Maybe it just boils down to "what's your alternative"? Democracy has all kinds of practical and theoretical/moral issues, but it still seems like the least bad option. Disclaimer: I haven't read all Bryan's writings on this.
If the U.S. abandoned democracy in the near future, what would replace it? My guess is a Trumpian dictatorship, which, I expect, would be worse. So *in practice* I won’t abandon my commitment to democracy; does that make me a *fundamentalist*?
I suspect that, for many people, these kinds of attachments ("democracy") are less logical beliefs and more emotional reflexes. I fear that feminism and 'equity' and expertise/credentialism, etc. are the same. These aren't coherent positions about reality, they're cherished (and extremely fuzzy) concepts that can NEVER be shaken, at least not initially. Belief systems have a way of regrouping and reframing and redefining the issues to protect these kinds of fundamental emotional assumptions.
These kinds of meta-attachments are impervious to change. Instead, change must be made issue-by-issue and assumption-by-assumption. For many believers, their belief rests upon an implicit trust in academia and education and bureaucracies. If you can show that these agents are often dishonest and perverse, and that their recent products are completely unreliable, you can do an end-run around big questions... like the utility of 'democracy.'
Democracy of the ballot box is a deception for the simple reason that the ballot box limits the range of choice voters have. Democracy of the market place is powerful because in a free market many preferences can be accommodated and this allows the superior choices to become dominant.
I believe the founders of America understood this reality and this is one reason they created a "Republic" instead of a Democracy. The Senate and the President were originally not elected by popular vote by by the proxy of States. Good governance is not realized by the changing whims of "voters". It is realized by competition and the original US Constitution established a framework of contention between layers of government and the people.
The trick of the pro "government" faction in the USA was to expand the vote - yeah Democracy - all while diminishing actual competition to government.
The requirement of owning property should have been replaced by requiring voters to have lived in the district for some time, a year or five years. I also like the idea of letting parents vote for their minor children. Both add some skin in the game and some maturity.
Any kind of representative democracy or republic is impossible when governments intrude so much into our daily lives. A single vote every few years has to stand for everything, as if we had to vote once every few years for the single super store we all had to shop at: do we vote for the guy who insists on crunchy peanut butter and hates jeans, or the one who wants a Ferrari in every garage and ranch-style houses?
My Chartertopia solution, my fantasy solution, is a core government which doesn't even have courts or police, and everyone who wants more signs up with associations whose membership contracts spell out what rights members surrender, as if they are wards of the association guardian. The only real restrictions on associations is that members can quit at any time, even with their head in the association's noose, at the cost of losing benefits like Ponzi pension plans and property they signed over to the association; and no one has to join any association.
I can't think of any way for representative democracy to ever satisfy even a tiny fraction of people when a coercive monopoly government controls so much of daily life.
It seems to me that the form of government isn't all that important as long as it's limited. Maybe even very limited. Of course keeping it limited is the real challenge, possibly insurmountable.
I think that is the fundamental requirement, and the fundamental problem. One might be best off asking "what form of government stays limited the best?"
I had thoughts on that before my associations idea. The real problem is that the Constitution government defines itself. Judges decide what is constitutional, legislatures and presidents constantly push the boundaries, and when push comes to shove, they protect each other and their common employers. Thus judges invented judicial absolute immunity and employee qualified immunity in 1967, and prosecutorial absolute immunity in 1976.
I believe several changes would have prevented most of the abuses and expansions.
* Laws must pass by 2/3 vote in all chambers.
* Laws can be repealed by a simple majority in any chamber, and this is not subject to veto.
* Let a simple majority of state legislatures repeal federal legislation, regulations, and actions by that same simple majority of any chamber.
* Let any citizen pay for a jury to judge any legislation, regulation, or action by any government. Isolate them in a room with a pad of paper, a pen (no erasures), and the law, regulation, or activity in question. They write down what they think it does. Then compare all of them. If more than one or two disagree, the law, regulation, or action is voided. No appeal to the court system. And their notes become the final description of that law, regulation or action; no lawyers or judges can come along 50 years later and quibble some new surprise emanation or penumbra into effect.
