I think your essay should clearly articulate where you disagree with the democracy consensus. You discuss tragedy-of-the-commons and state-of-nature arguments, but those are about whether to have government or anarchy, not what form the government should take. That is, a competent absolute monarchy could avoid both problems pretty easily. If that isn’t what you intend to discuss, I recommend removing it from the essay.
I see the seeds of two distinct arguments against democracy in the essay at this point. First, you might be challenging the idea that what is best for “the People” is best for “the Nation.” I think I’ve read prior comments where you challenge the coherence of the concept consent-of-the-governed, but I’m not sure that this is the argument that you intend make here. If it is, pedantic-Tim says that consent-of-the-governed is a wider concept than democracy, so you should acknowledge your intent to refer to things like the justifications for the Glorious Revolution, which I wouldn’t call “democratic.” For reference, this is where my disagreements with Moldbug are located.
Alternatively, you could be arguing for the “public choice”/”interest group politics” failure mode of democratic governments. That is a specific critique of the previous point, but I think it should be handled distinctly. For example, it is a quite different from the “who counts as part of the people”/Patrician vs. Plebian debates that lurked within the debates about Landowner Suffrage v. Universal Manhood Suffrage v. Universal Suffrage. If this specific critique is your intended topic, I suggest you lay out some of the argument for why you think this failure mode is highly-likely/inevitable. I understand that the argument that this failure mode is not inevitable is laced with “No-True-Scotsman” issues, but it would still illustrate your thinking if you explained why you think that this is the most worrisome failure mode.
To the extent that you are looking for less controversial examples to discuss (in the drafting stages, if not the final essay), you might consider the Honor Harrington series by David Weber, in which the antagonist nation (The Republic of Haven) has a substantial portion of the population on “the Dole” and the elites seek the material wealth necessary to fund this situation and therefore stay in power by engaging in wars of expansion.
ETA: “Crown of Slaves” has a fair amount of the useful nation structure theory, if you want to read only one book. It’s a side-story, so it stands independently fairly well.
I think your essay should clearly articulate where you disagree with the democracy consensus.
Oh its just half an essay at this point. I was still describing how the idealized version of this government supposedly works.
I think your essay should clearly articulate where you disagree with the democracy consensus. You discuss tragedy-of-the-commons and state-of-nature arguments, but those are about whether to have government or anarchy, not what form the government should take. That is, a competent absolute monarchy could avoid both problems pretty easily. If that isn’t what you intend to discuss, I recommend removing it from the essay.
Maybe no government is better than democratic government, but I do think you have a point. I will assume few people will for now question that we need some kind of government, I will remove it from this essay.
I see the seeds of two distinct arguments against democracy in the essay at this point. First, you might be challenging the idea that what is best for “the People” is best for “the Nation.” I think I’ve read prior comments where you challenge the coherence of the concept consent-of-the-governed, but I’m not sure that this is the argument that you intend make here. If it is, pedantic-Tim says that consent-of-the-governed is a wider concept than democracy, so you should acknowledge your intent to refer to things like the justifications for the Glorious Revolution, which I wouldn’t call “democratic.” For reference, this is where my disagreements with Moldbug are located.
Overall, I must admit you seem to have a very good idea of where I was going to develop some of my arguments based on (it seems to me at least) not so much data. Considering that in the part of the essay written so far I just wanted to accurately if informally describe educated opinion on how this kind of democracy should work, would you say that I’ve failed and that I’m making a straw man? Or where the hints and foreshadowing not problematic in this regard?
Your articulation of the argument for democracy is strongly flavored with “I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him”—and we know how that turned out. Particularly your comment:
My we are on a roll.
Also, you write much less formally in that paragraph than the proceeding ones.
Considering that in the part of the essay written so far I just wanted to accurately if informally describe educated opinion on how this kind of democracy should work, would you say that I’ve failed and that I’m making a straw man? Or where the hints and foreshadowing not problematic in this regard?
