Thanks for the thoughtful reply BB. Don’t mean to ambush your post here. I’m under no illusion that you want or care about my opinion on this matter. The topic just really strikes a cord. Before I respond, know I’m happy to take down these and my prior comments if you’d like. This is your post...just say the word.
It seems we agree on many things. I’m just not sure we agree on the definition of certain terms.
If you're labeling Nazi Germany a representative democracy, then we have VERY different definitions of what constitutes a representative democracy. The majority of Germans voted Hitler into office, but were opposed to what Hitler did with that power. The problem was, they didn't realize what he intended to do until it was too late. Only after individual rights were stripped, did Hitler start revealing his true intentions. Shortly after, Germany became a dictatorship. At that point, no one could say anything negative about Hitler, or his thugs, for fear being tortured and/or killed. Elected officials were not able to represent their constituents for fear of death. It was actually the polar opposite of a representative democracy and a classic example of a direct democracy morphing into a dictatorship.
Thank you for sharing your post from a year ago. It’s very interesting and well written. That said, I strongly disagree with some of it...at least I think. Again, depends on if we’re defining terms the same way.
If I understand your post correctly, you’re saying those with higher IQ’s should be given more voting power. Basically consolidating power in the hands of a few, but those few would be the most “intelligent”. Of course your idea is more complex, but that’s the end result, correct?
If so, what would stop the few intelligent citizens from just overtly or covertly enslaving the rest?
I think your answer to that is (correct me if I’m wrong), you feel the smartest people will realize the eventual outcome of corruption and choose not to be corrupt. To quote your post,
“...there won't be any government officials who can grab power. The selfish geniuses will be outnumbered by the good ones or outweighed by the even smarter ones. Sufficiently intelligent people won't vote against the interests of the community and they won't forget about the interests of minorities. Why? Because they're clever enough to figure out what will happen if they do. They will be aware that previous and current systems have failed/are failing for that very reason. On a more personal level; they won't want to become the next King Louis XVI or Marie Antoinette”.
Unfortunately, I think history has proven that false. Assuming the majority of intelligent people are also good, moral people (huge assumption), it still doesn’t address the problem of power.
Even the most pure, intelligent, good hearted leaders are inevitably blinded and corrupt by power. It’s as predictable as the sun rise. Even those initially with the best of intentions, inevitably are corrupted if left in power long enough...and no one voluntarily gives up power. Well, almost no one. George Washington did, but only because he knew if he accepted the position of king, he'd be seduced by the same power he'd just fought so hard to be free of.
It’s the very same reason socialism never works. It can be created with the best of intentions, but will ALWAYS fail due to imperfect human nature and centralized power’s unfailing ability to corrupt.
Putting all that aside, the definition of a direct democracy is simply, majority rule. It seems like your definition of a direct democracy is not at all a democracy (as defined traditionally). So again, maybe we’re just defining terms differently?
I certainly don’t have all the answers. While imperfect, it seems a representative democracy (as defined by America’s founders) is the best system humans have created to date. The further away America gets from that, the worse it gets. Blockchain gives us the ability to get America back to a true representative democracy. A place where the feds do not yield more power over my personal life than my local mayor. A place where backroom deals can not take place without the public knowing. A place where lobbyists are irrelevant because the feds no longer have the power to make or break private industry. A place where blockchain allows a true free market to exist and all to be treated equal under the law. "I have a dream....", just joking. I'll leave MLK out of this. 😉
Anyway...I’ve rambled on long enough. Here’s to blockchain ushering in a better system than what we have today. Enjoy your weekend my friend!
Speak your mind freely Workin! I would never censor an alternative view - decentralisation is an important part of building strength and trust!
I don't want to fall into the trap of getting lost in semantics, but I have always defined a representative democracy as one where politicians represent the people at government level. To the best of my knowledge - this is the system that brought Hitler and his Nazi party into power, so yes, I view that case as a representative democracy.
As you said
I did indeed say that those with higher IQ’s should be given more voting power and I still stand by that. Like a Direct Democracy, the idea of having the voting weighted in favour of the intelligent has also never been tried. I believe it will work.
