Democracy Pro (Part 1)

 

THEORY – In a direct democracy – one which every citizen is a lawmaker with an equal vote on every law – lobbyists and bribes become obsolete.

By definition, individuals and organizations spend resources to bribe and lobby lawmakers in gain a larger benefit by way of legislation.

When the decisions of a few hundred can control the actions and resources of a few hundred million, it makes financial sense to attempt to ‘buy’ these lawmakers.  The negative impact on those without the means to influence their lawmakers’ decisions is obvious.  But laws and regulations can never permanently suspend something economically viable in the free market.

Besides creating a black-market, regulations against bribery (or anything economically viable), will only filter nearly the same amount of activity through less obvious channels.

Example Set:  A lobbyist gives lawmaker big bag of money with a “$” painted on the outside.  Problem recognized by public/other lawmakers.  Regulation passed against bribery.  Lobbyist instead takes lawmaker out to many fancy dinners.  Regulation definition of bribery expanded to include non-monetary benefits (dinners, gifts etc.)  Lobbyist instead reminds lawmaker that he has connections at the university his son is currently applying to….It doesn’t matter.  Lobbyists will always find legal ways to work around regulations to influence lawmakers.  It is literally their job.

Campaign financing.  As long as there is another election, incumbents running for another term belong to financiers.  Wealthy and Corporate donors expect a return on their campaign financing investment.  That is why they do it.  Laws have been passed to regulate campaign financing already.  It hasn’t helped.  

Additional Theory – More laws against bribery, lobbying, and campaign financing will have no long-term impact on the industry.  They are a little dutch boy with his finger in the dike.  The pressure behind the wall will spring another leak somewhere else.  The only long term solution is to alleviate the pressure.

If there are no elected lawmakers, there is no need to regulate campaign financing.  If the voting population is the same as the population you are attempting to influence, coercive efforts will not be economically viable.

Luke’s Response

Eric has started to formulate an argument about the merit of a direct democracy vs. a representative democracy on the basis of negative influence of the powerful and wealthy in the legislative process.  While I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of his argument, that dispersing the power of legislative decisions amongst citizens lowers concentrations of power and opportunities for corruption – I disagree with some of the specific claims he has made.

For example, Eric has stated that lobbying would become obsolete in a direct democracy.  He has also stated campaign financing would become irrelevant.  I would argue that lobbying would not only continue to exist, but potentially grow. If legislative decisions were made by ballot and popular vote, organizations and wealthy individuals would focus their attention on propaganda and advertising campaigns.  In California, where state laws are often passed by ballot, I have read recently that election spending by corporate interests and unions has increased exponentially in order to influence citizens’ opinions on ballot measures.  It is not difficult to imagine the super-PACs that bring us commercials for particular candidates would simply move toward issue driven ads.

Certainly, having a direct say in laws that are passed is preferable to the back-room exchanges of a representative democracy.  I am trying to point out that direct democracy is not risk free.  The United States Constitution seems to me to be framed around a distrust of the people to make decisions and a fear of a ‘tyranny of the majority’ in which a large group can impose their will on a smaller group or persons.  As someone in the field of education, I think one of the most intriguing aspects of direct democracy is that it requires a highly educated and engaged citizenry – and the ability to influence votes (for corporate interest and non-profit grassroots movements alike) requires an effort to educate others.

Implementing a large-scale democracy is a complex idea, with many pro’s and many con’s (or at least potential pitfalls).  We’ll touch on more in the future, but would love your take on this idea!

 

 

Note: This conversation is part of a larger topic, exploring the merits, pitfalls, and potential of a large-scale society to operate with a democratic lawmaking process.

Don’t Trust the Experts

Luke’s Post:

How many times has the following scenario happened to you:

You’re having a conversation on a controversial topic with some other people.  To this point you’re mostly listening, trying to gauge the range of people’s responses. You have a gut feeling in support of a position but you’re not quite sure how to articulate it.  You finally muster the courage to say something and as soon as it is out of your mouth you instantly regret it.  Someone else in the room drops a bunch of facts or numbers you’ve never heard before.  Another person seems literally angry with you – how could you have possibly considered what you stated?  You shrink back into your turtle shell feeling outgunned and thinking to yourself “I’ll never do that again.”

