Related to: List of public drafts on LessWrong

I want to talk about democracy.

I do so here because I don't think this is mind-killing. And I sure feel some rational debate about it would be educational, for me mostly, since there are so many great minds here and... I will come clean, I think democracy isn't that great, considering this how is it possible that I am but ignorant? Or possibly evil. But before I can explain why I think as I do, I need to see why people think it is great. Who knows, maybe I've missed something vital? Or maybe people don't like democracy already but they believe that they do. Or maybe I'm wrong about how popular such doubts are on this site, beyond a small but assuredly not tiny minority.

Now obviously there are doubts and doubts. Saying that democracy as it is in the West has problems, but only because it isn't true democracy, isn't what I mean by "doubting democracy" at all. To give an analogy I see this as like doubting communism by saying that what we are doing clearly isn't true communism, this is why the 5 year plan has failed comrades! Those darn counter-revolutionary forces sabotaging us! Those darn undemocratic influences subverting our states. Indeed there are striking parallels about how true democracy should work great in theory but has never ever been fully implemented and how communism is great in theory but Communists never ever seem to be able to fully implement it.

And all ills stem from there not being enough Communism or democracy or piety. So to avoid true Scotsmen (surely wise as they are a bloodthirsty violent drunken lot, at least the true ones are) let me define casual use of democracy here. Let me even admit that pure or real or direct or whatever kind of untested democracy you prefer may work better than what I'm going to describe. Aren't I criticizing because I think something better is possible? Your special brand of democracy might just be it!

So I'm going to start in Europe. Central Europe to be specific. I do this for two reasons. Firstly because I'm Slovenian and this is what I know and live in. If Americans can make casual assumptions about what is and isn't a key feature of Parliamentary Democracy when talking government, I think I can make them too. Maybe this will make it easier for readers to detect and dissect my cached thoughts? Or maybe think about unexamined beliefs of their own. For example did you know that many modern western Parliamentary democracies have, even one very close culturally to the US, weak separation of powers? Or don't really have free speech as you know it? Please don't tell this to any aspiring Pentagon officials, they might try to fix us with bombs! Though I will admit this was needed previous time around. Secondly because educated opinion in America and Europe seems to admire the idealized version of this model.

I've discussed this with several democracy advocates (nice normal internet people) and I think an idealized version of the system can be summed up thus: People have different interests. People want to overcome tragedy of the commons situations. People want to avoid men of violence. We want a goodness generating machine. We thus need government. And we would like this government to take into account the interest of all citizens equally. How to do this? I know! Let's have show of hands to decide what we want (only some hands count). The People (a well known Eldritch abomination composed of millions of interacting brains) can pick and choose between different parties and politicians, hopefully based on their program and perhaps merit. In other words people tell the state what they want via elections. I mean we could ask them about their opinions on how to acheive such goals, perhaps even ask them to vote for the party with a nice sounding means of doing something, but they are rather ignorant sometimes aren't they? Sure they will also decide to vote on how to do stuff too, but don't encourage them too much, I'll explain why shortly.

Wouldn't it be better to leave the how to the experts? Perhaps even noticeably include them in public debate preceding the adoption of new laws or policies? Not only does this keep the experts somewhat accountable, it educates the public! My we are on a roll. So we have The Politicians chosen by The People who consult and hire The Experts to do what is needed to fulfil the goals they presented to The People during elections. Often politicians are more electable and trusted if they are experts in something besides politics themselves, this should make them better able to know how to find experts and how to judge their work. Why do we need the experts though? Well it turns out that politicians have a nasty incentive to distort the actual effects of the policies they endorse, these effects may not match the effects sought by the people. The idea is that experts (coming mostly from academia), have a certain truth seeking reputation to uphold. At least technically academia should be a truth seeking machine. Also the preceding public debate covered by a fair and balanced free media keeps them somewhat accountable and gives The People or at least the interested citizens a chance to see what is going on with the state as it happens.

...

[ !!Public draft -- work in progress!! ]

Feel free to comment on the contents. I've decided to keep it here to avoid both the vanishing spaces bug and because I want feedback as I go along. If you are making a response to a draft I suggest any direct comments quote the text they are referring to since it may change at any moment. No one expects frequent edits, their chief weapons are surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.. no wait that went wrong somewhere.