Sortition

[BobRobertson]

Democracy sucks.
And absolute democracy sucks absolutely.

Democracy, as a form of government, is an atrocity waiting to happen. And it doesn't wait long.

With a monarchy or other "elite" form, it's acceptable to kill tyrannical "leaders". With democracy, the "self rule" myth is used to make armed rebellion unacceptable. So democracies actually perpetuate tyranny.

[Alex Libman 14]

Then you must hate the market and you must love bloodshed.

Democracy is not, primarily, a system of governance, but the only known vehicle to change government, for better or worse, and even, possibly, to one day, eliminate the state altogether, without resorting to violence. When democracy fails, sooner or later, violence ensues.

You're redefining words here.  "Demos" means people (i.e. a collective abstraction) and "cracy" means rule (i.e. through force), like in the "Democratic Republic of Korea" (i.e. the north one).  If you mean something else, why not use appropriate words like a grown-up?

Democracy and the free market are compatible only if everyone who votes is a perfectly rational individual who'd vote for personal liberty and nothing else, which has never happened before in the history of democracy and probably never will.

[avshae]

I am open to the concept that randomly selecting legislators might actually create a better and more reflective legislative body than democratic elections.

But if we take this Sortition idea further, why use representatives at all? Why not just let everyone vote on everything. Every citizen will have the right to vote on every bill, every law proposal. Have a referendum on everything, anyone who wants to vote can vote. It wasn't technically possible in Ancient Greece, but it's certainly possible today.

[libertylover]

 "Harrison Bergeron" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-175006468841636088

I really must recommend this movie.  Sure it was done in the 80s but it is freaking brilliant and funny.   And I am so glad your thread reminded me of it because we were getting short on good political films for movie night.  The best thing is you can burn it to a dvd for free.  Eugene Levy plays a steel worker who is elected via random selection to become President. 

[BobRobertson]

But if we take this Sortition idea further, why use representatives at all? Why not just let everyone vote on everything.

So 51% of the people want Coke, 49% want Pepsi, so for the year everyone has to drink Coke?

That's democratic government at its most basic.

How about this: No coercion. You want Coke, then buy Coke. Pepsi, then buy Pepsi. A house with restrictive covenants, or without. A car with airbags, or without.

The ultimate democracy is, in fact, the unrestrained market.

You're redefining words here.  "Demos" means people (i.e. a collective abstraction) and "cracy" means rule (i.e. through force), like in the "Democratic Republic of Korea" (i.e. the north one).  If you mean something else, why not use appropriate words like a grown-up?

He does that chronically. When his misuse of words is pointed out, he simply denies it and says that everyone else is wrong, even when the definitions he provides directly contradict his abuse of the words.

[avshae]

But if we take this Sortition idea further, why use representatives at all? Why not just let everyone vote on everything.

So 51% of the people want Coke, 49% want Pepsi, so for the year everyone has to drink Coke?

What I meant was that instead of having a body of elected or "sortitioned" legislators to vote on laws, why not have every law as a referendum, or look at this way -- every person is "sortitioned" to be a legislator.

[Pepsi vs. Coke] is democratic government at its most basic.

That is definitely NOT democracy. Democracy is more than just majority vote, it also defines protection for people's freedoms. In a nutshell, you are free to drink whatever you want as long as this does not clash with someone else's freedom to do what he wants. As a contrary example, if a law is passed by majority vote that ginger people are not allowed to grow beards - that law is distinctly non-democratic.

[Alex Libman 14]

No, democracy is majority vote and nothing more.  If the mob wants to give up individual liberty, it most certainly can.

Since the government always influences the mob far more than the other way around, the only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is a mere formality.

[libertylover]

[Pepsi vs. Coke] is democratic government at its most basic.

That is definitely NOT democracy. Democracy is more than just majority vote, it also defines protection for people's freedoms. In a nutshell, you are free to drink whatever you want as long as this does not clash with someone else's freedom to do what he wants. As a contrary example, if a law is passed by majority vote that ginger people are not allowed to grow beards - that law is distinctly non-democratic.

The concept you are confusing with democracy is actually called rule of law.

The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, is a general legal maxim according to which decisions should be made by applying known principles or laws, without the intervention of discretion in their application.[2] This maxim is intended to be a safeguard against arbitrary governance. The word "arbitrary" (from the Latin "arbiter") signifies a judgment made at the discretion of the arbiter, rather than according to the rule of law.[3][4]

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Law

The reason an anti-ginger beard law wouldn't fly is because usually there is a supreme law in the country against discrimination.  So the anti-ginger beard law would fail to pass the supreme rule of law test if the justice system upholds the anti-discrimination law.  But this isn't to say that in practice a justice could try and skirt the discrimination statue by saying it applied to all races even though most people are very aware some races are more prone to the ginger gene.   Rule of law is only intended as a check and balance measure but not a guarantee. 

Many democracies implement the concept of rule of law in their constitutions.  They are still two different concepts which just happen to appear in most modern democracies together.

[BobRobertson]

[Pepsi vs. Coke] is democratic government at its most basic.

That is definitely NOT democracy.

It is, absolutely, what Democracy means. Rule by majority vote.

Nothing about Democracy defines what that vote means, only that it is made by individuals rather than by a small group (oligarchy), an individual (monarchy), elders (patriarchy), women (gynarcracy).

Democracy is more than just majority vote, it also defines protection for people's freedoms.

