The word _democracy_ sticks in my craw. The USA is not and has never been a democracy. We have a constitutional federal republic, featuring an elected federal legislature and executive. Calling it a democracy was semantic judo by the Evil party, and the Stupid party fell for it.
The form of government is not the objective, it is a tool to get us what we need, government by consent of those governed, with enough liberty that most people can run their own affairs.
Historically we did this by dividing the responsibilities between the levels, reserving police powers to local authorities. Local governments are not less likely to abuse those powers, but if things get too bad people can leave town.
We have centralized government far more than is good for us.
The dictionaries I've looked at all say having elected representatives is a form of democracy. I'm pretty sure Jefferson saw it this way so your reference to evil and stupid parties seems questionable.
Democracy is direct rule by the people. The assembled citizens are the legislators.
You can see it in action at a New England Town Meeting.
The framers distrusted democracy, with good reason. Read up on the stupid stunts that the Athenian Assembly pulled. Condemning Socrates wasn’t the half of it. Majority rule can be tyrannical and capricious.
A dictionary gives the popular definition of a word. Democracy is a technical term.
"A dictionary gives the popular definition of a word. Democracy is a technical term."
The popular definition is the definition. Whether it is technical or not doesn't change that.
Merriam-Webster - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Those are two different forms of government. How do you distinguish between them?
In any case, the framers called our form of government a republic. When asked, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
Technical terms clearly express concepts. I believe that to mangle their definitions mangles meaning generally. Clear communication is difficult enough without changing definitions arbitrarily. It’s a nasty rhetorical trick which too many practice.
Elites choose policies, but in doing so they do not ignore The People: they choose policies that people will not hate so much that they vote (expressively) against them. The People are, very loosely, in control.
“In an ideal country, the stakes in elections would be low, because of constitutional limits on government.” If The People wanted limited government, constitutional limits would be unnecessary. Since The People do not want limited government, constitutional limits are unavailing.
"The public will have modest demands and expectations for government, but they will vote out of power a party that governs poorly. Their voting will be fluid, based on satisfaction or dissatisfaction with those in power; not fixed, based on strong party allegiance."
You prove a little too much. A large portion of the public can still be party-motivated if a sufficient portion of the public is comprised of swing voters who will vote a party out of power if it governs poorly.
Elections are auctions. Which corrupt bunch will offer enough bribes in exchange for votes. And we have a large part of the population too stupid to realise they are being bribed with their own money, because they want to believe it’s somebody else’s.
That’s a better criticism of expanding the franchise to be universal. The problem is the US system has no way to separate votes for money bills from non-money bills ( money bill meaning one raising revenue or appropriating money). Everything needs to get passed by House and Senate, but they don’t represent taxpayers as a category, only tangentially. Instead imagine there were a third House that represented tax payers (use your imagination on how to do this) and any money bill had to be approved by that house. In the simplest case it could just have no vote on any other matters. It makes it much harder for Peter to take from Paul. Though I’m not sure it helps prevent Peter taking from Peter Jr.
You mean no representation without taxation? So do away with the other two houses, just have the House of Taxpayers, do away with universal suffrage so only those who pay income tax can vote.
No. I don't support that. Universal representation is important for some things that government does, like make criminal codes. It's If you only have one house of taxpayers, then it could be like Les Mis where you go to jail for a long time for stealing bread or something. There needs to be some kind of balance.
We already have criminal codes… the Common Law - for centuries. Legislation is not Law, it subverts Common Law to give some - who bribed the legislators - advantages over others. See: lobbying, corporate welfare/ capture.
Especially when all is not open for the public to see and hopefully understand. Burying this or that in a multi hundred page or more Bill will clearly never be seen by the public.
All spending for ex needs to be out in the open, as a line item budget for the public to see.
Mr. Kevin Corcoran reinvents a well-worn wheel? Aristotle gave us a much more careful view in Politics. Polity is perverted when private interest rules; whether the private interest of elite or the poor. Democracy devolves to tyranny when an elite plays to the people's vices and replaces stable law with decrees. The key to good states is virtue in laws and people:
"For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony" (Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Section 1253a).
