Declining trust in government is denting democracy (2017)
economist.com
economist.com
Even in cases where total government power is theoretically reduced say outlawing municipal broadband it’s less about reducing overall power as it is leveraging control in one area and extending it to another. In effect it’s a power grab at the state level at the expense of local governments. The state can of course change their mind at any time.
On the other side of the isle when legalizing pot, it’s not considered enough to simply make it legal and move on. Suddenly they replace one law with hundreds by micro managing exactly what’s allowed and what hoops people are forced through. In effect it’s an extension of government power into a previously unregulated though illegal industry.
Fir enough. Put it another way. People look at this institution which can't balance a budget, is typically controlled by lunatics between 30-60% of the time and which apparently nobody really trusts. And it is controlled by billionaire oligarchs and the worst of the entrenched business interests.
They then think "gee, this is the group I want to actively administer my municipal broadband. Nobody better!".
I'm fairly open that I don't like governments. But how do the people who don't trust the thing square that with then calling for it to be actively involved in all sorts of random stuff? What is the thought process here?
That’s not to say their correct, but I am saying what’s actually happening is a power grab even if it’s spoken of as reducing power.
The issue with this is that most people, and even economists (well, mostly old economists rotting away from the research and debate the field is having right now) don't understand that you don't make a government budget like you make a home budget. Hell, you don't even make a government budget like you make a multinational company budget. People who don't even try to understand how bank works should not have any say in this.
Second, you're making this argument to advocate for more spending. You're not referring to the alternate rules. So let's see: what are the rules for central bank spending, and what do they say now?
The alternative set of rules: spending inversely proportional to the distance between inflation and the inflation target (ie. 2%). Inflation is over 2%, yes, sounds unbelievable but it is [1], hence ... the central bank should seriously CUT it's budget. It should NOT spend at this time (well ... spend less, for now).
So people make this argument only insofar it benefits more government spending. If one were to describe the current spending situation "due to lack of inflation in the past 10 years or so, the government has massively increased spending through the central bank, if the recent inflation doesn't back down in 2-3 months or so, the central bank budget will need to be cut by a LOT, and soon".
What the rules say, is that the government, in the last 10 or so years (a bit less), should have used tax money to lower the national debt and now should increase that debt (and raise taxes in 2-3 years) to spend.
The FED, btw, has already announced they will in fact be cutting spending by a lot next year, BTW. They are scared they have severely overdone it, so I would be expecting a large cut rather than a small one. So you're warned. The government (including, for that matter, EU governments) will be cutting spending next year, you won't get a raise, but inflation will rise. Except, perhaps, if you're living in one of the countries that benefit from this (last time especially Australia spectacularly benefitted: they bought their way out of the housing crisis, essentially for free).
[1] https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_inflation_rate#:~:text=US%....
I believe Ron and Rand Paul do indeed want that.
Paul's 2016 plan would have set the Pentagon budget to $697 Billion, a significant spending increase. Honestly though +/- even 30% is largely irrelevant in terms of military budgets. Look up what it would take to drop us to even 2nd place in military spending.
Though even a 90% cut would still allow for a truly US frightening military so it’s hard to quantify.
The useful thing about the talking point is that it gives full license to the politician about what to cut if they implement it. If what you really want to cut is the EPC and medicare, well, that's what people are clamoring for. Apparently.
we need human-scale and human-accountable institutions, not conglomerates amassing more and more power against the populace. when considered more deeply, no human endeavor really requires extra-human concentration and centralized control, no matter how much justification is put forth. there's no insurmountable reason a mars mission or pandemic response, for instance, can't be loosely coordinated among small and medium sized organizations, rather than a single, or a few, large institutions.
to get those kinds of human-scale and responsive institutions, we each have to actively work to keep organizations in check, each in our own little way. it's a literal sisyphean task, but one that we can't collectively shirk without dire consequences, as we've seen throughout history. it's an integral if inconvenient part of the human condition.
We should probably try to find the real measure - preferably one that isn't based on recency bias, because the news will always print the worst they can get[0].
[0]: It is important to face the discrimination African Americans feel, and deal with the US police problems, but I have no doubt those problems are a lot smaller today than they were in 1970.
why not outcomes based? After all, good outcomes are what people want. Directly measuring outcome, rather than indirect methods like "trustworthiness" means those should improve.