Note this last one is not nearly as fractious as it sounds, since it does not tie up courts or lawyers, and because citizens have to pay for it. But there are lots of problems too, such as how the jurors are picked and who compares their notes for consistency or similarity. What prevents someone from paying hundreds or thousands of such juries to ponder the same question, knowing that sooner or later he'll hit the jackpot, find disagreement, and get the answer he wants. But I think it is vital to have some way for plain ole citizens to ride herd on the government, and ballot boxes and the government courts are not the way to do it.
In my personal opinion, as long as people think that democracy is still the best alternative despite all its flaws, they avoid seeing its flaws. Because it bothers people to think that the best alternative is so flawed. I think what will bring about the end of democracy is to find a satisfactory alternative to it and convince people of that alternative: like anarcho-capitalism.
For me, sufficient proof to STAY in the Church of Democracy is the success of the Switzerland. More democracy than any other country I know of. And a marvelous economy.
Even one-party-ruled Singapore might have worked out less well in the medium/long run, if the ruling party never had to worry at all about opposition parties.
Thus I stay with St. W. Churchill, who said in the House of Commons, on 11 November 1947 - quoting an unknown predecessor:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Was Churchill drunk when he quoted an obviously better man than he? Just curious.
Switzerland is not great necessarily due its democracy. It's great, rather, more likely due its demographics. That, and the protection a class of psychopathic financiers offer it in not flooding it with heterogeneity, the way they've done to the rest of the White world known collectively as "the West." All of "the West" used to look like Switzerland.
Not sure what you are talking about ( As A German, I have been there). With 4 official languages and "nations", rather incompatible confessions (Calvinists vs. Catholics) - it is THE extreme example of "heterogeneity". Oh, and over a quarter of the population are foreigners - 27.4% end of 2024. Other demographics incl. TFR (below 1.4) are very similar to Germany et al. .
In a way. Otoh: though I can value HBD, Lynn and Emil Kirkegaard, the lines between "ethnic groups" and "races" are blurry. And imho: not that relevant. See: in the USA of 1900, Italians and Irish were seen as "races" much inferior to WASP and very much not desirable as immigrants. (Not to forget the "Jews" -not only in Germany before 1946 and still among many.)
Dubai and Qatar are doing fine with a huge majority of foreigners from Europe, Asia and Africa. (As I worked in that region: the one ethnic group with a non-positive impact are the locals ... ) The three major ethnic groups that constitute the "original population" of Singapore are "racially" at least as "heterogeneous" as Moroccans and Syrians in central Europe - and one is mainly Muslim.
Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson are black and white. So what?
Meritocracy is the answer. If most people from Malawi do not qualify as useful migrants to my country (Caplan says: A contract for work and rent should qualify.): Ok, keep them out. If someone feels compelled to rant "most do not qualify because: low IQ + low IQ because: it is genetic." - may be, but that is NOT the point. If there is one with IQ 110, good English and a great talent for metalwork/plumping/design/nursing/math + clean criminal record: WELCOME! - The problem is not letting in "blacks" or "muslims" - but letting in people without merit. Not letting in those with merit is probably even worse. (For them AND for us.). DEI is racist and sexist as it does not ask for merit but about color and gender and even weirder stuff. That is why woke is bad, even evil.
I'm familiar with this argument that Italians and Irish weren't seen as "White." I'm familiar with the idea Jews weren't seen as desirable. Why would they be? They came by the droves into the US and what was their first order of business?
1. Declare the USA wasn't a European-diaspora creation by Anglo Saxon majority. Rather, it was "a melting pot" - Israel Zangwill
2. The USA wasn't created by a people for a people - no. It was a welfare state, and these lines created by a Jew for a Jewish publisher "Give me your tired masses yearning to be free," were stamped below the Statue of Liberty (which is an Illuminati statue dedicated to Saturn/Illumination/Isis - and if you're inclined to assume this as conspiracy, you can look up pictures yourself, as well as affiliation of sculptor).
3. The creation of the Federal Reserve
4. Creation of the ADL in response to accusations a Jewish pedophile murdered a young 14-year-old girl.
5. "A Nation of Immigrants" written for JFK as a speech.