The notion of limiting government power through a constitution has always seemed particularly sketchy to me. Who enforces the constitution? Why, the government does.
People tend to forget that the Supreme Court is part of the government. And, indeed, it tends to skew very heavily pro-government, from its "Chevron deference" to "qualified immunity" to its whole-cloth redefinition of "interstate commerce" as requiring no more than one state, nor any commerce, etc., etc., etc. This is favored by both major political movements: one positions itself as "pro-law-and-order" and the other as "pro-regulation".
At best, a constitution has cultural force: "these are the principles on which we culturally agree, and there will be a big fuss if the government treads on them".
Over time, governments learn how to de-fang that tool. Between the various protections the Court has invented to protect government agents who violate others' rights, to the cultural drives against key amendments, and the innovation of civil lawsuits that entirely bypass constitutional rights (not clear who invented that first but it was surely perfected in Texas), there are few actual constitutional rights remaining.
It's noteworthy that the reaction to the Texas Maneuver quickly died down: neither major political movement wants to defend constitutional rights, as they would limit the power those movements hope to hold, and the Progressive movement has already been using similar tools for years so it could hardly attack the Texas Maneuver broadly. Instead, both movements have accepted the Texas Maneuver as part of the available set of Power Tools to be fought over.
What remains is competition. The U.S. government was designed to have internal competition for power between the three branches. That structure has largely failed: Congress has ceded almost all lawmaking power to the regulatory agencies - and thus to the Administrative branch - which in turn has brought us to the threshold of having a (for now) election-based dictatorship (aka the Imperial Presidency).
There is still some limited competition for that job. At present, there are still elections for the position, but both major political parties have worked to undermine faith in elections, one by declaring that they are "stolen" and the other by declaring that any effort to secure them is "racist", while both openly practice naked gerrymandering. I trust it's clear that the loud "stolen"/"racist" claims (regardless of any truth they contain) and the "what does it matter how - or if - you vote?" gerrymandering are undermining faith in elections. Of course, even in a post-elections world, there will still be competition - from ancient Rome to medieval Europe to modern Russia, there have always been competitors for the Imperial title; it's just that the competitions tend to be less frequent and more violent.
Lost in all of this is the reason for having constitutional rights and limits on government in the first place. Time and again, countries whose governments have grown without limits, countries that have allowed their governmental powers to be dragged into fights over "religion" (which we now call "culture") or into favoring particular ethnic or racial factions, or favoring one or another sector of their economies (whether industrial sector, agricultural sector, labor or capital) have suffered as a result, often terribly. The Founders wanted the United States to prosper for the long term. Government, with its short-term horizons and power-focused participants, need not share that goal; and the bigger it gets, the greater a prize it becomes for our corporate interests (from companies to industries to unions), culture warriors and ethnic factions to control.
“Time and again, countries whose governments have grown without limits…” Please give me a few examples where this has happened to a democracy. The only one I can think of is Weimar Germany.
Tautologically, the masses will never be elites. The masses will never get to meaningfully participate in designing top down public policy.
But the current system is not remotely ideal. A better political system would give elites less power and give the masses more direct engagement and control over their own lives.
The present elites gain power by forms of cheating and dirty tricks, they aren't entitled to the power that they have, they just took it. I don't mean to stoke emotion and outrage, but that is the reality of democracy in today's world if you wish to understand it.
The US or Europe are not democracies. Leaders say they are democracies to build public buy in and legitimacy, but that's not true. I don't know of a one-word label for the form of government present in US and Europe but it is not a democracy.
The one word is "republic" - "A republic is a state in which political power rests with the public and their representatives,"
Our elected representatives become elite when elected to represent them, "democratically" thru voting (for the Rep or Dem or some other bundle of promises) - tho the reality of an "administrative state", or deep state is not what most folk think they want.
Holcombe: "democracy does not facilitate citizens solving social problems through mutual negotiation and compromise among equals. Because of transaction costs, ... "
We need a better culture of accepting disagreement and more compromise, rather arguing about definitions.
Arnold quotes Corcoran: "A key point Holcombe makes throughout the book is that, to a huge degree, people do not adopt parties based on policy, but instead adopt policy based on parties." This is a key factor in how the parties have become dominated by predatory special interests (grifters). Once committed to a party, voters uncritically accept whatever policies are put forth never mind how specious or implausible the moral cover in which they are packaged.
