Issues due to the size of polities

Thank you, Mr Weber. That was exactly what I was looking for. And it - not the post itself, but the detailed thought you obviously put into it - explains why, far more than the action and technical aspects of your books, I enjoy your insights into the socio-cultural aspects of the human condition.

So, once again, thank you.

I've heard that "Eric The Red" came from someone calling him a pinko. To which he replied "I'm not a pinko, I'm a Red".

Now, having read and re-read Mr Weber's post, and having dispensed the appropriate (but completely truthful and heartfelt) praise, I think it's time to respond.

I think the most significant weakness of any kind of representative government is innate to its representative structure. It's like Mr Weber said, when politicians are aware that they can hold on to their positions of power and influence only for as long as the voters who had elected them in the first place are satisfied with their job performance, then the temptation to champion (and, if part of the majority faction in the legislative body, implement) policies and programmes that will meet with popular approval. The inherent problem with that is, of course, that what might be popular with voters does not always equate with what is best or fairest for the voters or the state.

One example I can think of offhand is the same-sex marriage debate in the States, but I suspect that that would incite a flame war, so let's not go there.

Still, the fact remains that, through any of a myriad of methods, it is relatively easy to influence popular attitudes regarding any particular subject, and we know that this happens all the time. It's part of the democratic process that special interest groups will attempt to influence the outcome of elections in favour of their own agendas and interests. And of course, having supportive candidates elected to positions of power is but one of the ways in which such special interest groups can influence (or even outright determine) government policy. However, it is also undeniably true that quite often such special interest legislation or policies will prove quite costly for society at large. Of course, the converse is also true, and I'll be the last to deny that.

But that's besides the point, to be quite honest. The fact that every elective politician depends on popular approval for re-election means that, most of the time, he or she will keep one eye on the media and opinion polls, in order to gauge the public mood. That not only distracts them from doing their job properly, but also means that doing their job frequently becomes secondary to staying in the voters' good books.

I have a lot more to say on this question, but will stop for now so as to give others a chance to respond. After all, my grandmother taught me good manners.

Bravo RFC for articulating the advantages of an aristocracy.

While I am philosophically amendable to some aspects of aristocracy or at least a return to the original Constitutional provision of having Senators appointed by the State governments than popularly elected, the extremely high incumbency rate in Congress demonstrates that the US is degenerating into a pseudo-aristocracy. Even worse, this aristocracy is enabled by pork barrel and wealth transfer programs that effectively buy the campaign financing of the rich and the votes of the poor.

Even more alarming about the evolution of the US political system is the policy discontinuities that result from partisan political games played by certain politicians who feel free to play such games because they are virtually invulnerable to a challenge to their incumbency. A classic example is Senator Edward Kennedy who knowingly and intentionally sabotaged the Iraq reconstruction fund by inserting a provision to impose peace time procurement rules. That reconstruction fund request was the result of the Bush adminstration's belated realization of the errors in their strategic thinking. They had finally (months, not years) understood that Iraq was essentially a socialist society whose people could not make a rapid transition to capitalism. Furthermore; it was classic Keynsian (as opposed to Kenyon) economic theory that should have been reflexively supported by Kennedy. All blathering about Dick Cheney and Haliburton cronyism notwithstanding, Kennedy'smotive for his obstructionism was obviously motivated by a desire to destabilize Iraq and promote an insurgency that would discredit the Bush presidency and thus brought Obama to power.

I can easily see how a hereditary aristocracy and even a monarchy might be a desirable political institution that would avoid such profoundly destructive, political posturing.

hanuman wrote:I think the most significant weakness of any kind of representative government is innate to its representative structure. It's like Mr Weber said, when politicians are aware that they can hold on to their positions of power and influence only for as long as the voters who had elected them in the first place are satisfied with their job performance, then the temptation to champion (and, if part of the majority faction in the legislative body, implement) policies and programmes that will meet with popular approval. The inherent problem with that is, of course, that what might be popular with voters does not always equate with what is best or fairest for the voters or the state.

Here Here. We need people to decide whats bes tfor the nation, problem is who decides the best course?

namelessfly wrote:While I am philosophically amendable to some aspects of aristocracy or at least a return to the original Constitutional provision of having Senators appointed by the State governments than popularly elected, the extremely high incumbency rate in Congress demonstrates that the US is degenerating into a pseudo-aristocracy. Even worse, this aristocracy is enabled by pork barrel and wealth transfer programs that effectively buy the campaign financing of the rich and the votes of the poor.