6. Killing JFK who refused to back down from demanding Dimona be investaged
7. Killing RFK
8. Removal of protections on porn distribution - protections existing to keep cultural influences of the Anglo Saxon majority.
Only one group of people votes, as a group, and perpetuates, as a group, "meritocracy." The biological and philosophical inheritors of those who codified such into law and created the US in the very first place. That's all. Jordan Peterson's, and Thomas Sowell's audiences are WHITE - primarily. I'd bet they're 95% White, but I suppose it might be as low as 80%. All groups not White - and this is whether we're talking 2nd, 5th, 7th generation (and 7th is rare when it's not Black) - male or female - ALL other groups vote 2/3rds for NON-meritocracy.
The only reason there is a DEI in the first place, is due the Bolsheviks who brought it from Frankfurt, Germany. No, they weren't Germans - at least according to themselves. They set up shop at Columbia. You may have heard of them - The Frankfurt School.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it's divorced from the reality of biology - which exists. I was a Libertarian for ages and ages. Then I discovered just how different brains around the world really are, and I discovered that no matter whether you think you like it or not, forced association is constant stress on the amygdala. Constant. Multiracial communities are less cohesive. Less volunteerism. Less charity. Less trust.
You assume, with all other Libertarians, we must "transcend" this somehow. I on the other hand, think Nature has not made any mistakes. We can embrace our tribalism while still being friends with others.
Today - of COURSE we see Irish and Italians, Estonians, Czech, etc. as White. Why? Well ask the Sioux. Ask the Navajo. The Cherokee. Do they see each other as Indians? "Native" Americans? Siberian American tribes united as a people? In a sense, yes they do. Politically, yes, they do. Why?
It's really a no-brainer. The world has shrunk. And Whites, while 25% of the world 100 years ago, are now likely 6-8%. Why? Because of this really silly Univeralism that well-meaning - but obtuse - Universalists hang on to.
The main problem with criticizing democracy is people's rather narrow typical conception of what the alternatives are: monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship, oligopoly in various flavors. I don’t like those either, but I don’t kid myself that democracy, as usually practiced, is significantly different from oligopoly. If we are stuck with oligopoly, then the discussion is about which form is least bad. Trying to discuss actual alternatives is difficult, as they are abstract and speculative, if they exist at all.
It's like leaving the Church of Universalism. You know, the one Libertarians belong to which perpetuates, unwittingly, the Church of Democracy. Being a heretic is never fun. There's a rush of sticking it to whomever it is who tells you this is "The Way," when you can clearly now see it is not. But other than that, it isn't fun. It's lots of work, work, work. Thankless work. Work with real risks those maintaining their faith don't run whatsoever. In fact, they're generally rewarded for not doing so.
Most people never leave. Let's be honest. They never ask, not really, the questions that they don't think of - and even when presented with - won't admit their entire world model might be a lie. If they were to, it'd lead to a very uncomfortable refurbishing over years of time with dangerous and difficult scaffolding, or utterly destroy them. Their psyches know this intrinsically. Voila. Only few are heretics.
Seems unstable - people would vote to be able work at the job they choose (Albanians hated that part of their communist past even more than the set pay). You end with political democracy plus mostly capitalism (limited by rules and taxes). Obviously, that's why "voting" in socialist countries is a ritual devoid of meaning. - While the current system in China allows for enough markets to keep the populace busy - would Caplan endorse it as "capitalism without democracy" ... dunno.
Every US president of the 21st century has embraced the self-justification of being a benevolent monarch. Sadly, this hasn't ended the plundering of the American people or the globe.
Maybe it just boils down to "what's your alternative"? Democracy has all kinds of practical and theoretical/moral issues, but it still seems like the least bad option. Disclaimer: I haven't read all Bryan's writings on this.
If the U.S. abandoned democracy in the near future, what would replace it? My guess is a Trumpian dictatorship, which, I expect, would be worse. So *in practice* I won’t abandon my commitment to democracy; does that make me a *fundamentalist*?
What is the summary of your position? I feel like I'm late to an old argument...
