one-size fits all idealogy?

[Sisyphus]

This is kind of an ill-formed question. It occured to me recently that most people seem to think it would be best if the entire world spread adopted their own political idealogies. This includes ideas as broad or narrow as democracy, communism, Christian theocracy, secular libertarianism, etc. I, personally, don't really understand this, and it would be very strange to me if one political solution could be applied to any people, time, or situation. I want to live in a secular, liberal, capitalistic democracy, but I don't think that everybody should have to. There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them. I mentioned this today and got kind of an outraged response from a democracy-worshipper. Am I as alone as it seems like I am?

[scipHun]

No, you aren't alone. I believe there are different solutions for different cultures and different nations. It wouldn't allow for individuality in the different nations if the whole world was one way either. Cultures take to different kinds of systems better or worse than others. There's a reason why there are so many different ways of running government.

[Mokele]

One system I'm actually quite fond of is the society of Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age: a global government with minimal laws, and humans voluntarily self-organize into small tribe-like societies within the cities, each having their own enclave where their rules apply. For example, one society is a re-creation of Victorian England, while another is a psychedelic drum-cult, another may just be a loose association of hackers. People can join any group tht accepts them, leave at any time, start their own, and basically choose the rules they live by. That they're all in the same city eliminates geographic restrictions (the best have chapters all over the planet).

 

IMHO, this is better than the current system because changing the rules you live under is as simple as finding a new apartment, as opposed to having to move between entire countries. If you want a Christian theocracy, you can live in one, but if you get sick of it, you can pack your things and literally just walk down the street and find somewhere that suits your new needs better.

 

Mokele

[Dak]

I mentioned this today and got kind of an outraged response from a democracy-worshipper. Am I as alone as it seems like I am?

 

<rant>

 

I think this is the single biggest flaw in every single form of govournance -- 'were the best'.

 

if you trace an overly-brief history of, say, america (and take england as it's father), then you get something vaguely along the lines of:

 

tribal rule

 

(wars)

 

loads of little kingdoms, bringiing with it a strengthened country

 

(wars)

 

despotic monarchy, bringing with it an even more powerful and cohesive country

 

(civil war)

 

feudalistic monarchy, limiting the power of the monarch, bringing with it 'freedom' for a select few, and allowing forshadowing of capitalism, democracy, and basic human rights.

 

(another civil war)

 

democracy for a few years

 

(another, admitedly small civil war)

 

constitutional democracy, bringing with it, eventually, a level of freedom for most people, and basic human rights; 'end' of 'plebs serve presbs'.

 

off to settle america, and we see:

 

subjugate colonies of british empire, bringing with it support from a global power during americas early years

 

(civil war)

 

democratic federal/republic/country, eventually bringing same benifits as 2 steps ago (freedom, basic human rights, self-determination, etc)

 

now... i'm notising a pattern.

 

1/ every switch of type-of-govournance brought benifits

 

2/ every switch required a war.

 

this is because every form of govournance had, ingrained for no reason into it's ethos, 'were the absolute uber-best'.

 

the fact that people still will believe that their idea will be the best, in any situation, for any peoples, for all time, despite their form of govournance coming after a long string of other forms that thought the same and have been proven wrong, pisses me off. I note that the EUs (thankfully failed) constitutuion essentially says 'democracy and capitalism roxors a fat one, and allways will. the eu will allways be a capitalist democracy'

 

anyway... when russia changed from a (iirc) despotic monarchy to a democratic socialism that actually turned out to be a despotic socialism, it required a civil war to overthrow the tzar... when iraq changed from a despotism to a 'democracy' it required a war... the only two notable exceptions that i can think of are nazi germany (democratically changed into a fascist kinda-despotism; iirc, germany have now fixed their system so this cannot reoccour) and, potentially, the eu, which i'm not sure counts as the countries and the eu are democratic, so it has the potential more for a border-change than a govournance change.

 

imo, any form of govournance that doesn't incoporate self-inprovement, the acknowledgement that it's not the 'one true form of govournance', and a mechanism whereby the form can be peasfully changed to another, better form, has absolutely no claims to being good, let alone the best.