The above scenario describes some of the emotional and social disincentives we have to seriously engage in a support or cause.  This opinion environment isn’t conducive to sharing and learning new ideas and certainly is not conducive to democratic progress.

It is my view that the disincentives to participate in an exchange of ideas are greatly exacerbated by our reliance on ‘expert’ knowledge.

America has an obsession with experts.  Positioned as thought leaders, pundits, commentators, authorities, and specialists; in a world of ever increasing and conflicting information we count on the thoughts and observations of these experts to help us make sense of what the hell is going on.

The allure is obvious.  We’re busy people without the time or energy to fully research complicated issues.  We find in the media or on the internet someone who has spent time doing the research and forming an articulate argument.  If their opinion resonates with us and we find their reasoning to be trustworthy we adopt it as our own.  What’s wrong with that?

1)      Confirmation Bias.  Human beings have a tendency to seek out people and information that reinforce our current worldview, our values, and preferences – it makes us feel better about ourselves and reduces stress.  The problem with this is that it leaves us blind to disconfirming evidence and makes us overconfident that we have figured it out and have the ‘right’ answer.

2)      Internalization.  We mistakenly associate the merit of an idea as a reflection of a person themselves.  Similarly to Eric’s post on why we should compliment virtuous actions instead of people,  normally wise or good natured people are quite capable of holding a misguided or harmful position (and vice versa).

3)      Polarization.  If we subscribe to the position of an expert, the substance of the argument is often presented in isolation.  It gives the illusion that it is the only logical choice, when in reality it is but one position among many.

One of the goals of this blog is to challenge conventional thought – and one of the best places we all can start is by reflecting on how we gather our information and from whom so that we can form our own opinion instead of adopting someone else’s.  We need to allow flexibility for opinions to change, for ourselves and for others, as new evidence arises.  The next time you’re in one of those ‘hot button’ conversations give yourself a chance to step into the shoes of another opinion.  When someone responds to you emotionally try to respond with dispassion and reason.   Most importantly bear in mind that in a democratic society all opinions (informed, uninformed, or misinformed) have equal weight – the goal is to educate one another, not scare each other back into our shells.

Diamond’s Response: Agreed.

All great points: a little empathy can go a long way when discussing issues with no easy answers.  It’s interesting how ‘right’ your favorite news or talk-show hosts always are, and how easy it is to see through the lies and misdirection of broadcasters with opposing viewpoints to your own.  Yet people just like us who sit on the opposite side are seeing the same thing in the opposite direction.  How is this possible?

It’s also fascinating how frequently we, as consumers of news, are presented with only two options (no refugees, or let them all in; no gun control or ban all guns; democrat or republican).  This false dichotomy of choices is a major driver of polarization and hurdle towards mankind working together to achieve our shared goals: freedom, security, equality, technological and medical advances to help us live longer, better lives.  

Let’s look for new options that unify us by remembering to walk that mile in your neighbors’ shoes.

Homework Assignment:  Forming a well informed and balanced opinion may take a little more time and energy, but the benefits are priceless.  Look for information and opinions in strange and unusual places.  Take expert opinions with a grain of salt.  This week try reading news articles from that news source you hate (you know the one) – what is the rationale being used?  What is the evidence being provided?  Also try getting news from non-news sources – huh?  What I mean is explore websites for research associations, grassroots campaigns, recently published non-fiction books, etc.  that cover topics of interest to you.  What initiatives or reports have they recently published?  Are there advocacy groups taking an opposite stance – what are they saying?

You Have No Rights…

 

Eric’s post:

 

The Right to free speech, the Right to bear arms, the Right to privacy…

 

What is a Right?  It is half of an otherwise unbalanced equation.  It is a meaningless and distracting word without its adjoined twin: Obligation.

 

You have no Rights…without corresponding Obligations.

 

Any Right a person claims – without acknowledging the reciprocal commitment – is the equivalent of a spoiled child demanding a car for their 16th birthday.  Let’s put the theory to the test:

 

The Right to ‘Life’.