Thank you, about the senate statement. Another with the eyes open, i have argued this for years but no one listens. RFC also covered that in the thread about the breakup of the SL.

I actually would love to go to a system of government where 1 person makes all the choices for 5 years, then thats it. Thats all, just 1 person to rule them all. He should be the best most intelligent person that can be found. A dictator if you will.
Rome did this during the Pax Romana until the period of Nero, the Emporer would adopt the best boy in the realm and he was the successer.

Now how do we select the best? That is the issue...

"Gentlemen,
Democracy is a very bad form of government...
...the problem is, all the others are so much worse."

<grin>

(forgive any paraphrase - I didn't go look it up.)

dreamrider

Commodore Oakius wrote:I actually would love to go to a system of government where 1 person makes all the choices for 5 years, then thats it. Thats all, just 1 person to rule them all. He should be the best most intelligent person that can be found. A dictator if you will.
Rome did this during the Pax Romana until the period of Nero, the Emporer would adopt the best boy in the realm and he was the successer.

Now how do we select the best? That is the issue...

I once read a story (years and years... decades?... ago) where the leader was selected (by a random selection process in a computer) from a qualified pool of *everyone* (qualified as in no criminal convictions, etc.), and was usually dragged kicking and screaming into the "presidential" office.

Seems about as valid as what we currently have in Real Life™ if a bit more honest.

dreamrider wrote:"Gentlemen,
Democracy is a very bad form of government...
...the problem is, all the others are so much worse."

<grin>

(forgive any paraphrase - I didn't go look it up.)

dreamrider

Yeah yeah, you go right on grinning.

I never argued AGAINST democratic rule. I'm with Mr Weber on this one - a mix of popular and, let's call it aristocratic rule is probably the best form of government to have, for all the reasons both he and others have suggested.

I'd even go as far as arguing that a democratic system in which legislators are elected from distinct electoral districts is much better than a proportional representation system.

However, the danger is that, with the former, too often the legislature is gridlocked and the executive officer has to find other ways to actually govern, such as executive orders or regulations. (The US of A?)

On the other hand, when you have a proportional representation system in which the electorate votes for party-nominated lists of candidates, you get a situation in which parliament simply cannot exercise its nominal power to hold the executive officer accountable for his actions - because the ruling party's representatives are obligated to vote in line with their orders from the party executive or loose their jobs. (South Africa)

hanuman wrote:

dreamrider wrote:"Gentlemen,
Democracy is a very bad form of government...
...the problem is, all the others are so much worse."

<grin>

(forgive any paraphrase - I didn't go look it up.)

dreamrider

Yeah yeah, you go right on grinning.

I never argued AGAINST democratic rule. I'm with Mr Weber on this one - a mix of popular and, let's call it aristocratic rule is probably the best form of government to have, for all the reasons both he and others have suggested.

I'd even go as far as arguing that a democratic system in which legislators are elected from distinct electoral districts is much better than a proportional representation system.

However, the danger is that, with the former, too often the legislature is gridlocked and the executive officer has to find other ways to actually govern, such as executive orders or regulations. (The US of A?)

On the other hand, when you have a proportional representation system in which the electorate votes for party-nominated lists of candidates, you get a situation in which parliament simply cannot exercise its nominal power to hold the executive officer accountable for his actions - because the ruling party's representatives are obligated to vote in line with their orders from the party executive or loose their jobs. (South Africa)

You know that George Washington was offered outright kingship of the USA at least twice, and could have had it in fact if not in name at least once more. He is quoted as saying "I did not defeat George the Third to become George the First."

I have spent some time thinking about how different it would be if he had said "OK, but I have some conditions!"

I even started rewriting the Constitution with a House of Representatives, a House of States, and a House of Nobles. Kind of drew a blank on the amendment process though.

crewdude48 wrote:I even started rewriting the Constitution with a House of Representatives, a House of States, and a House of Nobles. Kind of drew a blank on the amendment process though.

I think the drafters of the US Constitution (the Founding Fathers?) got it just right with the existing amendment process. It's just difficult enough to amend the Constitution to make frivolous change next to impossible, but not impossible to enact necessary change. Also, it has the advantage of requiring large enough majorities that a general consensus has to exist before an amendment can be enacted, which has obvious advantages in terms of popular acceptance thereof.

In South Africa any amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both the National Assembly AND the Council of Provinces, except for the First Chapter of the RSA Constitution (the so-called Bill of Rights), which requires a three-fourths majority in both Chambers of Parliament. Also, the Constitution clearly states that that three-fourths requirement for amending the Bill of Rights may under no circumstances be itself amended.