 

</rant>

 

more in line with what you asked, i suspect that, if we understood politics enough, we could make a list of forms of govournance, each of which make sence to switch through sequentially; eg, despotism till one is strong enough to form a democracy, capitalism till one is strong enough, economically, to have a mixed economy; once the human rights etc that democracy brought are intrenched and unremovable, switch to avoid the cumbersome slowness and weekness of a democracy (some form of meritocracy perhaps? direct democracy? open-source-stylee govournance?) after a certain level of technological advancement has been achieved, maybe socialism? i've seen some economics research, for example, that suggests that a non-free market and a level of govournmental corruption actually benifits an economically under-developed despotism, and helps it get to the point where it could more easily support democracy and capitalism, whereas in most advanced forms of govournment 'corruption-resistant' and free-marked are concidered boons.

 

i dunno, but im sure that no one form of govournance will be the best in every situation.

 

 

mokele: if one were to travel through such a city, would one pass through multiple legal realms, or would the city collectively establish 'street-rule' for law whilst travelling down roads, using shops, etc? if not, i could imagine that being a pita.

[Mokele]

if one were to travel through such a city, would one pass through multiple legal realms, or would the city collectively establish 'street-rule' for law whilst travelling down roads, using shops, etc?

 

That's how it was in the book; you left the enclave of your group, it was just the basic rules, and you couldn't enter a group's territory without either permission or at least knowing it and knowing what was entailed.

 

It's been a while since I read the book, though.

 

Mokele

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think this is the single biggest flaw in every single form of govournance -- 'were the best'.

There are questions on standardized tests in the US asking things like, "which form of government allows the greatest freedoms for its people?" (The correct answer is, of course, democracy.)

 

Ignoring the fact that a dictator might actually be a nice guy, of course.

[Edtharan]

It occured to me recently that most people seem to think it would be best if the entire world spread adopted their own political idealogies.

It's not just with political ideologies. Any attitude or belief is subject to this aspect of human nature.

 

It has to do with the Simplex/Complex/Multiplex mindsets.

 

In the Simplex mindset, a person can only accept that there is 1 way of viewing the world, and that is their way.

 

In the Complex mindset, the people are capable of accepting that there are other world views, but theirs is the best (otherwise why would they have that mindset - if it wasn't the best, then they would have adopted one of the others).

 

In the Multiplex mindset, the people fully accept that other people have different world views and each world view's fitness is relative to the context it is in.

 

One system I'm actually quite fond of is the society of Neil Stephenson's Diamond Age

Although this might sound like a good system on paper, I doubt it would actually be practical. Travelling across a city would give even the most obsessive lawyer brain overload.

 

Also, what if one of those "clans" had a rule that they had to convert all others to their way. That kind of groups would be incompatible with all other groups.

 

Or, what if you had a group that had a rule that if you attempt to leave their enclave you would be imprisoned (or killed). Then it wouldn't be a simple matter of changing your apartment to escape it.

 

There are also jurisdictional problems, what if a crime is committed in one enclave, but the perpetrator goes to another enclave where that act was not a crime?

 

It works, simple because it is in a story where the author has complete control over all the characters and if they wanted that government to work, then they could make it work.

 

If the above examples seem like they would be far fetched, then look to history. In the first example this is what the Christian Missionaries thought. In the Second, ever heard of the Berlin Wall and in the third, well this occurs between any two countries today (and even internally in countries too).

 

So these examples are not really far fetched. Human nature has demonstrated that we will create systems like this, give the freedom to do so. Even in real countries today, there are groups that create small societies where rules, like the ones I use as examples above, are implemented. Even though it is against their laws of their host country's governments.

 

They don't have the freedom implicit in that story, yet the build the oppressive societies.

[Haezed]

There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them.

 

Who is this "them" in a monarchy or tyranical government that "makes [their preferred form of government] work for 'them'?"

 

Your question assumes that the people are consenting to be governed in a less than democratic form of government. However, if they consent to be so governed, the country in which they live has gone a long way towards democracy.

 

I mentioned this today and got kind of an outraged response from a democracy-worshipper. Am I as alone as it seems like I am?

 

Your use of the label "democracy-worshipper" smacks of someone who is stretching to dismiss a point.