This is an important point with which I largely agree but commenter John Hall notes that there are also a significant number not beholden to a party who can swing voting outcomes.
I think that importance of ideas is under estimated.
For example, reviewing this ancient theory/demand of popular government . . .
“In time all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Raʹmah.
They said to him: “Look! You have grown old, but your sons are not walking in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the other nations.”
(People want visible leader, not better government.)
“But it displeased Samuel when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” Then Samuel prayed to Jehovah, and Jehovah said to Samuel: “Listen to everything the people say to you; for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected as their king..’’
No desire to change law. Desire to see visible government.
“Now listen to them. However, you should solemnly warn them; tell them what the king who rules over them will have the right to demand.”
So Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king all the words of Jehovah. 11 He said: “This is what the king who rules over you will have the right to demand: He will take your sons and put them in his chariots and make them his horsemen, and some will have to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself chiefs over thousands and chiefs over fifties, and some will do his plowing, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be ointment mixers, cooks, and bakers. He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and he will give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grainfields and your vineyards, and he will give it to his court officials and his servants. And he will take your male and female servants, your best herds, and your donkeys, and he will use them for his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you will become his servants.
(Ten percent tax rate!)
“The day will come when you will cry out because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but Jehovah will not answer you in that day.”
(No relief possible)
“However, the people refused to listen to what Samuel told them, and they said: “No, we are determined to have a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and lead us and fight our battles.’’
And I think this is the lesson. Visible, concrete, physical government chosen over ‘rule of law and not of men’. Or, as Hayek explained, applying abstract ideas to concrete situations. People want human connection, even if much worse than the abstract ideas that work better.
Think Hannah Arendt and her analysis of twentieth century totalitarianism.
As I speak Texas might not pass school choice legislation. The objection seems to be from rural Republican legislators that are in the pockets of their local K-12 education establishment.
A plurality of voters in polls, including rural voters, support school choice, so this isn't the will of the people, but the will of a self interested faction.
In other states rural republicans have had to be primaries by insurgent political movements in order to pass school choice legislation.
It seems to me that if we just left this up to elites we would get what we always get with elites: status quo bias combined with a desire for their interest group to receive CPI + X% more then they received last year.
Sometimes, like with COVID, they even want sweeping new powers to abuse.
I'm afraid that an engaged polarized mass is the only way you are going to get school choice or any significant change to the status quo on anything.
Whether we want 10% less democracy depends quite a bit on the quality of our elites. If that quality is poor its not much of a gain for them to have more power.
Democracy exacerbates the problem of bad elites. If your elites had independent authority, they wouldn't have to beg for it from a teacher's union. The point of this post (validated throughout history over and over again) is that an "engaged polarized mass" is at best a temporary situation. Special interest groups are quite capable of sitting out such periods and re-asserting their will after.
"Democracy exacerbates the problem of bad elites."
None democracies have produced the worst leaders in history (Stalin, Mao, Tojo, etc). Even someone that sort of (not really) came to power in a democracy (Hitler) had to dissolve that democracy to do what he did.
In terms of limiting catastrophic failure, democracy is way ahead (I mainly speak of high IQ societies, I don't know the answer for low IQ ones).
"they wouldn't have to beg for it from a teacher's union"
All autocrats rely on special interests to hold power. There is no such thing as "independent authority". Even dictators rely on people to follow their orders which requires some level of support amongst important societal segments. When people decided they weren't going to follow the Tsars orders anymore, that was the end for him. Autocracies tend to descend into special interest nepotism.
1) Rural districts could send their kids to private schools. If they don't exist now, they would exist under school choice. This is like saying that if we leave it up to the free market who will provide the food (hint: grocery stores).
Most of the teachers at my kids private school are public school refugees who were repulsed by the public schools. If the funding is reduced they might layoff teachers, but then the private schools will hire those teachers. They spend less then the public school district spends.
2) "The wealthy suburban school districts whose constituents are more than happy with their public schools"
I'm not happy with my public schools (they engaged in child abuse during covid, and now they are thoroughly woke and corrupt).
