Honest Johnny Dule's Anti-Democracy Ammo Dump

[John Dule]

I've made a few posts on here alluding to my negative view of democratic systems. Despite this, I do think that democracy is the best decision-making system we have at the moment... with a few caveats. In my opinion, this will change as our technology evolves, but that's a discussion for another thread. The point I wish to make here is that democracy isn't some sort of perfect system that we should be constantly striving for-- our current problems can't be solved with a stupid answer like "more democracy," contrary to what some appear to believe.

However, I don't want anyone here to think I'm some sort of monarchist, fascist, racist, or (God forbid) communist. The other day, someone named my dislike of democracy as the reason why I am supposedly a "white grievance poster," which I found more than a little absurd. But it's possible that I've been unclear as to my views on this subject. So in this thread, I'm going to elucidate my views on why I don't like democracy. And if anyone wishes to engage, that's fine. If no one does, that's fine too-- I just want to go on the record so that if any future misunderstandings occur, I can refer the person in question back to this thread for a clarification. I hope you don't mind.

With that said, let's get into reason number one why I don't like democracy.

#1: The Tragedy of the Commons

Aristotle famously observed that less care is put into resources that are held in common than into resources that are held privately. That maxim has held true for 2,000+ years since-- public parks, public bathrooms, and shared refrigerators all tend to fall into disrepair, whereas private property (with some exceptions) is generally well-maintained. Modern libertarians, myself included, have pushed privatization as a way to ensure that resources such as water or fish don't get depleted. Some have even suggested privatizing the African rhinos, which would give their owner an incentive to see them survive (and therefore protect them against poachers).

Privatization also provides a clean, clear legal structure. When people litter in a public park, who is the injured party? Some nebulous concept like "society?" Who is the perpetrator? Everyone? No one? Who knows? Who cares? But if I dump my garbage into my neighbor's yard, the lines of responsibility are pretty cut-and-dried. My neighbor is the victim and I am at fault.

If this simple truth is to be believed with regards to public property, why should it not also apply to the public good? Well, if modern democracy is any indicator, it does. When charged with preserving the public good by voting, few citizens feel the weight of that responsibility and act accordingly. Instead, they call themselves "single-issue voters," or vote according to whoever they'd most like to have a beer with, or vote for whatever policy will "own the libs." In down-ballot races, they sometimes just bubble in answers at random. Who even knows what a "comptroller" is?

Now let's say that instead of everyone voting for their city comptroller, one citizen is selected at random to choose the person. Suddenly, they feel the crushing weight of responsibility. The public good has been made a private concern, and now instead of spreading the responsibility of choosing a comptroller around to every citizen in the town, all of that responsibility is concentrated in one single individual. Realizing his awesome burden, and knowing that the good of the town depends upon him and him alone, that individual will work tirelessly to research the position, the candidates, and all the facts in between before he makes the most rational decision he possibly can.

To clarify, I'm not saying that this would be a good system or that it would necessarily result in better outcomes than what we have now. Obviously some people would not be up to the task I just described. I'm simply trying to illustrate that responsibility is divisible-- that the more people you task with making a decision, the less that decision means to any one of them. On the contrary, if only one person were able to make the decision, they would give it a great deal more consideration. This is true regardless of the office in question, from city comptroller all the way up to President of the United States.

Democracy is like a public park-- when it all goes to s**t, everybody (and at the same time, nobody) is to blame. Responsibility is diffuse, and those who partook in the destruction of the public good can endlessly point fingers at one another.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Hello, John. I do not desire for you to think us all cowards. Know that sometime in the next 5 years I will probably have crafted a response.

[Kingpoleon]

What’s so bad about being a monarchist? For several thousand years it was the way of governance, amongst almost every civilized nation. Democracy defies logic in that it upholds the average person as a good decision maker, and, in doing so, justifies mob rule.

[Beet]

With regard to Point #1: Tragedy of the Commons does not apply, because this concept properly understood assumes that there is a single accepted good. It can be generalized to a narrow mathematical game theory question and essentially is the same thing as the collective action problem. In governance, the question of what is good is the very thing up for debate.

What you are really talking about is not Tragedy of the Commons but Social Loafing:

In social psychology, social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when he or she works in a group than when working alone and is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.