The real challenge here is not at all a practical one, it's a power problem, those who have the power and control … at all the different levels … have absolutely no interest and jealously will combat the actual tracking and recording of things like whether they are protecting, violating, or defending human rights; because they very well would not fare well under the scrutiny of a truly objective evaluation. Those who have power have zero appreciation for anything that will weaken the perception of their power, because most power is a psychological thing.
First-Past-The-Post, or any winner takes all election deeply distorts election results and worse, it prevents many people from even running in the first place because of the accusations of vote splitting.
There are better systems of voting used all around the world that create less divisive governments.
The challenge is how to make electoral reform happen. Those who are elected with FPTP are in a conflict of interest with electoral reform, and referendums are often divisive and can be hijacked by people looking to maintain the status quo. Electoral reform is complicated and every system has its flaws, so ideally you convene a Citizens' Assembly (https://nationalcitizensassembly.ca/) to have an informed and deliberative process to make the recommendations on electoral reform. This process works for local, state/provincial, and federal levels.
If you wanted this in your city, you could get people to call on your city councillors to make this happen locally, and eventually once people have more experience with things like Single Transferable Vote, or whatever variant works best for your constituency, then people will want it for other levels of government.
BTW, this also works for other small elections like condo boards, school council, etc. Anything is better than First-Past-The-Post.
Congress is 40% lawyers [1] whereas the national lawyer population os 0.2% [2]. This is actually much better than in the mid 19th century where 80% of Congress were lawyers.
About 52% of Congress are millionaires, whereas only ~7% or so of the public are millionaires [3].
Even though a record number of women serve in Congress, it's still 27% compared to roughly 50% of the public.
Around 61% of Congress is 50 years old or older [5], whereas the number for the US population is around 34%.
The people who claim to represent us in Congress are not really representative of us at all.
1: https://thepractice.law.harvard.edu/article/declining-domina...
2: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2...
3: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/06/08/fac...
4: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/15/a-record-nu...
That's not to say that it isn't worth monitoring people's trust in government, civil liberties, political culture, etc., just that there's no really good way to do that.
Not trusting them to execute the will of the majority means you dont believe you are a democracy.
But I guess not trusting them "blindly"?
My interpretation would be that distrust in government usually causes a raise in cheap populism and many heavily populist leaders tend to be more authoritarian.
OK, first of all, whether A trusts B has no bearing on whether B is trustworthy, which should only be based on facts and not what A thinks. A could be driven by fear and mislead by misinformation.
Secondly, on the opposite end, is it democractic if there exists a widespread, blind trust in the government?
The word for a healthy mistrust is skepticism.
Maybe the citizens in a constitutional, parliamentary democracy should always be skeptical of what their elected and non-elected public servants are doing.
If there is a widespread mistrust which is rationally based in too many government activities and decisions being behind closed doors, that does seem to point to a dent in democracy.
yes it is. Whether the trust is blind or based on reason, as long as the choice had been with the people's vote, it is democratic.
For some reason, some people assume that democracy will somehow produce the best outcome for them. Democracy doesn't automagically produce good outcomes. Democracy requires that each voter to be rational and informed, and requires the voting system to not exhibit bias (which the USA certainly does - first-past-the-post sucks). And even then, those two requirements only produce an outcome which is representative of the will of the people, rather than a good outcome for all (such as good equality, wealth distribution, etc).
In that sense, you are agreeing with me because what I wrote is also that democracy requires a rational constituency (that therefore doesn't exhibit blind faith in government).
Though you thought you would be writing statements which disagree with mine, as you can see it is difficult to get away from the idea that democracy must be defined by the good outcome, and not the political motions and trappings that are supposed to cargo-cult it into existence. Dictatorships have pseudo-democratic "votes" also.
Consider that the bulk of the power structure of a modern "free world" government is not elected. The elected cabinet is like a squad of midget toreadors armed with whips, where the government is a 50,000 pound bull.
If people lose faith in their govenment, they no longer hold it to a high standard, believe in sincerity of government agents, and as a result are less engaged in democratic processes and aren't able to make high quality voting descisions. Sincere do-gooders won't run for office, and instead power-hungry people who can stomach the public distaste for government will run. A spiral of cynicism and distrust also enables actors with antidemocratic agendas like populist parties and strong-man leaders to capture power.