Explain to me why these districts should subsidize failing schools (what else would you call urban schools) or jobs programs for areas that need to adapt or die (rural schools). Seems to me that public schools are a subsidy for failure. I moved from Baltimore where something like 80-90% of school funding came from outside sources. This infusion of money allowed their dysfunctional system to continue. K-12 and Medicaid were the main revenue sources for this pathetic welfare state that got worse every year.
We pay 3x what we did when I was a kid adjusted for COLA and I'm not seeing anything to show for it. It's not even as good as when I was a kid.
I think it’s pretty pathetic to think that if you gave people the money they wouldn’t find solutions. You think rather ill of rural peoples judgement. Been proven wrong pretty much every time.
“Fixed cost”, pathetic. Our private school is in the basement of an unused Presbyterian church, and I still like it better than the local public schools.
My understanding is that abbot tried to bribe the failing and useless rural teachers with a ton of money to make the transition and it was turned down because you all know that nobody would ever buy your product if they had a choice, no matter how long you had to adjust.
Basically a bunch of incompetent thieves using force to steal
The word "democracy" literally comes from the Ancient Greek words dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'. Kling can argue that the best aspect of our current system of government is peaceful transfer of power, but the argument that that is the proper definition of the word democracy is just not true.
Many thousands were killed in Iraq and Libya in the US led regime change. It seems the US is pursuing regime change in Russia and China and Iran and Venezuela and many nations of Africa via military means. From that lens the US seems less about peaceful transition of power. However, so far casualty stats have been in the thousands not the millions.
If the bellies of the public feel or are full and there is little worry/expectations with regard to the future, then elites can get away with whatever they want. Seems to be the case whether the form of government is autocratic, democratic, commie or socialist.
Most of the public wants to go to bed at night not feeling hungry and believing that the next day and successive days thereafter will be enriching in one way or another with little care as to what the elites are doing until their pocketbooks see a hit; it is then that the public will awaken.
Seems to be the case with push back in Germany re Climate, a country that has been very much looking to go Green ASAP
Democracy means sovereignty of the individual with no government above them. Power - kratos - is spread equally among the people - demos. Democracy is intended to prevent concentration of power so that no individual or group can impose its will on the rest - the object being to prevent tyranny. So-called Democratic Government does just that - concentrates power into the hands of a group. Tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. “THIS BIBLE is for the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” That is the correct quote, not the subversion that Lincoln used to justify tyranny of the majority by a bunch of goons in high office. With a set of morals, values, manners and Common Law, individuals in a society can self-govern. They can agree a judicial system and body to uphold law and order, but that does not require the corruption called ‘Government’. Until everybody, or enough, understand this simple fact they will never overcome the brainwashing that makes them believe no Government = chaos. In any case I don’t see an absence of chaos with Government.
The word _democracy_ sticks in my craw. The USA is not and has never been a democracy. We have a constitutional federal republic, featuring an elected federal legislature and executive. Calling it a democracy was semantic judo by the Evil party, and the Stupid party fell for it.
The form of government is not the objective, it is a tool to get us what we need, government by consent of those governed, with enough liberty that most people can run their own affairs.
Historically we did this by dividing the responsibilities between the levels, reserving police powers to local authorities. Local governments are not less likely to abuse those powers, but if things get too bad people can leave town.
We have centralized government far more than is good for us.
The dictionaries I've looked at all say having elected representatives is a form of democracy. I'm pretty sure Jefferson saw it this way so your reference to evil and stupid parties seems questionable.
Democracy is direct rule by the people. The assembled citizens are the legislators.
You can see it in action at a New England Town Meeting.
The framers distrusted democracy, with good reason. Read up on the stupid stunts that the Athenian Assembly pulled. Condemning Socrates wasn’t the half of it. Majority rule can be tyrannical and capricious.
A dictionary gives the popular definition of a word. Democracy is a technical term.
"A dictionary gives the popular definition of a word. Democracy is a technical term."
The popular definition is the definition. Whether it is technical or not doesn't change that.
Merriam-Webster - a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition. - Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
Those are two different forms of government. How do you distinguish between them?