I think you have correctly described the gesturing a thoughtful reader of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal would make to defend the concept of representational democracy. But such a figure is at least somewhat aware of the problems of public choice and special interests, even if that person is not sufficiently concerned by them to abandon the concept of democracy. Regarding consent-of-the-governed, I’m not sure what the idealized man-on-the street thinks of the problem—but I don’t see this quote:
Well it turns out that politicians have a nasty incentive to distort the actual effects of the policies they endorse, these effects may not match the effects sought by the people.
I think your essay should clearly articulate where you disagree with the democracy consensus. You discuss tragedy-of-the-commons and state-of-nature arguments, but those are about whether to have government or anarchy, not what form the government should take. That is, a competent absolute monarchy could avoid both problems pretty easily. If that isn’t what you intend to discuss, I recommend removing it from the essay.
I see the seeds of two distinct arguments against democracy in the essay at this point. First, you might be challenging the idea that what is best for “the People” is best for “the Nation.” I think I’ve read prior comments where you challenge the coherence of the concept consent-of-the-governed, but I’m not sure that this is the argument that you intend make here. If it is, pedantic-Tim says that consent-of-the-governed is a wider concept than democracy, so you should acknowledge your intent to refer to things like the justifications for the Glorious Revolution, which I wouldn’t call “democratic.” For reference, this is where my disagreements with Moldbug are located.
Alternatively, you could be arguing for the “public choice”/”interest group politics” failure mode of democratic governments. That is a specific critique of the previous point, but I think it should be handled distinctly. For example, it is a quite different from the “who counts as part of the people”/Patrician vs. Plebian debates that lurked within the debates about Landowner Suffrage v. Universal Manhood Suffrage v. Universal Suffrage. If this specific critique is your intended topic, I suggest you lay out some of the argument for why you think this failure mode is highly-likely/inevitable. I understand that the argument that this failure mode is not inevitable is laced with “No-True-Scotsman” issues, but it would still illustrate your thinking if you explained why you think that this is the most worrisome failure mode.
To the extent that you are looking for less controversial examples to discuss (in the drafting stages, if not the final essay), you might consider the Honor Harrington series by David Weber, in which the antagonist nation (The Republic of Haven) has a substantial portion of the population on “the Dole” and the elites seek the material wealth necessary to fund this situation and therefore stay in power by engaging in wars of expansion.
ETA: “Crown of Slaves” has a fair amount of the useful nation structure theory, if you want to read only one book. It’s a side-story, so it stands independently fairly well.
Oh its just half an essay at this point. I was still describing how the idealized version of this government supposedly works.
Maybe no government is better than democratic government, but I do think you have a point. I will assume few people will for now question that we need some kind of government, I will remove it from this essay.
Overall, I must admit you seem to have a very good idea of where I was going to develop some of my arguments based on (it seems to me at least) not so much data. Considering that in the part of the essay written so far I just wanted to accurately if informally describe educated opinion on how this kind of democracy should work, would you say that I’ve failed and that I’m making a straw man? Or where the hints and foreshadowing not problematic in this regard?
Your articulation of the argument for democracy is strongly flavored with “I come not to praise Caesar, but to bury him”—and we know how that turned out. Particularly your comment:
Also, you write much less formally in that paragraph than the proceeding ones.
I think you have correctly described the gesturing a thoughtful reader of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal would make to defend the concept of representational democracy. But such a figure is at least somewhat aware of the problems of public choice and special interests, even if that person is not sufficiently concerned by them to abandon the concept of democracy. Regarding consent-of-the-governed, I’m not sure what the idealized man-on-the street thinks of the problem—but I don’t see this quote:
as aimed at that issue.
Thanks for the feedback! I will then keep the contents of the paragraph similar but cut some of the jokes and try to make my tone a bit more formal.
I didn’t intend to touch on that yet.
Oh its just half an essay at this point. I was still describing how the idealized version of this government supposedly works.