<DrumBeat: October 2, 2006 The Oil Drum DrumBeat: October 3, 2006>

266 comments on JHK: "A Hard Place"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Nick on October 3, 2006 - 3:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
So, what you're saying is 1)  we have too little democracy, not too much (due to gerrymandering), and 2) we need reform to eliminate gerrymandering, and 3) we need fewer representatives to save $.  Do you feel an increase in district size will also promote democracy?

I understood Nate Hagens to be saying we needed less democracy, and that we need a scientific ruling elite - Prof Goose seemed to agree, and then to say that we needed more representatives.

I have to say I'm baffled by the idea that we need a scientific ruling elite.  I don't think it's an exaggeration (or even disproportionately inflammatory) to say that it sounds like something from 1920's fascist literature, or 1890's socialist literature.  I think scientists like Andrei Sakharov would strongly disagree.

Prof Goose: Do I understand you correctly?  And, if so, what do you suggest as an improvement?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on October 3, 2006 - 4:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, no.  I was saying that representation is so diluted in our current democracy (by having a representative for every 700k in the HoR) that it just further reinforces/allows elite governance.

The problem with democracy, as Madison put it, is that the public will is so subject to emotional decisionmaking that, sooner or later, it will make a decision that is fatal if left to its own devices, hence the creation of the representative republican system.  

In my opinion, we need smaller districts/MORE representatives, which would mean concomitantly a MORE representative government, if we're going to stay with the system we have now that is.  

I would not favor a pure technocracy, though I think that's where we're heading.  A technocratic and corporate elite that controls the massive behemoth of government, whether it's fascist or socialist or whatever, we can all debate that.  

Either way you look at it, the size of government is continuing to grow...and the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order.  Let's see, let me look up the word "reactionary" and "fascist."

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on October 3, 2006 - 11:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"The problem with democracy, as Madison put it, is that the public will is so subject to emotional decisionmaking that, sooner or later, it will make a decision that is fatal if left to its own devices, hence the creation of the representative republican system. "

Of course, Madison was just guessing, as no one had any experience with real democracy at that point.  The original design had senators appointed by governors, the franchise limited to a small % of the population, etc., and yet an expansion of participation has, I think, been clearly an improvement.  Has there ever been any real evidence that there can be too much democracy?

I agree that our recent problems with the "current occupant" have been the result of too little democracy, not too much.

"we need smaller districts/MORE representatives" an intriguing idea, and it kind've makes sense to me.  OTOH, I wonder why the Senate now seems to be the moderating influence over the much larger house?

"the growth that has occurred in the past five years is all attributable to the maintenance of order. "

And yet, it seems clear to me that all this growth of "maintenance of order" has been counterproductive.  The long-term interests of the US would clearly have been better served had we never tried to control the Middle East, starting 60 years ago.  The sooner we give up the illusion of control, the better.

The example of Japan seems illustrative.  They've prospered with no extension of military power at all, just a mercantilist approach.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack on October 4, 2006 - 12:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good post. I have to quibble with this though:

The example of Japan seems illustrative.  They've prospered with no extension of military power at all, just a mercantilist approach.

So now if the U.S. can just get someone else to spend their money to protect them, they can follow the same path.

I think it is inaccurate to suggest the Japan or Europe would have stay unmilitarized if the US wasn't providing their security servcies for them.

If the US withdrew from Asia, Japan's view of self defense would change very quickly, as would that of every other country in the region.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Nick on October 4, 2006 - 11:43am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What I was referring to was the projection of power: the use of military power to influence, dominate or replace foreign governments, such as Guatemala, Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Iraq, etc., etc.

AFAIK, the US defense of Japan really has been defensive, leaving the corporations of Japan on their own to negotiate with other countries.  That has worked very well for Japan economically: their Self-Defence Force has stayed at roughly 1% of GDP, and yet their corporations have been extremely successful. Contrast that with the pre-WWII Greater Japan Co-Prosperity Sphere, or the US's counterproductive projection of power post-WWII.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 4, 2006 - 2:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The senate is more moderate, with fewer extremists from the left and right, precisely because senate seats cannot be gerrymandered.  Senators must appeal to at least some of the middle to be elected in most states.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
alistairC on October 4, 2006 - 4:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I imagine that Madison was thinking of the Athenian experience. That remains (if we agree to overlook the slave-owning aspect) probably the apogee of direct democracy, and it is extremely well-documented (I recommend reading the plays of Aristophanes to get the flavour of it. It reads like something absolutely contemporary, full of anecdotes about corrupt politicians and hypocritical sexual morals. And it's funny as hell).

It's with respect to the conduct of war that democracy posed the biggest problems to the Athenians. They did best when they appointed a dictator for the duration; and they did disastrously badly when the democratic institutions conducted the war themselves.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 4, 2006 - 2:29am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The bicameral sysem does not provide more democracy, only more a) checks and balances, or b) more obstruction.  In CA, at least, one senate seat is precisely two house seats; the same voters are represented in both the house and senate.
My main point is to do away with gerrymandering that creates non-competitive districts.  Changing from 40 senators and 80 representatives to 53 senators is not increasing teh size of senate seats, but reducing their size.  And, it matters not that representatives have smaller districts since the more powerful seneate remains less democratic.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

266 comments on JHK: "A Hard Place"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version