I suspect that, for many people, these kinds of attachments ("democracy") are less logical beliefs and more emotional reflexes. I fear that feminism and 'equity' and expertise/credentialism, etc. are the same. These aren't coherent positions about reality, they're cherished (and extremely fuzzy) concepts that can NEVER be shaken, at least not initially. Belief systems have a way of regrouping and reframing and redefining the issues to protect these kinds of fundamental emotional assumptions.
These kinds of meta-attachments are impervious to change. Instead, change must be made issue-by-issue and assumption-by-assumption. For many believers, their belief rests upon an implicit trust in academia and education and bureaucracies. If you can show that these agents are often dishonest and perverse, and that their recent products are completely unreliable, you can do an end-run around big questions... like the utility of 'democracy.'
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/documented-facts
Democracy of the ballot box is a deception for the simple reason that the ballot box limits the range of choice voters have. Democracy of the market place is powerful because in a free market many preferences can be accommodated and this allows the superior choices to become dominant.
I believe the founders of America understood this reality and this is one reason they created a "Republic" instead of a Democracy. The Senate and the President were originally not elected by popular vote by by the proxy of States. Good governance is not realized by the changing whims of "voters". It is realized by competition and the original US Constitution established a framework of contention between layers of government and the people.
The trick of the pro "government" faction in the USA was to expand the vote - yeah Democracy - all while diminishing actual competition to government.
The requirement of owning property should have been replaced by requiring voters to have lived in the district for some time, a year or five years. I also like the idea of letting parents vote for their minor children. Both add some skin in the game and some maturity.
Any kind of representative democracy or republic is impossible when governments intrude so much into our daily lives. A single vote every few years has to stand for everything, as if we had to vote once every few years for the single super store we all had to shop at: do we vote for the guy who insists on crunchy peanut butter and hates jeans, or the one who wants a Ferrari in every garage and ranch-style houses?
My Chartertopia solution, my fantasy solution, is a core government which doesn't even have courts or police, and everyone who wants more signs up with associations whose membership contracts spell out what rights members surrender, as if they are wards of the association guardian. The only real restrictions on associations is that members can quit at any time, even with their head in the association's noose, at the cost of losing benefits like Ponzi pension plans and property they signed over to the association; and no one has to join any association.
I can't think of any way for representative democracy to ever satisfy even a tiny fraction of people when a coercive monopoly government controls so much of daily life.
It seems to me that the form of government isn't all that important as long as it's limited. Maybe even very limited. Of course keeping it limited is the real challenge, possibly insurmountable.
I think that is the fundamental requirement, and the fundamental problem. One might be best off asking "what form of government stays limited the best?"
That's how I came up with the associations idea. It puts government in a market. Coercive monopoly government can never be tamed for long.
I had thoughts on that before my associations idea. The real problem is that the Constitution government defines itself. Judges decide what is constitutional, legislatures and presidents constantly push the boundaries, and when push comes to shove, they protect each other and their common employers. Thus judges invented judicial absolute immunity and employee qualified immunity in 1967, and prosecutorial absolute immunity in 1976.
I believe several changes would have prevented most of the abuses and expansions.
* Laws must pass by 2/3 vote in all chambers.
* Laws can be repealed by a simple majority in any chamber, and this is not subject to veto.
* Let a simple majority of state legislatures repeal federal legislation, regulations, and actions by that same simple majority of any chamber.
* Let any citizen pay for a jury to judge any legislation, regulation, or action by any government. Isolate them in a room with a pad of paper, a pen (no erasures), and the law, regulation, or activity in question. They write down what they think it does. Then compare all of them. If more than one or two disagree, the law, regulation, or action is voided. No appeal to the court system. And their notes become the final description of that law, regulation or action; no lawyers or judges can come along 50 years later and quibble some new surprise emanation or penumbra into effect.
Note this last one is not nearly as fractious as it sounds, since it does not tie up courts or lawyers, and because citizens have to pay for it. But there are lots of problems too, such as how the jurors are picked and who compares their notes for consistency or similarity. What prevents someone from paying hundreds or thousands of such juries to ponder the same question, knowing that sooner or later he'll hit the jackpot, find disagreement, and get the answer he wants. But I think it is vital to have some way for plain ole citizens to ride herd on the government, and ballot boxes and the government courts are not the way to do it.