In any case, the framers called our form of government a republic. When asked, Benjamin Franklin famously replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”
"Those are two different forms of government. How do you distinguish between them?"
By using additional words. Kind of like there are different types of republics and we have to use additional words to distinguish between them.
Technical terms clearly express concepts. I believe that to mangle their definitions mangles meaning generally. Clear communication is difficult enough without changing definitions arbitrarily. It’s a nasty rhetorical trick which too many practice.
Elites choose policies, but in doing so they do not ignore The People: they choose policies that people will not hate so much that they vote (expressively) against them. The People are, very loosely, in control.
“In an ideal country, the stakes in elections would be low, because of constitutional limits on government.” If The People wanted limited government, constitutional limits would be unnecessary. Since The People do not want limited government, constitutional limits are unavailing.
Excellent comment!
"The public will have modest demands and expectations for government, but they will vote out of power a party that governs poorly. Their voting will be fluid, based on satisfaction or dissatisfaction with those in power; not fixed, based on strong party allegiance."
You prove a little too much. A large portion of the public can still be party-motivated if a sufficient portion of the public is comprised of swing voters who will vote a party out of power if it governs poorly.
Elections are auctions. Which corrupt bunch will offer enough bribes in exchange for votes. And we have a large part of the population too stupid to realise they are being bribed with their own money, because they want to believe it’s somebody else’s.
That’s a better criticism of expanding the franchise to be universal. The problem is the US system has no way to separate votes for money bills from non-money bills ( money bill meaning one raising revenue or appropriating money). Everything needs to get passed by House and Senate, but they don’t represent taxpayers as a category, only tangentially. Instead imagine there were a third House that represented tax payers (use your imagination on how to do this) and any money bill had to be approved by that house. In the simplest case it could just have no vote on any other matters. It makes it much harder for Peter to take from Paul. Though I’m not sure it helps prevent Peter taking from Peter Jr.
You mean no representation without taxation? So do away with the other two houses, just have the House of Taxpayers, do away with universal suffrage so only those who pay income tax can vote.
No. I don't support that. Universal representation is important for some things that government does, like make criminal codes. It's If you only have one house of taxpayers, then it could be like Les Mis where you go to jail for a long time for stealing bread or something. There needs to be some kind of balance.
We already have criminal codes… the Common Law - for centuries. Legislation is not Law, it subverts Common Law to give some - who bribed the legislators - advantages over others. See: lobbying, corporate welfare/ capture.
Especially when all is not open for the public to see and hopefully understand. Burying this or that in a multi hundred page or more Bill will clearly never be seen by the public.
All spending for ex needs to be out in the open, as a line item budget for the public to see.
Mr. Kevin Corcoran reinvents a well-worn wheel? Aristotle gave us a much more careful view in Politics. Polity is perverted when private interest rules; whether the private interest of elite or the poor. Democracy devolves to tyranny when an elite plays to the people's vices and replaces stable law with decrees. The key to good states is virtue in laws and people:
"For as man is the best of the animals when perfected, so he is the worst of all when sundered from law and justice. For unrighteousness is most pernicious when possessed of weapons, and man is born possessing weapons for the use of wisdom and virtue, which it is possible to employ entirely for the opposite ends. Hence when devoid of virtue man is the most unholy and savage of animals, and the worst in regard to sexual indulgence and gluttony" (Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, Section 1253a).
The notion of limiting government power through a constitution has always seemed particularly sketchy to me. Who enforces the constitution? Why, the government does.
People tend to forget that the Supreme Court is part of the government. And, indeed, it tends to skew very heavily pro-government, from its "Chevron deference" to "qualified immunity" to its whole-cloth redefinition of "interstate commerce" as requiring no more than one state, nor any commerce, etc., etc., etc. This is favored by both major political movements: one positions itself as "pro-law-and-order" and the other as "pro-regulation".
At best, a constitution has cultural force: "these are the principles on which we culturally agree, and there will be a big fuss if the government treads on them".
Over time, governments learn how to de-fang that tool. Between the various protections the Court has invented to protect government agents who violate others' rights, to the cultural drives against key amendments, and the innovation of civil lawsuits that entirely bypass constitutional rights (not clear who invented that first but it was surely perfected in Texas), there are few actual constitutional rights remaining.
