> end of story.
Is it? Here's another version I like even more that unsettles democracy dogmatics: power attracts the corrupt.
Is it? Here's another version I like even more that unsettles democracy dogmatics: power attracts the corrupt.
An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted.
The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the opposite. A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.
The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term is up?
> A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.
The assumption is that the ruler is the elected official. What do you do if the malicious ruler is a corporation and the elected official is just a fungible subordinate?
Group A invests millions of dollars into your campaign.
You go into politics in a debt to Group A that you feel obligated to repay.
You give favorable treatment to Group A in your political career.
Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.
The problem is elections aren't just about donations. Suppose you're not a fan of Zuck/Musk/whoever, or pick your least favorite media conglomerate. Is limiting their financial contributions to a campaign going to meaningfully reduce their influence? Of course not, because it mainly comes from controlling the feed or the reporting, so limiting money is primarily to the detriment of their opponents. This is one of the reasons you hear some talk about "campaign finance" from the media industry -- it lets billion dollar media corporations pretend they're defending the little guy when they're really trying to cement an asymmetric advantage in influencing politics because they can de facto donate airtime rather than money. But they have a mixed incentive, because they're also the ones getting money from the ads and don't actually want the spigot closed, which is probably why it's more talk than action.
And then there's this:
> Group A provides a lucrative contract to you after you leave politics so that they have a good reputation with the other politicians they finance.
Which isn't campaign finance at all. It's also kind of a hard problem, because after someone leaves office, it's reasonably expected that they're going to work somewhere, but then how are you supposed to tell if they're getting a fat paycheck because they're currently providing a valuable service or because they were previously providing a valuable service? It's not like they're going to put "deferred bribe" in the memo field of the check.
>> power attracts the corrupt
> hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies.
But if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna! Embrace limited power
Limited government power is often rightfully challenged as being unbalanced to the tremendous power of non-government entities such as corporations. However, this claim elides that the power and charter of any particular entity is downstream of what is granted and enabled by government functions. Less government power makes for less powerful corporations.
However, once everything is cut down a few notches, will the remaining power still attract the "corrupt?" Yes, power, status and other social markers will still exist and act like a bug lamp for sociopaths. But on the plus side they won't be as able, as you say, "to do that much damage."
0. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
You have this already without term limits. An elected officeholder is given more than enough resources to be enabled to perform her duties, if she wants to. It's a matter of willingness, term limits aren't making things worse than they might otherwise be.
I disagree. Term limits make politicians unaccountable to their constituents and thereby more open to bribes from lobbyists. If they know they can't seek reelection no matter what, they have no motivation not to accept a bribe or disregard everything they campaigned on. On the other hand, when politicians don't have term limits, they must at least worry about their next election campaign and whether the things they're doing right now will ruin their chances at being elected again.
Note: when I say accept a bribe I'm talking about being wined, dined and lobbied by lobbyists, not literally accepting bribes that would get them thrown in jail.
Not that there is any specific number we can attach to this, but yes, there are actual idealists who then abused their powers and we know that because there is ample historical evidence of it.
On top of that I know some people personally who were part of the 68 student movement who also have been true idealists in their youth, but since them became defenders of their own order.
(Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition, brutality, and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)
In the real world, there was (and is!) an incredible power game over who decides over what, who gets to live, who must abdicate, how much the real power lies with the King and how much with aristocracy or the Church and so on. It's a constant rebalancing of power factors.
The trouble with representative democracy is that it always selects for the most power-hungry of its denizens.
And now we're in the midst of a situation that Polybius would immediately recognize: The crossroads where one path leads to rule by entrenched and corrupt oligarchs, at least as bad as any of the court eunuchs of old, and where the other path leads to ochlocracy. I'd take my chances with the latter, especially in this era where direct democracy is possible, but I'm afraid that's not likely how things are going to turn out.
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by Brits “voting against the status quo”. That’s what happens any time you change from one party to another in a democracy. Wouldn’t it be more worrying if everyone kept voting for the same party and same policies all the time?
Gordon Brown did an interview with a member of the public and forgot to take his microphone off when he got in the car. He said (in private) he'd just spoken to a biggoted woman. That was broadcast and it lost him the election.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gor...
I'm a bit confused; assuming you are aiming at the US situation with this, I kinda fail to see a clear contrast between entrenched oligarchy and ochlocracy.
Isn't the Trump side a pretty good example of combining both?
Riling up the masses, promoting selfish "got mine" attitude from the top down, partial and weaponized use of the law are basically textbook fits for mob rule?
On the other hand, if you put Harrison or Waltz on a "entrenched oligarch" scale, there is no way they weight as heavy as Trump and his cronies in the current administration, at least in my view? Both of them did an actual job instead of just enjoying a life in the spotlight funded by generational wealth and the work of others...
I'm very interested in conflicting viewpoints-- if you disagree with my perspective, please tell me how instead of just downvoting!
A shattering bow
A burning flame
A gaping wolf
A screeching pig
A rootless tree
A mounting sea
A flying spear
A falling wave
One night's ice
A coiled serpent
A bride's bed-talk
or a breaking sword
A bear's play
or a child of a king.
(Odin listing up some of the things a wise man never trusts, in stanza 85 and 86 of Hávamál)
This… well, I’d urge you to read some English history. I’m choosing English because it’s the one I know best.
It is a litany of power struggles, of brother and sister plotting to kill aunt, uncle and father, nephew cousin, niece and anybody else. Of factionalism in court, bloody takeovers and power struggles. Noble houses vying for position as the monarch’s favoured ones, taking land and riches from less favoured houses, or winning it back. Scions of noble houses at war with each other over succession. Monarchs slaughtering potential usurpers. 9 day monarchies as one successor is positioned against another when the old king died, all based on religious backing…
There were long periods of stability under certain monarchs too, but often these coincide with periods of extrinsic conflict. Sometimes their wars of adventure would come close to bankrupting the country. Other times their choice of who to marry (or divorce) would cause massive loss of life.
They very much select for the power hungry, the venal, the egotistical and those capable of subterfuge and great violence to their own blood.
That's not what the Crusader Kings series tells me. Or Brett Devereaux's description of pre-industrial states as a "Red Queen's race" where the strong had to devour the weak to stay ahead of the competition.
They think we just need more LKYs, or really, AI systems controlling everything. A benevolent dictatorial AI running society is exactly what all the futurists think is coming. Go read Orions Arm.
In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath.
In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests.
In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites.
I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.
The closest we can get is striving to elevate our cultural and spiritual level as individuals, family, friends, neighbours and strangers.
The entire power of the psychopaths in charge all stem from corrupting normal people, and the more that can be avoided, the less power they have.
But it is difficult, because they corrupt our strongest feelings: fear, greed, pride, laziness, desire, community.
Millions of young men have died in senseless wars because they didn't want to be seen as "cowards", they thought of their "honour". Who remembers them now?
Who even thinks about the thousands of young soldiers dying in the battlefields in Ukraine? Why is Trump the only leader who talks about their deaths?
Billions of people are paying taxes to support their psychopath rulers, because of simple fear. If everybody stopped tomorrow, the world would be liberated. But people are held in fear.
Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet).
> I’m not aware of any system that [...]
Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.