The title is in essence a cypher or "speaking in code"; it means something rather different to people who have the correct key. I don't mean that in any condescending way, but that is what it is. Just read it as "Declining trust in {condition of control} is denting the {conditioning of control}" … "Declining trust in the rider is denting the obedience of the horse"
It's essentially like when parents speak in euphemisms or use substitute words to convey the actual meaning. The difference being though that it's also a kind of activation phrase or trigger phrase to execute a certain preconditioned sequence in different audiences; e.g., "that person gives me stuff when I vote for him, therefore I need to keep being able to vote, which makes democracy a 'good' thing that I need to protect". It's something that certain people have long ago figured out and have a long history of using to manipulate people and things in their favor. Once you start understanding just how sophisticated it all is, it's hard to not be utterly impressed by it. THAT's the real nature of the "simulation" theory and also why the reaction to the "NPC" meme was so harsh and disproportionately swift. When you have people in mental Matrix pods living a life they are not even aware is controlled by outside forces, let alone is a ruse, and you are totally dependent on that system remaining in place to continue living a life of excess and decadence; you will do anything to keep it that way. I hope we will get to the point one day where people realize this … realize that the core that manifested itself as slavery and serfdom and feudalism really never ended, it just pivoted, as we call it here.
It may make a lot more sense to people when you read the headline as "Declining trust in the divinity of/dependency on the ruling class is denting the system of psychological control over the serfs" … and you realize it is meant to activate the above sequences that concludes that democracy is "good" because it leads to free stuff.
I don't know how you managed to weave in the private corporation Twitter banning an organized brigade of troll accounts as evidence of anything, but NPC Twitter accounts were used to basically say "people I disagree with aren't real people, they all say the same stuff!".
Another way to look at it, the NPC meme is "if everyone is an asshole, it's probably just you" but told from the asshole's point of view.
There is a perverse incentive in government to use all of the "resources" (tax dollars) that they have access to. Normally this kind of incentive is counter balanced by competition (the competitor that can do more with less has a better chance of winning), but in this case, the government is a monopoly. They have no competitor threatening to usurp their role.
And where is the accountability? When things aren't getting accomplished with tax dollars, the answer is always "more." Who is holding the spenders accountable for us?
My take on this is that it's because government doesn't scale in a simple way with the biological population size, unless we understand government as simply serving the biological needs of the population. The government serves the noosphere: kinda like a biosphere, but the sum of all ideas, reason, language, memes, thought and innovation of the society. The noosphere just happens to live [mostly] in the biological minds of the population, but it's not growing linearly like population is, and is probably becoming more complex and higher dimensional in a nonlinear way. The world doesn't just accrue humans, but rather it accrues (often via tech augmentations) the capacity of each human to process more, and so the world complexifies (is that a word? ha)
Anyhow, not saying this is how it should be, or needs to be, but I def am not personally surprised or indignant about government failing to see scaling benefits we see elsewhere. I also suspect this is related to how government's in charge of many more things than corporations, which often can't be re-classified as externalities
I dunno maybe I'm wrong-headed here * shrug *
For example. If you think the role of government is to regulate pairwise interactions among people, then government should scale as O(N^2) where N is population.
There's a lot I don't agree with Marx on, but I think he was right on the aspect of alienation.
Well... (noting the date) not anymore at least.
aka, try stealing, and you get arrested.
Profits aren’t somehow defined as theft, despite all value being produced by the labour of workers, who are paid a fraction of the value they produce.
only if you believe that the capital being used to produce value - including the wages being paid upfront - are valueless.
Also, does a fixed initial investment entitle one to a fraction of all future (variable) value produced? Why?
The new capital is _produced_ by the workers, but it was done with initial capital that is _owned_ by the capitalist. So unless you agree that these initial capital is not worth anything (despite it being required), how can _all_ capital belong to the workers that made it? After all, the workers agreed to receive their wage in exchange for producing, using the seed capital supplied by the capitalist.
Yes, this appropriation is central to the capitalist idea of ownership. Another word for that is theft.
However in response to your point and in fairness to OP you can’t in the overwhelming majority of places decide where your money goes. It’s just pooled and used for whatever government wants to do with it. This is what most people have a problem with.