 

In the classic ‘Natural Rights’ example of Life, Liberty and Property(/Pursuit of Happiness), the least controversial claim is ‘Life.’  Does the Right to Life mean the Right to live forever?  Of course not.  The Right to Life is (essentially) the moral claim to not be killed by another human being.  (After all, it would be tough to convince a hungry lion not to eat you with your proclaimed Right as your only shield).  So…you probably believe that you generally have the Right (moral high-ground) to not be killed by another human being.  I concur.  However…

 

With ~7 billion people in the world, let’s say each has a number.  You are Person 1.  Your Right to Life necessarily dictates an Obligation.  Your Right – to not be killed by another person – Obligates Person 2 to not kill you.  Person 3 is, likewise, Obligated not to kill you.  In the essence of time, I’ll save you rest of the 7 billion, but you get the idea.

 

Assuming you agree all humans are created equal with regards to Rights (disregard this argument if you think you are special), any Natural Right you claim for yourself, you also claim for every other human alive.  (If a Right is natural, or inherent, it applies to everyone – not just to those born within the arbitrary imaginary lines drawn by politicians long before you are born.)

 

So you claim the Right to not be killed by others (reasonable), and therefore you claim the Obligation of ~7 billion other people to not kill you (reasonable).  If your justification for this Right is that everyone inherently has it, then you are simultaneously claiming Persion 2 has the Right to Life.  Again, this begs a corresponding Obligation of Person 3 to not kill Person 2, of Person 4 to not kill Person 2… and all the way around the world resting finally with – yes – Person 1…you.  Person 3, etc, also have this claim on you.  Your inherent Right to Life has a corresponding Obligation to not kill anyone.

 

If you claim any right is ‘inherent’ then you are claiming that you yourself are inherently obligated to fulfill that Right for all other human beings that inherently hold it.

 

There is much more to be said on this topic, but in the meantime, think about your favorite Right, and what you may not have realized is your Obligation to own it.  Are you someone who thinks they have a Right to ‘free’ college?  This begs the Obligation that others provide you free college.  If everyone (not just you) has this Right, aren’t you obligated to provide college education to everyone else free of charge (at least proportionately)?

 

Luke’s Post:

In response to Eric’s discussion on rights and obligations I have two points I’d like to make.  I’d like to disagree with the notion that obligations are a starting point in a discussion of human relations and also I would like to move away from discussing obligations in restrictive terms.

A consideration of rights or obligations should not come before a consideration of goals.  In order for any social group, organization, institution, or political body to function successfully there needs to be a commitment of members to at some level to serve an agreed upon purpose and uphold mutually agreed upon rules.  These purposes and rules can be formal or informal, and their scope general or specific.  As Eric pointed out with the example of a lion not respecting our right to life – there is nothing inherent or natural about rights or obligations – they are a product of human social relations.  Obligations become significant because they are the actions that must be taken to achieve the goals of a larger group.

I believe that in order for an obligation to be truly meaningful it must move beyond a narrow conception.  As Eric seems to be using the terms, both obligations and rights are tied to a negative action (an obligation not to do something).  A person is obligated not to kill others, harm others, steal from others, etc.  The assumption seems to be that if we upheld these obligations to not negatively act toward others, the rights of others are upheld and we all live in relative peace and harmony.  But what if, in the way Eric has inverted the idea of rights into obligations, we inverted the negative claims to positive ones. 

A positive obligation might be to affirm and respect the value of all life.  This simple change of perspective forces on to move beyond the belief that they simply shouldn’t harm others, but consider elements of life beyond personal space.  When you consider life as valuable, the nature of the obligation no longer centers on you and equally no longer centers on a specific person, but centers on an affirmation of life. 

Think about obligations as they relate to something you really care about.  Your family perhaps.  We wouldn’t say a man is a good husband simply because he doesn’t cheat, doesn’t act abusively, doesn’t gamble away the family money, etc.  We would say a man is a good husband if he values and cherishes his wife, is committed to the success of the marriage as a unit, and is willing to work positively towards those ends. 