 

Whatever the label, a fundamental distinction in governments is the degree to which they afford rights to individuals and from which they gain their right to govern from the consent of the governed. There is a proportional relationship between these two concepts.

[Sisyphus]

Every government necessarily demands the people consent to be so governed, but that doesn't make them all "democracy." A democratic republic means formalized, egalitarian elections.

 

Contrarily, most governments in history have basically been absolute monarchies, supported out of religious conviction, love of the monarch, nationalism, sincere belief that the monarch is their better, approval of the rule of order and protection the monarch provides, etc. Like ANY government, obviously, there is also an element of fear of reprisal which hold them together to a greater or lesser degree, a fear which could not exist without the consent of a large enough percentage of people to exert this power. Often it's a minority. Often not.

[Haezed]

There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them."

 

This was the initial comment you made and, to me, it implied that "they," i.e. the people are making these governments work for themselves as opposed to having it rammed down their throats.

 

Every government necessarily demands the people consent to be so governed, but that doesn't make them all "democracy." A democratic republic means formalized, egalitarian elections.

 

True, although not really responsive to my point.

 

Contrarily, most governments in history have basically been absolute monarchies, supported out of religious conviction, love of the monarch, nationalism, sincere belief that the monarch is their better, approval of the rule of order and protection the monarch provides, etc.

 

People will submit to authority so in most tyrannies there are many who "love" the tyrant.

 

OTOH, there are also those who serve and profess love out of fear of being whisked away and disappeared.

 

Without freedom of press, association and speech, it's hard to really know what the percentage break down is in such societies.

 

Like ANY government, obviously, there is also an element of fear of reprisal which hold them together to a greater or lesser degree, a fear which could not exist without the consent of a large enough percentage of people to exert this power. Often it's a minority. Often not.

 

The norm for democracies is that dissent with governmental policies, even ridicule of governmental leaders, does not lead to torture and death. You will have a Nixon or a Hoover who builds enemy lists and persecution for dissent is possible, however, it is an aberrant event, not the norm.

[Sisyphus]

This was the initial comment you made and, to me, it implied that "they," i.e. the people are making these governments work for themselves as opposed to having it rammed down their throats.

 

The fact that you can't conceive of anything besides those two options demonstrates my point nicely, I should think. What do you call an ardent monarchist? It's not self-rule (except in the sense that any government must be), but it is happily submitted to.

 

True, although not really responsive to my point.

 

How is it not? You said if people are willingly governed, then that IS democracy. It isn't. It's just government.

 

People will submit to authority so in most tyrannies there are many who "love" the tyrant.

 

Or any other reason for favoring the government, yes. The word "tyrant" implies that most don't, of course, or at least that the ruler is cruel/incompetent/whatever. But so what? Do you not understand that I'm NOT saying EVERY government is good? That, in fact, most might well be bad? What I AM saying is that good governments can come in varied forms, according to circumstance. Not every ruler is a "tyrant."

 

OTOH, there are also those who serve and profess love out of fear of being whisked away and disappeared.

 

Without freedom of press, association and speech, it's hard to really know what the percentage break down is in such societies.

 

True but irrelevant. Incidentally, "freedom of press" is not synonymous with "democracy," either, though there is a strong correlation and they can strengthen one another, which is part of the reason I will fight to preserve both in my OWN country.

 

Of course, democracy has the curious tendency to sometimes annihilate itself, when the majority wants less democracy! It is impossible to literally fight in those cases, since, if you win, you're imposing the will of "the people," which means imposing the exact thing you were fighting against..... But this is getting derailed, I think.

 

The norm for democracies is that dissent with governmental policies, even ridicule of governmental leaders, does not lead to torture and death. You will have a Nixon or a Hoover who builds enemy lists and persecution for dissent is possible, however, it is an aberrant event, not the norm.

 

I was talking about the rule itself (e.g., law), which in every government ever has been imposed through threats of punishment.

[Haezed]

The fact that you can't conceive of anything besides those two options demonstrates my point nicely, I should think. What do you call an ardent monarchist? It's not self-rule (except in the sense that any government must be), but it is happily submitted to.