Personally I can see the merit in having some shared system but it should voluntarily always. Compelling people’s money through state sanctioned force which includes fines and imprisonment is sick. It promotes a parasitic relationship with government where people don’t feel part of it. Instead they feel smothered by it.
From this, would it be logical to conclude that at least three people believe that this is not a good idea?
You paid $10k of taxes this year? Here's for you a free pass to all national parks.
You paid $50k? Here's the card - similar to the one police officers give to their wives - that lets you get off minor infractions.
Small tokens of appreciation often go long way.
That aircraft carrier might be the big weight in a trade negotiation or prevention of a regional conflict which could escalate.
Representative democracy should work better, because you (the voter) judge based on the outcome, and vote, rather than try to understand every possible policy (which is going to overwhelm any individual anyway).
Why productive, able-bodied persons to live in a democracy is puzzling.
Maybe they've never heard of private government, or think they can beat the system and steal through government redistribution more than they pay in taxes.
In Fort Collins CO the gov't owns 100% of parking. So if you have a parking violation that you haven't payed you are essentially blackballed from parking in the entire city. It's a government monopoly. And there are big brother parking enforcement trucks driving around that do mass readings of license plates with cameras and print tickets on the spot.
My home: St Tammany parish LA, has the highest number of prisoners in the state, in a state that has the highest imprisonments in the country, in a country that has the highest imprisonments in the world. My home is the king of imprisonments.
A commission was done years ago to determine how many LAWS are here are in the U.S. and they gave up! Google 'how many LAWS are there in the U.S....Meanwhile ignorance of the law is no excuse for citizens.
Police everywhere are getting actual military gear. The ACLU has a whole section of their website on militarization of police.
Student loans are by federal law unable to be bankrupted out of. (One of the very few loan types like this). And one of the main reasons college tuitions are so inflated compared to the CPI... is the easy availability of student loan money. It's a self re-enforcing problem caused by the government.
The company I'm working for is gov't funded and is millions of dollars in the hole and years behind schedule on a project and still the money printer go brrrr.
Property taxes are causing people who have lived in their house for generations to lose their house.
Zoning controls peoples homes to the minutest detail. You can lose your house for not 'fitting the neighborhood character'... character that was established before ZONING existed to enforce it.
Our law enforcement agencies are: the CIA, FBI, NSA, TSA, DEA, ATF, state police,county police, metro police, city police, etc.
Just a few examples.
The gov't is way out of control in this country in my opinion but we're boiling the frog so people don't notice the problems and gradual restriction of their freedoms.
The govt also has the appearance of being 'for the people' because we vote for it.. meanwhile lobbying and private interest funding of politicians has increased massively after citizens united... and gerrymandering is so commonplace that politicians basically draw their own districts.
Also heard some stories about Livingston PSO but can't repeat them online.
So all of the money Saint Tammany parish police makes from tickets goes directly back into their police coffers. Not into the Arts, or road repair or anything.
This creates a perverse incentive for them to write more tickets to to make more money.
Good luck to you. If you're white and don't dress alternatively or like a skateboarder you'll probably have less problems.
I would drive around New Orleans for years and never get hit for brake tags or anything but if I went across to St Tammany for literally a weekend I would get slammed.
Hopefully you can get that taken care of. Small Town cops don't have anything else to do but traffic law.
All that's to say that any given law was decided by a fraction of the population some time ago -> meaning it's a continuously decreasing fraction of population that was represented in this or that law.
This realization is why I have very little buy-in into any modern governance. Either I get an equal vote on all existing rules the moment I become a citizen or your government is just tyranny by another name.
And then once they're in office they can gerrymander their districts and essentially secure their position forever.
Is it really the citizen's fault?
My favorite part about your comment is how optimistic you are that a citizens vote actually matters.
That people consider it a democracy is itself a joke - I can't wait for Delhi to fall (which it inevitably will, once the thieving babus and judges have nothing left to suck dry and flee to Europe and US, like Pakistan's generals).
Democracy in India sucks - I pay thousands of dollars of taxes all so as to wade through sewage filled roads and for these morons to invoke communal hatred for votes day in-day out, all while nothing changes and everything becomes worse and more electronically controlled.
Worse still, I can't even move to the other English-speaking countries, considering the level of visceral hatred there for Hindus.
(Forgive the rant.)