“What more would I have to do to shake your faith”
Provide a realistic alternative…and Libertarianism is no more realistic than is Socialism.
In my personal opinion, as long as people think that democracy is still the best alternative despite all its flaws, they avoid seeing its flaws. Because it bothers people to think that the best alternative is so flawed. I think what will bring about the end of democracy is to find a satisfactory alternative to it and convince people of that alternative: like anarcho-capitalism.
Thanks!
For me, sufficient proof to STAY in the Church of Democracy is the success of the Switzerland. More democracy than any other country I know of. And a marvelous economy.
Even one-party-ruled Singapore might have worked out less well in the medium/long run, if the ruling party never had to worry at all about opposition parties.
Thus I stay with St. W. Churchill, who said in the House of Commons, on 11 November 1947 - quoting an unknown predecessor:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
Was Churchill drunk when he quoted an obviously better man than he? Just curious.
Switzerland is not great necessarily due its democracy. It's great, rather, more likely due its demographics. That, and the protection a class of psychopathic financiers offer it in not flooding it with heterogeneity, the way they've done to the rest of the White world known collectively as "the West." All of "the West" used to look like Switzerland.
Not sure what you are talking about ( As A German, I have been there). With 4 official languages and "nations", rather incompatible confessions (Calvinists vs. Catholics) - it is THE extreme example of "heterogeneity". Oh, and over a quarter of the population are foreigners - 27.4% end of 2024. Other demographics incl. TFR (below 1.4) are very similar to Germany et al. .
You're absolutely correct that we can define homogeneity and heterogeneity in several ways. I refer to race. Hopefully that helps clarify.
In a way. Otoh: though I can value HBD, Lynn and Emil Kirkegaard, the lines between "ethnic groups" and "races" are blurry. And imho: not that relevant. See: in the USA of 1900, Italians and Irish were seen as "races" much inferior to WASP and very much not desirable as immigrants. (Not to forget the "Jews" -not only in Germany before 1946 and still among many.)
Dubai and Qatar are doing fine with a huge majority of foreigners from Europe, Asia and Africa. (As I worked in that region: the one ethnic group with a non-positive impact are the locals ... ) The three major ethnic groups that constitute the "original population" of Singapore are "racially" at least as "heterogeneous" as Moroccans and Syrians in central Europe - and one is mainly Muslim.
Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson are black and white. So what?
Meritocracy is the answer. If most people from Malawi do not qualify as useful migrants to my country (Caplan says: A contract for work and rent should qualify.): Ok, keep them out. If someone feels compelled to rant "most do not qualify because: low IQ + low IQ because: it is genetic." - may be, but that is NOT the point. If there is one with IQ 110, good English and a great talent for metalwork/plumping/design/nursing/math + clean criminal record: WELCOME! - The problem is not letting in "blacks" or "muslims" - but letting in people without merit. Not letting in those with merit is probably even worse. (For them AND for us.). DEI is racist and sexist as it does not ask for merit but about color and gender and even weirder stuff. That is why woke is bad, even evil.
I'm familiar with this argument that Italians and Irish weren't seen as "White." I'm familiar with the idea Jews weren't seen as desirable. Why would they be? They came by the droves into the US and what was their first order of business?
1. Declare the USA wasn't a European-diaspora creation by Anglo Saxon majority. Rather, it was "a melting pot" - Israel Zangwill
2. The USA wasn't created by a people for a people - no. It was a welfare state, and these lines created by a Jew for a Jewish publisher "Give me your tired masses yearning to be free," were stamped below the Statue of Liberty (which is an Illuminati statue dedicated to Saturn/Illumination/Isis - and if you're inclined to assume this as conspiracy, you can look up pictures yourself, as well as affiliation of sculptor).
3. The creation of the Federal Reserve
4. Creation of the ADL in response to accusations a Jewish pedophile murdered a young 14-year-old girl.
5. "A Nation of Immigrants" written for JFK as a speech.
6. Killing JFK who refused to back down from demanding Dimona be investaged
7. Killing RFK
8. Removal of protections on porn distribution - protections existing to keep cultural influences of the Anglo Saxon majority.
