
And by the way, the U.S.A. is NOT a Democracy. Yet.
I think it is both. First, since democracy allows for pluralism, the notion of an absolute morality to guide everyone becomes arrogant, if not outright tyrannical itself. Given that, the only way to assess the best rules for everyone is to ask them. The second issue is, as you suggest, practical in nature: since a law requires people both follow it and enforce it, a lack of majority support makes for difficulties in both.
I wouldn’t think so, other than what’s mentioned above.
It is quite likely, and good question. Here is where I would begin to accept the use of “paradox”, or at least a less severe “dilemma”. It is one thing, for instance, to say “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech” as a great and holy edifice of political composition, and quite another to actually understand what it is really referring to in a holistic sense. This question is best addressed, I feel, by the seperation of powers found in (as far as I know) all democracies, where people not ostensibly compelled to serve the public whim can thus, in principle, determine the scope and application of existing legislation. Short of legal inconsistencies, however, I think your question remains unanswerable due to the afore-mentioned pluralism. Democracy has many justifications and historical manifestations so it is not even always possible to make timeless inferences about it. Even that means different things to different people.
Mostly I think this question is irrelevant because, even if they were timeless, people would need to discover them in a context, and I think it would be no small, if even possible, matter to divorce the timeless rule from the timely discovery.
We cannot. No hand-waiving can make that go away. Because of the points noted in (1) and (2), we essentially must trust people to know what it best for themselves. However, paternalistic legislation needn’t be dressed up in or derived from paternalism itself. As a matter of course, most people cannot afford to cover damages that are quite possible from automobile accidents (especially if someone ends up in the hospitol here in the US), so even though many might try to not get insurance, there is still a great amount of practical weight behind compelling people to obtain automobile insurance. It still might sound as if we’re making them do this “for their own good” but, as a matter of course, someone always has to pay for the effects of actions and accidents, and it is more for the rest of our benefit that you carry insurance than your own. Because if you can’t pay, we’ll have to.
No. Any form of democracy (be that a democratic republic or not) ultimately depends on the citizens to be able to act for their own good. A lack of trust in their ability to determine it leads to pure republics, or more aggressive governments. The democratic republic is merely a matter of organization and political efficiency when compared to direct democracy (or anarchism, for that matter). Other justifications tend to demonstrate that the “democratic” part of the “democratic republic” is misguided at best.
The minus becomes greater when we take note of (1) with (4), actually.
I don’t think it does, actually; at least, not much. Federalism is a way to promote pluralism and achieve greater legislative efficiency. The federal government would be terribly bogged down if it had to control, and enforce, and inspect, every little bit of law everywhere, and for the most part representatives from one area wouldn’t give two shits about issues facing the other side of the country. The alternative to centralism keeps local interests local. However, as you note, this also allows for local legislation to go beyond local (geographic and otherwise contextual) practical interests and well into the realm of “51% of us think creationism should be taught in schools.” I don’t see a practical way to seperate the two and retain a solid justification for both democracy and federalism, and I think federalism is a good idea, and not just because of the political efficiency factor.
Quite rude of me to ask about other’s backgrounds. Me, I was born and raised in California, USA. The recent Schwarzenegger recall and the relatively powerful Initiative process has brought these things up.
I don’t know what particular reforms you have in mind for the USA to render it a Democracy.
Knowing that would be helpful. In legal cases, I think lawyers distinguish between formal due process and substantive due process. FDP is following all the rules correctly–the justice machine is running correctly, but its inputs may or may not be high quality. E.g. the defendent has a lawyer, who may or may not be competent. SDP is ensuring that not only is the machine running correctly, but all the inputs are high quality.
So maybe you’d want to distinguish between formal democracy (going through the motions) and substantive democracy (ensuring that some supporting substructure, e.g. public campaign finance, exists)?
Any government which distinguishes between citizens and non-citizens (for instance, only allowing citizens to vote, or only issuing visas to citizens since non-citizens get visas from their home country) seems to have second class ‘residents’ if not second-class citizens.
In fact, since the embassies of my country provide services for me in Mexico that they don’t provide for Mexicans, it would seem that any government is either going to have to discriminate between citizens and resident aliens and non-resident aliens, or it’s going to have to consider itself sovereign over the entire Universe.
Thank you. Eris Lover… so you’re a Discordian? Politically, I guess that’s some kind of left-wing anarchist?
**
I’m a bit confused by your distinction between paternalistic legislation and paternalism itself. Suppose we take your example of auto insurance. I’ll grant that requiring that people who drive carry liability insurance, to make sure they can pay for the damages they might inflict on others, is non-paternalistic. But requiring them to carry insurance to cover their own medical insurance in case of an accident is paternalistic, to my mind. You may mean ‘but if you don’t carry insurance, we (taxpayers or hospitals who provide free health care to the uninsured) will bear the burden of your care’. To which I would reply that your undertaking that burden is itself a choice.