Two examples of powerful affirmative obligations include the “golden rule” found in almost every religious and ethical tradition to “treat others as you would like to be treated”.  Or the Iroquois imperative that decisions should be made taking into consideration the “seventh generation” – that is we have an obligation to consider how our actions might affect future generations.

To restate my position: a) the consideration of rights and obligations becomes meaningless unless we decide the kind of society we would like to live in and the goals we would like to accomplish b) a society benefits from positive obligations that encourage pursuit of those goals.

 

CHALLENGE TO READERS – Any Right you claim from now on, state the entire position, including the Obligation.  See what a difference it makes!

Note 1 to Reader:  Please forgive grammatical license on capitalization.  ‘right’ and ‘obligation’ are common usage words in the English language, so I chose to capitalize for emphasis to the moral/legal context.

Note 2 to Reader: This is a huge topic, so please forgive points unspoken in the interest of the blog-o-sphere.  We’ll touch on different types of Rights and other related facets in future posts.  That being said – We would love to get your take on the points raised here.

Note 3 to Reader:  The Right to education, specifically, is an interesting topic which we’ll also dive deeper on at a later date.  The postulation above does not assert the Right to education is wrong, it only provides a more complete picture on the claim.

Note 4 to Reader:  The claim that we are created equal with regards to Rights is BIG and important… at some point we’ll dig deeper in an attempt to validate this claim, but in the meantime if you are interested, John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government lays the foundation which most advocates rely for this claim today.

There are no good people in this world

Until the moment we die, each and every one of us has the propensity to do, speak, or think evil.  Conversely, every sentient life on this planet has potential to do good.  It is only after one breathes their last breath that deeds of our life become fixed.

“You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table,

There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.”

It is a fallacy to paint a dynamic being with a static brush.  If we say someone is ‘good’, we are subconsciously telling that person (or  ourselves) that the they do not have the propensity to act to the contrary.  It is a sentence attempting to imprison another’s free will.

You can choose to classify someone as ‘bad’ (or ‘racist’ or any number of negative adjectives).  By labeling someone ‘bad’, you yourself become partially responsible for that negative behavior.  You help build the barrier between how that person has been acting, and how you’d prefer them to act.  Instead of calling someone an ‘asshole’ or ‘the antichrist’ try pointing out specific actions you’ve observed and view to be wrong, and suggest an alternative, more altruistic, approach they could take when facing a similar situation in the future.

Alternatively, we deceive ourselves when we call a person ‘good.’  We subconsciously try to assert that someone lacks the propensity to do wrong.  In doing so we both take for granted positive social reinforcement (or sense of accountability) that person may need to maintain their generally positive track of righteous deeds, as well as turn a blind eye to atrocities that may be committed right under our noses.  Think about the inherent trust priests used to enjoy.  To make a hero out of a living being is to set yourself up for a letdown when they do not live up to expectations.

However, even after death, it does not make sense to idolize individuals.  Research any ‘hero’ of the past and you’ll discover they were not perfect.

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”

 Conversely, I’m sure Adolf Hitler must have helped an old lady across the street at some point when he was younger.  Nobody is ever 100% on one side of the sliding scale, when all deeds of life have been aggregated.

With this in mind, what then could make someone ‘good’?  If nobody is perfectly good, what would make a ‘good’ person?  Would the totality of your deeds need to be 95% ‘good’?  Would you need to maintain at least a 9-1 good-evil ratio?  Maybe a simple majority?  Do different acts carry different weights?  Who determines the score?   What if we did find a magic formula? In doing so, are we giving free license to the genius that discovers a cure for cancer to go on a killing spree afterward?  Because, let’s face it, they aren’t going to tip the scale after that!  

We build statues to individuals, put their faces on currency, and names on buildings.  In doing so we tell the world, be like this person.  Gandhi reportedly slept in bed naked with his niece.  Should we try to be like Gandhi?  The answer, of course, is that we should try to emulate the positive actions we observe in others, not every action.

Let’s name our next library The Charity Library.  Let’s build our next statue of an anonymous soldier teaching an third-world child how to read.  Let’s replace politicians on currency with a picture of a handshake…I’d settle for a high-five.

And remember, there are no bad people in this world.