However, this does not apply either, as a single individual, no matter how well he or she tried to study the problems of society, no matter how fanatically they threw themselves at the task or how many hours dedicated, would not be able to comprehend the needs of millions of diverse individuals. And further, again, even if they could comprehend such a thing, would have no justification to decide the criteria of what is "good." This can only be decided by each person themselves.

[Sumner 1868]

What’s so bad about being a monarchist? For several thousand years it was the way of governance, amongst almost every civilized nation. Democracy defies logic in that it upholds the average person as a good decision maker, and, in doing so, justifies mob rule.

"Mob rule" is just a ancient trope for elites used to justify torturing, enslaving, and murdering people. The fact you apparently relate with such people says horrifying things about your mindset.

[Kingpoleon]

"Mob rule" is just a ancient trope for elites used to justify torturing, enslaving, and murdering people. The fact you apparently relate with such people says horrifying things about your mindset.

Anyone with a passing glance of a passing glance of history knows what mob rule means: the oppression of the minority by a democratic majority. The Reign of Terror was supported by a popular mandate - democracy without a counterbalance is severe democracy, and not a system anyone should advocate.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

"Mob rule" is just a ancient trope for elites used to justify torturing, enslaving, and murdering people. The fact you apparently relate with such people says horrifying things about your mindset.

Anyone with a passing glance of a passing glance of history knows what mob rule means: the oppression of the minority by a democratic majority. The Reign of Terror was supported by a popular mandate - democracy without a counterbalance is severe democracy, and not a system anyone should advocate.

Maybe by the bloodthirsty crowds in Paris.... but they don’t get sovereignty over a whole nation.

[Kingpoleon]

Maybe by the bloodthirsty crowds in Paris.... but they don’t get sovereignty over a whole nation.

The National Convention, democratically elected, created the Committee of Public Safety after demonstrations throughout the country demanding it. The Reign of Terror wasn’t some sadistic plot by the new governing elite - the voters wanted it.

[Beet]

Maybe by the bloodthirsty crowds in Paris.... but they don’t get sovereignty over a whole nation.

The National Convention, democratically elected, created the Committee of Public Safety after demonstrations throughout the country demanding it. The Reign of Terror wasn’t some sadistic plot by the new governing elite - the voters wanted it.

An alternate lesson of that episode is that military emergency/war drives societies nuts. A episode of the same nature but milder occurred during McCarthyism-- but it also fueled the popularity of anti-semitism during the Third Reich. And don't forget the "mob rule" of autocracies. If you were a communist Party official in Peking in 1966 you might have more thoughts on voting as a prerequisite for "mob rule."

[Sumner 1868]

What's so uniquely terrible about the Reign of Terror? Much worse brutality was committed by the Ancien Régime for centuries.

[John Dule]

With regard to Point #1: Tragedy of the Commons does not apply, because this concept properly understood assumes that there is a single accepted good. It can be generalized to a narrow mathematical game theory question and essentially is the same thing as the collective action problem. In governance, the question of what is good is the very thing up for debate.

What you are really talking about is not Tragedy of the Commons but Social Loafing:

In social psychology, social loafing is the phenomenon of a person exerting less effort to achieve a goal when he or she works in a group than when working alone and is seen as one of the main reasons groups are sometimes less productive than the combined performance of their members working as individuals.

However, this does not apply either, as a single individual, no matter how well he or she tried to study the problems of society, no matter how fanatically they threw themselves at the task or how many hours dedicated, would not be able to comprehend the needs of millions of diverse individuals. And further, again, even if they could comprehend such a thing, would have no justification to decide the criteria of what is "good." This can only be decided by each person themselves.

The comparison is not meant to be wholly literal, nor is it meant to explain all the different problems with democracy (that will come in later installments). I am simply demonstrating that, just as people do not put much care into public resources because they only stand to gain incrementally from their efforts, so too do they not put much effort into making their political decisions because their responsibility in the system is minimal.

This is essentially the collective action problem, though I suggest that it's easier to see through the analogy I drew here. It is not to say that we should entrust our decisions to one person alone, which I emphasized in my original post. That portion is merely a thought experiment designed to illustrate that responsibility can be condensed upon one person or diluted throughout a society.