Are you arguing this? 'If you do X and are harmed by it, arousing my sense of compassion and charity and desire to help you, then your doing X has forced me to help you. Therefore, to avoid your forcing me to help you, I’m going to force you to not do X."
**
[QUOTE]
No. Any form of democracy (be that a democratic republic or not) ultimately depends on the citizens to be able to act for their own good. A lack of trust in their ability to determine it leads to pure republics, or more aggressive governments. The democratic republic is merely a matter of organization and political efficiency when compared to direct democracy (or anarchism, for that matter). Other justifications tend to demonstrate that the “democratic” part of the “democratic republic” is misguided at best.
**
[QUOTE/]
I’m assuming that you’re using democratic republic to mean representative democracy as opposed to just ‘democracy’ to mean direct democracy? I’m not sure what a ‘pure republic’ would be.
My muddled take would be that we’re all foolish much of the time. There probably are people who are significantly more foolish than average. (Almost a statistical truism.) But, a) we disagree over who the fools are, and b) we owe our fellow citizens respect as moral actors and human beings. So, even if we’re sure we know how the fools are, paternalism is invalid because it disrespects their right to make their own mistakes. Similarly, they deserve the franchise as a signal of equal respect. But, given that we think some people are foolish and may seek to impose foolish paternalism on us, or some non-foolish people may think ** we’re ** the fools, paternalism should be constitutionally forbidden. With exceptions for children, the severely mentally diseased or defective, and possibly felons.
**
I would argue that for a centralized solution to be best, the problem should not only be nation-wide (say, second-hand cigarette smoke or health care for non-communicable diseases) but it should also be inherently national (say, immigration or anti-trust policy). I would suggest that there is that powers granted to Congress in the Constitution cover most of the inherently national issues, and that the use of the elastic cause to cover other issues is excessively centralized.
Then again, I think with chagrin on the plight of the lone gay or Jewish person living in a religious rural community. Then again after that, federalism allows people to move to communities that match their lifestyles more. Again, I’m in something of a muddle on this issue too.
Well, it would be accidental that a law enacted to protect the rest of us happens to have a “and it is for your own good, too” component to it. The more pressing concern is that I don’t get stuck having to sue some guy who could barely afford a $500 car running me over. It just so happens that not being sued helps him, too.
That’s not to say there isn’t paternalistic legislation, but most of it that I see derives its justification from societal costs that are paid if this isn’t implimented, rather than motivation to protect the poor person or three (thousand) who wouldn’t follow it.
I might even think it is in my own interest to have car insurance. This doesn’t mean the state has the same reasoning for it when they require everyone else to have it.
No. “If you can’t pay, then we’ll have to take up the slack somehow, either through higher taxes or higher costs for goods and services in general, or covering my own legal and medical bills specifically when it wasn’t even my fault. So to avoid this predicament, I demand you carry auto insurance. It is cheaper than one mistake ruining both our lives.”
Representatives not elected by the citizenship that isn’t a monarchy. I might consider ancient greece to not be democratic because only male property owners could vote. That’s more of an aristocracy to me. Still, they had representatives and so on. No government is exactly the definition of the words we use.
Ah, so we should let them make their own mistakes for their own good, eh?
I think that’s the beginning of your error, then. Supposing a method of showing we’re foolish—like, say, showing that people are acting out of self-interest mostly—needs showing that this is a good criteria for foolishness—that only fools are self-interested all the time. If we can show this, then we only strengthen the case for paternalism and weaken the case for democracy. Enlightened leaders should tell us where to go because we can’t figure it out ourselves.
Without much effort we could probably show that just about any law can be considered as an implimentation of paternalism, from laws against murder to traffic regulations, though it needn’t be the case that such considerations were what motivated the law in the first place. It is difficult to actually get a paternalistic support in a pluralistic society unless we agree on what is best for people. But if we agree, it already attains legitimacy by (1), so there’s no problem at all.
Well, rather: federalism doesn’t inherently forbid such movement. Economic status granted to such a minority in an unwelcome environment may be such that, even with the freedom to get away from such treatment, there is no practical solution. The removal of certain types of bias from legal consideration should be the work of the federal government early on so we don’t get ourselves into such pickles.
It’s something, all right. Yeah, I’m mostly a left-wing anarchist, but I think that under anarchy most people would tend to actually be right-wing and compete rather than cooperate. But I set aside my idealism now and again and converse with the common folk who like government. (j/k)
Yeah, I’m mostly a left-wing anarchist, but I think that under anarchy most people would tend to actually be right-wing and compete rather than cooperate. But I set aside my idealism now and again and converse with the common folk who like government.