The End of the Gun Control Debate

Eric’s post:

Great news:  I have the solution to clear out your repetitive news-feed and support your valiant stance on federal gun control!

But first, some context:

I woke up this morning and made a new federal law. Starting tomorrow: every day, every citizen will pay me $1.  It’s a pretty sweet law.  My mind is buzzing, thinking of all I can do with my imminent wealth.

What’s that you say?  You don’t think the law is legitimate?  You don’t plan to follow it?  I wonder why…

You’re right, of course, the “law” I made is not a law at all.  It has no legitimacy.  But why?  Your answer is simple:  I’m not a federal lawmaker.  ‘Of course I am’, I tell you, ‘I’m the only federal lawmaker in the country!’

So who is right?  What gives someone the legitimate right to make a rule that you, as an educated, free, adult are compelled to follow?  Your collective shout resounds:  ‘Elections!  We vote our lawmakers in by election.’

You’ve proven my point.  I held an election in my bedroom last night.  I was elected to office with 100% of the 1 vote registered.  (My dog, Chief, abstained from voting).  So, I tell you, I am your elected lawmaker.  Yet for some reason you I still haven’t convinced you to start your daily deposit…

Ok, enough.  In a hotly contested debate over lawmaking, we are asking lawmakers to act (or not) – legitimate lawmakers.  What gives the laws they enact legitimate force (over a ranting lunatic’s dictates) is the nation’s prime social contract:  The Constitution.  Stay with me gun-control proponents…

If you want a rule put in place for everyone in the country to follow, it must be done according to the constitution we collectively agree to live by every day we retain our citizenship.  This simple fact is what makes this country ‘free.’  The 2^nd Amendment is part of this constitution – specifically, The Bill of Rights – the part the guarantees restrictions on what the federal government is allowed to impose on citizens.  (Give it a read sometime!).  This specific amendment says, in part, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” This means any federal law that restricts the ability to possess weapons is not legitimate (Seriously anti-gunners, STAY WITH ME).

The framers of the Constitution of the United States were not ignorant.  They created a forward-looking document that would stay relevant even as society evolved (yes even for many hundreds of years).  They did this by considering history, and building in specific safeguards against recurring atrocities against human rights perpetrated by various tyrannical governments over time.  They also understood they couldn’t predict the future.  So they built another handy clause “trump card” into document.  The Bill of Rights is designed to protect individual freedoms, but it is a different piece that keeps the constitution relevant:  We can amend the constitution (check out Article V).  And so …

HERE IS THE SOLUTION:  Propose an amendment to the constitution to strike (or re-write) the 2^nd Amendment.  If it passes, it will open the floodgates for legitimate federal gun control laws.  Without this simple step, any laws that pass infringing the people’s right to keep and bear arms has no more legitimacy that what I jot down on a napkin in the comfort of my own home – and for the same reason.  What about those that support Gun-Owners rights?  What about those who think the 2^nd Amendment is perfect?  The solution is the same.  Propose an amendment that strikes the amendment.  Surely, there is no way such an uproarious notion will ever pass the stringent approval process.  And when The 2^nd Amendment is ultimately upheld, its legitimacy will be reinforced…no longer as a 200+ year old notion from a different world with different technology, but as – effectively – the most recent addition to the constitution, therefore the most relevant.  Either way, the debate is over.

…at least for a couple hundred years.

Duke’s Response:

The Beginning of the Gun Control Debate?

I want to start by thanking Eric for reminding us about the fundamental value and function of a constitution and also for encouraging democratic participation to adjust it according to the needs and will of the people.  In my view, however, he has oversimplified the power of constitutional amendments or dictates – not just in regards to the 2nd amendment, but all amendments in general.  Before I elaborate on that main argument I’d also like to make a few other observations. Eric stated, “The framers of the Constitution were not ignorant” and they implemented “specific safeguards against recurring atrocities against human rights perpetrated by various tyrannical governments over time.”  I think it is important to address this type of language because often in American society we a presented with the notion that the founding fathers were extremely wise, defenders of liberty, and unanimous in voice in creating a seemingly infallible constitution.  Without going into some sort of detailed, and boring, analysis I feel obligated to point out that they had wide ranging views on the role of government and liberty and that the constitution represented a compromise of some of these (with the Bill of Rights being an afterthought) and furthermore their view “human rights” left out more than half the human population (African Americans, Native Americans, women, etc).  With this in mind, Eric is right, thank goodness we can amend the Constitution.