 

Happy submission? So your argument hinges on the difference between fearful unhappy submission and happy submission? Ahem.

 

Let's talk of specific non-democratic governments which you admire. Lay em on me.

 

How is it not? You said if people are willingly governed, then that IS democracy. It isn't. It's just government.

 

Again, let's deal in a few specifics.

 

 

Or any other reason for favoring the government, yes. The word "tyrant" implies that most don't, of course, or at least that the ruler is cruel/incompetent/whatever. But so what? Do you not understand that I'm NOT saying EVERY government is good? That, in fact, most might well be bad? What I AM saying is that good governments can come in varied forms, according to circumstance. Not every ruler is a "tyrant."

 

YOu talked of Monarchies as potentially good. Can you give me any specifics? Are there any that you would want your children to live under as a serf compared to a Western democracy?

 

 

True but irrelevant. Incidentally, "freedom of press" is not synonymous with "democracy," either, though there is a strong correlation and they can strengthen one another, which is part of the reason I will fight to preserve both in my OWN country.

 

There is an extremely high correlation. What specific non-democratic governments are you talking about that allow freedom of press and speech?

 

From this point I do think your post gets derailed. Let me get back to my central point for a moment.

 

If you are born into a dictatorship, you do not have much consent in the matter and, to live and protect your family, you may well submit. Submission to the status quo under threat of death and worse is not the same as consent. Maybe it would help if you would give me some examples of non-democratic governments where you would happily send your children to live?

[Sisyphus]

Happy submission? So your argument hinges on the difference between fearful unhappy submission and happy submission? Ahem.

 

Why not? There are other factors of course (various aspects of "competence," for example), but sure, popular satisfaction is as an important yardstick as any.

 

Let's talk of specific non-democratic governments which you admire. Lay em on me.

 

No. That's just begging for derailment. Let it suffice to say that such governments have existed at various points in history, and that I can foresee that they might easily exist in the future. In any case, there are darn few, but what I find admirable is not really the point, is it?

 

YOu talked of Monarchies as potentially good. Can you give me any specifics? Are there any that you would want your children to live under as a serf compared to a Western democracy?

 

Nope, not me. I'm too accustomed to democracy. Of course, you're using "serf" as yet another weasel word, aren't you? "Monarchy" technically just means "rule of one," though in modern times it's usually used more specifically to refer to an inherited sovereignty.

 

Submission to the status quo under threat of death and worse is not the same as consent.

 

Yes. Your point? Every government, including democracies, use threats. I can't choose not to obey the laws, because I'll be punished if I don't. If I attempt to overthrow the government, they'll kill me. This fact does not preclude the fact that I happen to support this government.

[YT2095]

I`ve always thought the sort of set-up they have in Star-Trek TNG would be quite nice.

no idea how workable it is, But I wouldn`t mind living in that sort of Politic.

[Pangloss]

I`ve always thought the sort of set-up they have in Star-Trek TNG would be quite nice.

no idea how workable it is, But I wouldn`t mind living in that sort of Politic.

 

I loved that show, but I thought it was at its best after Roddenberry passed away and the show began to explore the obvious flaws in its own ideology. Societies "left by the wayside while the glorious Federation feeds only its own", etc. The point being not that Roddenberry was wrong, but that there's no such thing as utopia. Even his vaunted Federation only works because of hard work and dedication. When that's lost, people starve just like under any other system.

[YT2095]

they have Food replicators though, they even drop off portable ones to planets with people that are starving (rather nice of them).

 

 

ok then how about Logans Run (without the having to die at age 30)?

[Sisyphus]

The Star Trek universe is a good example. Technology allows a political system to flourish and succeed that, in other circumstances (like real life current day) would almost certainly fail spectacularly. A real life dirt cheap "food replicator" could have staggering political consequences.

[Haezed]

Why not? There are other factors of course (various aspects of "competence," for example), but sure, popular satisfaction is as an important yardstick as any.

 

If you were willing to talk specifics, we could venture into how we know if the underlings, serfs, peons, non-party members, whatever non-weasley word you want to pick for the guys who are not in charge, are so gol-darned happy with their situation.

 

No. That's just begging for derailment.