I absolutely agree that power corrupts, but I also agree with my statement that those with the brains to see the outcomes of their decisions will realise that it is in their own best interests to look after everybody - not just themselves. Casual observation and interaction with the ultra-intelligent has led me to believe that this is a correct assumption to make.
In a worst case scenario (if I am wrong), then we end up back where we are now, but at least our rulers will be clever (not like now). One revolution later and we can begin again.
I believe that the inevitable long-term outcome of any system of governance is either:
The only way I can see of avoiding "2" is to give everybody a real and direct say in things. I think that representative democracies have tried and failed. I realise that blockchains may help, but why have a middleman in the system? Work life has taught me that the middlemen are leeches: productivity and money siphoning parasites who add no value.
Look, I'm not totally against some sort of "man in charge", and I support the noble vision of America's founding fathers. I just think that the modern world is too different and too greedy for that to remain a sustainable system.
I don't expect this all to change within my lifetime, and I doubt I'll ever live to see my dream come to fruition - but right now I'd take even 10% of that dream as a major win.
Thanks a lot for making the effort and taking the time to discuss these ever-so-important topics. I don't care that we may not see eye to eye, I care that we both want what is best for the future. We have time, I'm sure we can work out the details later :)
Re censorship, I was hoping you’d feel that way. I think we're much more like minded than not. That said, I could never back a centralized system. It always ends in disaster. All throughout history, regardless of intelligence or wealth, absolute power ALWAYS corrupts. What's the definition of insanity? We’ve got to get out of that mindset.
On another note, I’m still confused as to how you’re classifying your proposed system as a “direct democracy”. You're proposing minority rule with a high IQ caveat. Regardless of right or wrong, how is that (by any definition) a direct democracy? I'm truly curious as to how/why you're classifying it that way.
It sounds like many of the same centralized systems we’ve seen, just with "intelligent" rulers and a hope the people running it have “good” moral character. There have been countless societies lasting centuries where the intelligent ruling class live like kings, while the rest are basically slaves. Yes that system usually falls, but may last hundreds of years before it does. The ruling class couldn’t care less what happens centuries later. Wise rulers of poor moral character would be happy to just live like kings in the here and now if given the opportunity.
Even if you assume they’d have “good” moral character to start, we know they’ll eventually be corrupted by power.
Your hope that the “intelligent” among us will also understand they should not be corrupt is a great thought. Unfortunately, I’d argue it’s been proven wrong over and over again throughout history. The second those intelligent people are in power, they become a ticking time bomb. Power is like heroin. The wisest among us know they’ll become addicted. Like heroin, power blinds rational thought over time. Intelligent or not, eventually the user will do anything for their next fix.
What has been proven to work is a representative democracy. Here's where our words/definitions may be getting mixed up again.
As I said earlier, I defined a “representative democracy” the same way America’s founders did. A.K.A...a “Republic”. This isn't just electing people to represent and legislate. That’s what all democracies have been doing for years. America was different.
America was based on dividing power into equal branches...each with checks and balances. NOT in name only, but actually backed by a constitution and bill of rights. For many years, America proved that is FAR AND AWAY the best system the world has ever seen.
Today however, we’re seeing revisionist history in full force. Far left judges are completely rewriting/reinterpreting history to fit an ideological goal. They’re re-interpreting the constitution in ways that distort it’s actually meaning. When that doesn’t work, ideological politicians say it’s “outdated”. The checks and balances are ignored or abused when convenient.
This would be fine if we adhered to the literal meaning of the Constitution. It was after all written with the expectation of corruption. The problem is, we don’t adhere to its meaning.
As my Navy friend likes to say, "The problem is NOT the system our Founding Father left us. The problem is, we no longer adhere to that system."
I think he's spot on. This is the problem blockchain could solve. It’s not a middle man. It’s a tool that insures transparency and, by extension, true liberty.