To restate Eric’s position, “any federal law that restricts the ability of citizens to possess weapons is not legitimate” because the amendment states the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Before addressing the gun control issue, I would like to address his logic by looking to some of the other Constitutional amendments.  In the first amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”  So according to Eric’s logic any federal law that restricts the ability of citizens to speak freely is not legitimate.  But according to wikipedia, “common limitations on speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, public security, public order, public nuisance, campaign finance reform and oppression.”  So what gives?  Obviously any laws that have been passed violate the Constitution, right?

A classic example of limitations on freedom of speech are yelling “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.  This has been made against the law because the desire to protect individuals from the threat of stampede and chaos (i.e. threat of bodily injury) is greater than the freedom for a person to exclaim whatever they want.  It doesn’t mean free speech isn’t valued – it simply means that it must be used responsibly.

Let’s look to another example that uses stronger language than “shall not abridge” or even “shall not infringe”.  The eighth amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required.”  Well that seems pretty cut and dry.  Why is then that in reading the news we often hear of bail being set in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, or sometimes being completely denied?  Surely this is violation of the Constitution!?  We know that bail is sometimes (but not always) denied for individuals who are on trial for violent crimes such a murder.  If we granted such individuals bail there is a chance they might pose a risk to the general population, so we allow judges to have discretion to prevent the possibility of harm to others.  And this is before they have been proven guilty.

Clearly our Constitution is not operationalized or practiced in such a black and white fashion as Eric has described.  The pragmatic purpose of protecting and promoting the general welfare seems to trump the exact language of our Bill of Rights.  Looking to the right to bear arms, there are obvious reasons why this right or privilege might be restricted in certain circumstances to prevent harm to others.  For example, one could argue that it might be within the responsibility of the government to ensure that certain individuals, such as violent criminals, should not have easy access to weapons.  An argument might also be made for restricting individuals who are psychologically unstable – for example schizophrenics who see imaginary threats and experience paranoia- from purchasing guns.  The instances seem analogous to the reasons we would deny someone bail.  

What about the type and quantity of arms one has the right to purchase or accumulate?  What are arms any way?  Is it a knife? Guns and ammunition? A rocket launcher? A nuclear missile?  The modern dialogue centers around guns, but why are any other forms of weapons out of the question?  If the framers of the Constitution were concerned about guns to protect from the government because that was type of weapons the government used – shouldn’t citizens be entitled to acquire tanks, laser guided missiles, etc. if they realistically want to be protected from the threat of government tyranny?  I think the rational response from most Americans is that they do not believe the average citizen should have access to powerful and dangerous weapons.  If someone wants a rifle for hunting or a handgun for personal protection, sure, assuming you’re not a lunatic and have a sense of responsibility regarding safe storage, go for it.  But analogous to our limitations of speech not to go around shouting inciteful or profane things, does your neighbor really need a dozen automatic rifles and 12,000 rounds of ammunition?

Please note that I’m asking rhetorical questions designed to have us consider the ‘gray’ areas that the Constitution does not directly address.  To this point I have not actually argued for or against the merit of any of the amendments I discussed.  Eric has argued that a Constitutional amendment is the only way implement gun control law.  If that is the case, we will need many many constitutional amendments to deal with other areas of the constitution that do not prescribe clear guidance.  

Eric’s final word:

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU:

While I put no more weight into the question of how many weapons (and of what type) are ‘sufficient’ than I do if you replace ‘guns’ with ‘cars’ (which incidentally can also kill people), I agree we could all use a little clarity and ask, if it were up to you, how would you rephrase the 2nd Amendment to preserve liberty and improve safety?  And remember, we are looking for answers that will stay relevant for at least 200 years so I can go back to watching videos of kittens being adorable.  Can’t wait to see what you come up with!