 

Lol. No, it's begging for you to talk specifics so we can tests your vague generalizations. It's also asking that we debate on a level playing field. We know democracies faults and we know the faults of many nondemocratic governments that leap to mind (Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia, Pol Pot's Cambodia, etc.) but for the life of me I can't imagine the form of government where the underlings would be thrilled with being underlings.

 

Maybe in the 6th Century King Arthur really did draw Excalibur from the stone and his subjects were thrilled but somehow I doubt you are talking about him.

 

Let it suffice to say that such governments have existed at various points in history, and that I can foresee that they might easily exist in the future. In any case, there are darn few, but what I find admirable is not really the point, is it?

 

Well, what is it that you think the underlings found admirable in these "darn few" non-democratic governments.

 

Nope, not me. I'm too accustomed to democracy.

 

Or, maybe you are actually a typical human being that finds freedom sweet. Maybe you need to think that the millions in non-democratic governments are thrilled with their situation because that eliminates any need to do anything to help them?

 

Of course, you're using "serf" as yet another weasel word, aren't you? "Monarchy" technically just means "rule of one," though in modern times it's usually used more specifically to refer to an inherited sovereignty.

 

Whoa, chief. I may be a "democracy-worshipper" but why is serf a weasel word? What word would you choose for the 99.9% who are not empowered in a Monarchy? YOu can't blame me for picking the serf model when you refuse to debate specifics.

 

Yes. Your point? Every government, including democracies, use threats. I can't choose not to obey the laws, because I'll be punished if I don't. If I attempt to overthrow the government, they'll kill me. This fact does not preclude the fact that I happen to support this government.

 

I've heard you advocate the overthrow of the current government many times (e.g. the Bush administration) and on most threads you appear to be very alive. Your act of voting against him, if that's what you did, was an attempt to overthrow the current government.

 

There are mechanisms for amending the structure of the government that will not get you killed. Violence will produce a different response.

 

Contrast that to the non-democratic countries you refuse to name specifically... oh, wait I can't because that would derail the debate.

[Pangloss]

they have Food replicators though, they even drop off portable ones to planets with people that are starving (rather nice of them).

 

Not if those planets had yet to achieve warp drive or contact with "alien" races. If that hadn't happened yet then the Enterprise would literally sit in orbit and watch them die, no matter how immediate the threat, with Picard talking about how this was better and Dr. Crusher wringing her hands in earnest.

 

Episodes with those kinds of dilemmas were some of the most interesting, even if they were a tad inconsistent about it.

[Sisyphus]

So you're opposed to the Prime Directive?

[Haezed]

So you're opposed to the Prime Directive?

 

Good thing we kept the thread from getting derailed by refusing to discuss specifics.

[Pangloss]

So you're opposed to the Prime Directive?

 

LOL! We're gonna have to move this one to the Politics board!

 

But serially, I remember thinking at the time that there wasn't much point in taking a personal stake in the "prime directive". I just thought it was interesting to look at the two sides and hear their well- and poorly-reasoned arguments.

[Sisyphus]

Good thing we kept the thread from getting derailed by refusing to discuss specifics.

 

What can I do? Nobody wanted to have an actual serious discussion. ";)"

[john5746]

This is kind of an ill-formed question. It occured to me recently that most people seem to think it would be best if the entire world spread adopted their own political idealogies. This includes ideas as broad or narrow as democracy, communism, Christian theocracy, secular libertarianism, etc. I, personally, don't really understand this, and it would be very strange to me if one political solution could be applied to any people, time, or situation. I want to live in a secular, liberal, capitalistic democracy, but I don't think that everybody should have to. There can be good monarchies, and if a country can make socialism work for them, I say more power to them. I mentioned this today and got kind of an outraged response from a democracy-worshipper. Am I as alone as it seems like I am?

 

Nothing wrong in thinking your system is the best and wishing others can utilize it. Trying to force it on others is a different question. I almost equate democracy with being safe from a tyrannical leader, but having the congress and judical branch is what keeps us from going off the deep end. Democracy is really just majority rule, but that is better than minority or the rule of one, IMO.

[Sisyphus]

Trying to force it on others is a different question.

 

Alright then, why not?