I could go on - but I'll end right here. So yes, they weren't desirable immigrants. One can read https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/01/14/modify-the-standards-of-the-in-group-on-jews-and-mass-communications-part-one-of-two/ to see why.
Only one group of people votes, as a group, and perpetuates, as a group, "meritocracy." The biological and philosophical inheritors of those who codified such into law and created the US in the very first place. That's all. Jordan Peterson's, and Thomas Sowell's audiences are WHITE - primarily. I'd bet they're 95% White, but I suppose it might be as low as 80%. All groups not White - and this is whether we're talking 2nd, 5th, 7th generation (and 7th is rare when it's not Black) - male or female - ALL other groups vote 2/3rds for NON-meritocracy.
The only reason there is a DEI in the first place, is due the Bolsheviks who brought it from Frankfurt, Germany. No, they weren't Germans - at least according to themselves. They set up shop at Columbia. You may have heard of them - The Frankfurt School.
The problem with Libertarianism is that it's divorced from the reality of biology - which exists. I was a Libertarian for ages and ages. Then I discovered just how different brains around the world really are, and I discovered that no matter whether you think you like it or not, forced association is constant stress on the amygdala. Constant. Multiracial communities are less cohesive. Less volunteerism. Less charity. Less trust.
You assume, with all other Libertarians, we must "transcend" this somehow. I on the other hand, think Nature has not made any mistakes. We can embrace our tribalism while still being friends with others.
Today - of COURSE we see Irish and Italians, Estonians, Czech, etc. as White. Why? Well ask the Sioux. Ask the Navajo. The Cherokee. Do they see each other as Indians? "Native" Americans? Siberian American tribes united as a people? In a sense, yes they do. Politically, yes, they do. Why?
It's really a no-brainer. The world has shrunk. And Whites, while 25% of the world 100 years ago, are now likely 6-8%. Why? Because of this really silly Univeralism that well-meaning - but obtuse - Universalists hang on to.
Why are you sending us posts from 2007?
I am also confused
It's a test.
for?
Don't sweat it! You're the only one to pass so far.
Link to Tale of the Slave is no good.
I was able to get it back using the Wayback Machine
https://web.archive.org/
Hard to convince him of a belief he literally admits is “irrational”!
The main problem with criticizing democracy is people's rather narrow typical conception of what the alternatives are: monarchy, feudalism, dictatorship, oligopoly in various flavors. I don’t like those either, but I don’t kid myself that democracy, as usually practiced, is significantly different from oligopoly. If we are stuck with oligopoly, then the discussion is about which form is least bad. Trying to discuss actual alternatives is difficult, as they are abstract and speculative, if they exist at all.
It's like leaving the Church of Universalism. You know, the one Libertarians belong to which perpetuates, unwittingly, the Church of Democracy. Being a heretic is never fun. There's a rush of sticking it to whomever it is who tells you this is "The Way," when you can clearly now see it is not. But other than that, it isn't fun. It's lots of work, work, work. Thankless work. Work with real risks those maintaining their faith don't run whatsoever. In fact, they're generally rewarded for not doing so.
Most people never leave. Let's be honest. They never ask, not really, the questions that they don't think of - and even when presented with - won't admit their entire world model might be a lie. If they were to, it'd lead to a very uncomfortable refurbishing over years of time with dangerous and difficult scaffolding, or utterly destroy them. Their psyches know this intrinsically. Voila. Only few are heretics.
I wonder if people would pick if their choice was between:
1. political democracy plus economic communism. you must work at the job the government chooses, for the pay they set. but you can vote
2. the current system in China
Which "people"? North Koreans? Thai? Indonesians? Or are you speaking of Icelanders and Inuit? That's relevant.
Seems unstable - people would vote to be able work at the job they choose (Albanians hated that part of their communist past even more than the set pay). You end with political democracy plus mostly capitalism (limited by rules and taxes). Obviously, that's why "voting" in socialist countries is a ritual devoid of meaning. - While the current system in China allows for enough markets to keep the populace busy - would Caplan endorse it as "capitalism without democracy" ... dunno.
Every US president of the 21st century has embraced the self-justification of being a benevolent monarch. Sadly, this hasn't ended the plundering of the American people or the globe.