I couldn’t trust the average American voter to make a good decision about the complex issues facing the U.S. gov’t.
And the average American voter doesn’t make a decision about “the complex issues”, he only makes a decision as to who will represent him (referendums aside).
As to who actually makes a decision about the complex issues, the usual answer is “the civil service bureaucrats”.
I’m not sure. I’ll have to give this more thought.
I guess my concerns in the immediate aftermath of this election are based on how much misinformation and ignorance are involved in the process. People know almost nothing about anything (or believe lots of things that are easily proven false), and yet they have strong opinions that inform their decision on who to vote for. And then they (basically) directly elect the President.
Keep in mind that all the empirical data on the basis of which we conclude that democracy is an okay political system comes from reality which includes stupid and ignorant electorates.
On a purely theoretical level (which is fun to talk about so I think worth talking about) I would like to see one of the high status and respected members of the rationalist movement (Yudowsky, Hanson etc) in power. They’d become corrupt eventually, but do a lot of good before they did.
On a practical level, our choices are the traditional establishment (which has shown its major flaws), backing Trump, or possibly some time in the future backing Sanders. Unless somebody here has a practical way to achieve something different, that’s all we have.
(EDIT: For what it’s worth, I base my trust on their works, somewhat on their theories on rationality, and the fact that reviewing ideas in far mode for so long has them “nailed” to policies. Without, say, an implacable Congress in their way, I think they’d do enough good to outweigh their inevitable corruption)
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
I understand this to mean that it is better when the people in power use propaganda to convince at least a fraction of the population that they are the good guys, instead of simply using torture to keep everyone in line.
But of course there are people who prefer torture over hypocrisy. (Often they assume they would be among the torturers, and historically they often find out this assumption was wrong.)
cf. Winston Churchill: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
You make an interesting distinction between “we” and “the electorate” X-D
Perhaps you should ask how could you trust yourself to make important decisions about your life.
Perhaps. And maybe I don’t.
But then, even more so, I couldn’t trust the average American voter to make a good decision about the complex issues facing the U.S. gov’t.
And the average American voter doesn’t make a decision about “the complex issues”, he only makes a decision as to who will represent him (referendums aside).
As to who actually makes a decision about the complex issues, the usual answer is “the civil service bureaucrats”.
I couldn’t trust the average American voter to make a good decision about who should make decisions about the complex issues facing the U.S. gov’t.
Well then, is there someone or someones you could trust to make such a decision? And what do you base your trust on?
I’m not sure. I’ll have to give this more thought.
I guess my concerns in the immediate aftermath of this election are based on how much misinformation and ignorance are involved in the process. People know almost nothing about anything (or believe lots of things that are easily proven false), and yet they have strong opinions that inform their decision on who to vote for. And then they (basically) directly elect the President.
Keep in mind that all the empirical data on the basis of which we conclude that democracy is an okay political system comes from reality which includes stupid and ignorant electorates.
A good question to keep in mind is how much real power the electorate has, as opposed to entrenched bureaucrats or de facto oligarchies.
On a purely theoretical level (which is fun to talk about so I think worth talking about) I would like to see one of the high status and respected members of the rationalist movement (Yudowsky, Hanson etc) in power. They’d become corrupt eventually, but do a lot of good before they did.
On a practical level, our choices are the traditional establishment (which has shown its major flaws), backing Trump, or possibly some time in the future backing Sanders. Unless somebody here has a practical way to achieve something different, that’s all we have.
(EDIT: For what it’s worth, I base my trust on their works, somewhat on their theories on rationality, and the fact that reviewing ideas in far mode for so long has them “nailed” to policies. Without, say, an implacable Congress in their way, I think they’d do enough good to outweigh their inevitable corruption)
But also:
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
by the same man :-)
I understand this to mean that it is better when the people in power use propaganda to convince at least a fraction of the population that they are the good guys, instead of simply using torture to keep everyone in line.
But of course there are people who prefer torture over hypocrisy. (Often they assume they would be among the torturers, and historically they often find out this assumption was wrong.)