Wow, are you off base.

I recommend the book, "Democracy: The God That Failed", or any of the talks, lectures or articles written about it by Prof. Hanse Hermann Hoppe.

In a nutshell, you are free to drink whatever you want as long as this does not clash with someone else's freedom to do what he wants.

That's just natural rights theory, and has nothing what so ever to do with the form of government.

As a contrary example, if a law is passed by majority vote that ginger people are not allowed to grow beards - that law is distinctly non-democratic.

Completely democratic, since it was a decision arrived at by majority vote.

By asserting that a majority vote is somehow "non-democratic", all you're doing is proving that you don't understand the word.

democracy
1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.
 2. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.
 3. The free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people by the people.
 4. A country with a government which has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens.
 5. The control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes.
Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us.
 From a Parliament of Whores by P.J. O’Rourke
 (New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1991), p. 233.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

But if we take this Sortition idea further, why use representatives at all? Why not just let everyone vote on everything.

So 51% of the people want Coke, 49% want Pepsi, so for the year everyone has to drink Coke?

What I meant was that instead of having a body of elected or "sortitioned" legislators to vote on laws, why not have every law as a referendum, or look at this way -- every person is "sortitioned" to be a legislator.

[Pepsi vs. Coke] is democratic government at its most basic.

That is definitely NOT democracy. Democracy is more than just majority vote, it also defines protection for people's freedoms. In a nutshell, you are free to drink whatever you want as long as this does not clash with someone else's freedom to do what he wants. As a contrary example, if a law is passed by majority vote that ginger people are not allowed to grow beards - that law is distinctly non-democratic.

Democracy unfortunately does not define protection for people's freedoms.  It CAN, however just the fact that it is "democracy" does not mean that it includes such protections.  That's why we have mostly Constitutional Republics in the more free nations in the world.

The problem is that most people worship democracy as if it is some kind of all perfect system that is always right.  However, the founding fathers of the United States new this was not the case which is why we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights and restrictions on what the government can do (i.e. restrictions on democracy).  Unlimited democracy can allow horrible atrocities, simply because "the people" voted for them.

[Bill Brasky]

I'm reminded of Hanse Hermann Hoppe's book, "Democracy: The God That Failed"

Turns out that the more "temporary" the legislators are, the more pronounced the Public Choice and Tragedy Of The Commons effects are. They are ever more motivated to be self-centered bastards who will take anything and everything they can grab for themselves, damn the repercussions.

So I see the problem not one of how people are chosen to wield power, but the wielding of power itself that must be addressed, and eliminated.

This can easily be solved by hanging the self-serving for treason.  Which is what it is. 


Next problem?   Lets go, chop chop, don't got all day. 

[avshae]

So in that case Syria, Iran, post-communist Russia, Germany 1933, Hamas-ruled Gaza, those are all democracies since they have or had elections. Absurd.

I'm sorry, you are all simply wrong. Perhaps in your eagerness to promote all kinds of extreme political ideas (anarchy, libertarianism, etc. etc.) you feel the need to throw mud at democracy, but you simply do not understand what democracy means (which might shed light on why you support those other ideas).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule.
[..]
Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all citizens, not invested with the power to govern, have equal access to power and the second that all citizens enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties.

The first part of democracy does indeed mean electing government and positions of power by majority vote. But democracy does NOT mean that once the officials are elected they can do whatever they please, such as pass the anti-ginger-beard law. That is dictatorship. The elected president/prime-minister of a democracy cannot pass a no-Pepsi law since that would violate the citizens legitimized (i.e. by law) freedom to drink whatever they want, and Pepsi's owners' legitimized right to do business.

However, if Pepsi break the law, for example by forging financial reports, then the government can send police to shut Pepsi down, and no majority is needed for this.

Also in a democracy the elected government does not need citizen majority vote to carry out actions. If we continue the Pepsi scenario, if Pepsi forged financial reports the government is entitled and even obligated to close it even if a majority of the citizens sign a petition to prevent its closing.

Many democracies implement the concept of rule of law in their constitutions. They are still two different concepts which just happen to appear in most modern democracies together.

This is not a coincidence - you can almost say it is by definition. One of the key differences between prime minister of a democratic state and dictator in a dictatorship is that the prime-minister does not make the laws and is not above the law. The laws are made by an independent legislative body, and both are checked by an independent judicial system.
That is why Saddam Hussein's Iraq for example, was not a democracy even though elections were held every few years (and whadaya know, 99% of the Iraqis typically voted for him every election). There were Iraqi courts, and even an Iraqi parliament. But Saddam controlled all those same as he controlled everything else.

[Alex Libman 14]

And if dogs could edit Wikipedia, democracy would be all about bacon.

[avshae]

Oh I get it, Wikipedia sucks when they don't agree with you. Then how about:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/democracy.aspx

democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed.It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.

Or another one:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

de⋅moc⋅ra⋅cy  [di-mok-ruh-see]  Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1.   government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2.   a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3.   a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4.   political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5.   the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Note that none of these definitions even explicitly mention majority vote, just that the power to rule is vested within the people. Majority vote is just the book-keeping of one aspect of democracy.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Unlimited Democracy is a dictatorship of the people.  Which is why we don't see many unlimited democracies.  Places with less restrictions on the democracy have fucked up governments, like my own state of California.  Other places that are dictatorships also claim to be democracies, like Syria and Iran etc.