Hitler was initially elected within an essential pure democracy. Yes, citizens had people elected to represent them, but it was basically mob rule. No electoral college. No constitution preventing the wolves from eating the sheep. No REAL separation of powers...simply in name only. That said, even their system wouldn't have allowed for Hitler to become the mass murderer he became. But Germany gave up that system because they believed Hitler and his nazis would fix all their problems. They had no idea what the nazis actually had in mind.
It was only AFTER the mob agreed to suspend individual rights, declare an emergency and give absolute power to the perceived "masterminds” (or most intelligent among them), that Hitler was able to fulfill his perverted fantasy. As much as I'm opposed to the system Germany had before Hitler and the nazis, it was the demolishing of that system and replacing it with a dictatorship which enabled Hitler and the nazis to grab power.
A Representative Democracy (as defined by America’s founders) would NEVER allow that to happen. How do we know? Because we’ve had sick, twisted, power hungry presidents elected in America. Woodrow Wilson attempted to grab power and change the constitution. He actually tried to persuade lawmakers to get “beyond the Declaration of Independence”, going on to say, “it’s of no consequence to us”. He embraced and argued for eugenics. He was, by every measure, a mental tyrant.
Fortunately, America’s founders prepared for that possibility. Wilson (the POTUS) was denied the power he sought to grab by America’s constitutional Republic. There are countless other examples in America’s history.
So we have a tried and true system of government that actually works. It’s not perfect, and can be GREATLY improved on, but it has been battle tested time and again. As long as it’s adhered to, it will work. The second it’s not (as we’ve seen over the past 50 years), the country starts to suffer.
When it does suffer, you can’t blame a system that’s no longer being followed. Instead, we should ask how to get back on track and stay on track, while always trying to improve our imperfections. For that, I believe blockchain is arriving just in time.
Wow...I have no idea why I felt so compelled to respond to your post. Thanks for allowing me to vent BB.
Ha ha, glad you're getting a chance to vent! I think it's healthy to air our views. Even if you or I don't convince one another of everything, others may learn from our exchange.
To respond to your question, my "direct democracy" is not minority rule per se. In my system EVERYBODY gets to vote - directly. But the system is weighted so as to prevent the less intelligent or more uneducated opinions from carrying the decisions in a negative direction as opposed to ensuring a favourable long-term outcome for all.
It is self evident that if you ask a poor person with no education if they would like to pay no taxes at all, they would probably reply in the affirmative. In a country such as e.g. India, these people would greatly outnumber the educated few, and the long-term effects of their self-centred, short-term thinking would be disastrous - even for themselves. Similarly, if you have a history of anti-social behaviour, e.g. if you are a mass murderer, then you are obviously not interested in acting in the best interests of the collective and your ability to decide for everyone else should be penalised accordingly.
Intelligent people are not politicians. They don't all belong to one race, party, social class, gender etc. They are not some sort of pre-assembled cabal who have unified preferences, they are a representative sample of the population. You need not fear them as a group, simply because they are NOT a group. They are those most capable of making good decisions for the rest, so they get a chance to do that - thereby assuring the best outcome for the greatest number. Everyone still votes, but those who can help the most get the chance to do so.
Or let me put it another way: When you let everybody have an equal power vote - you end up with the current mess that most of our Western nations are in.
My take on 1930s Germany was that it was a representative democracy - a multi-party state until Hitler's famous "Night of the Long Knives", where he killed his opposition and then instantly transformed Germany into an autocratic single-party state.
Yeah...We're never going to agree on that system you propose for all the reasons I've listed. Politicians , non-politicians...we have endless examples of power corrupting even the most intelligent and pure at heart.
Your system is not a democracy, but I get your point that everyone has a vote...just not everyone's vote means that much.
Regardless, I remain convinced a Constitutional Republic, representative democracy (as America's founders gave us) is the best form of government BY FAR...again, for all the reasons I outline above.
Anyway...Glad we had a chance to chat. As I said, I think we have a lot more in-common than it may seem. Take care my friend!
Thanks for the contributions my friend. Here's to a better future - whatever that may be!