It's noteworthy that the reaction to the Texas Maneuver quickly died down: neither major political movement wants to defend constitutional rights, as they would limit the power those movements hope to hold, and the Progressive movement has already been using similar tools for years so it could hardly attack the Texas Maneuver broadly. Instead, both movements have accepted the Texas Maneuver as part of the available set of Power Tools to be fought over.
What remains is competition. The U.S. government was designed to have internal competition for power between the three branches. That structure has largely failed: Congress has ceded almost all lawmaking power to the regulatory agencies - and thus to the Administrative branch - which in turn has brought us to the threshold of having a (for now) election-based dictatorship (aka the Imperial Presidency).
There is still some limited competition for that job. At present, there are still elections for the position, but both major political parties have worked to undermine faith in elections, one by declaring that they are "stolen" and the other by declaring that any effort to secure them is "racist", while both openly practice naked gerrymandering. I trust it's clear that the loud "stolen"/"racist" claims (regardless of any truth they contain) and the "what does it matter how - or if - you vote?" gerrymandering are undermining faith in elections. Of course, even in a post-elections world, there will still be competition - from ancient Rome to medieval Europe to modern Russia, there have always been competitors for the Imperial title; it's just that the competitions tend to be less frequent and more violent.
Lost in all of this is the reason for having constitutional rights and limits on government in the first place. Time and again, countries whose governments have grown without limits, countries that have allowed their governmental powers to be dragged into fights over "religion" (which we now call "culture") or into favoring particular ethnic or racial factions, or favoring one or another sector of their economies (whether industrial sector, agricultural sector, labor or capital) have suffered as a result, often terribly. The Founders wanted the United States to prosper for the long term. Government, with its short-term horizons and power-focused participants, need not share that goal; and the bigger it gets, the greater a prize it becomes for our corporate interests (from companies to industries to unions), culture warriors and ethnic factions to control.
“Time and again, countries whose governments have grown without limits…” Please give me a few examples where this has happened to a democracy. The only one I can think of is Weimar Germany.
Tautologically, the masses will never be elites. The masses will never get to meaningfully participate in designing top down public policy.
But the current system is not remotely ideal. A better political system would give elites less power and give the masses more direct engagement and control over their own lives.
The present elites gain power by forms of cheating and dirty tricks, they aren't entitled to the power that they have, they just took it. I don't mean to stoke emotion and outrage, but that is the reality of democracy in today's world if you wish to understand it.
The US or Europe are not democracies. Leaders say they are democracies to build public buy in and legitimacy, but that's not true. I don't know of a one-word label for the form of government present in US and Europe but it is not a democracy.
The one word is "republic" - "A republic is a state in which political power rests with the public and their representatives,"
Our elected representatives become elite when elected to represent them, "democratically" thru voting (for the Rep or Dem or some other bundle of promises) - tho the reality of an "administrative state", or deep state is not what most folk think they want.
Holcombe: "democracy does not facilitate citizens solving social problems through mutual negotiation and compromise among equals. Because of transaction costs, ... "
We need a better culture of accepting disagreement and more compromise, rather arguing about definitions.
Arnold quotes Corcoran: "A key point Holcombe makes throughout the book is that, to a huge degree, people do not adopt parties based on policy, but instead adopt policy based on parties." This is a key factor in how the parties have become dominated by predatory special interests (grifters). Once committed to a party, voters uncritically accept whatever policies are put forth never mind how specious or implausible the moral cover in which they are packaged.
This is an important point with which I largely agree but commenter John Hall notes that there are also a significant number not beholden to a party who can swing voting outcomes.
Arnold
I think that importance of ideas is under estimated.
For example, reviewing this ancient theory/demand of popular government . . .
“In time all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Raʹmah.
They said to him: “Look! You have grown old, but your sons are not walking in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the other nations.”
(People want visible leader, not better government.)
“But it displeased Samuel when they said: “Give us a king to judge us.” Then Samuel prayed to Jehovah, and Jehovah said to Samuel: “Listen to everything the people say to you; for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected as their king..’’
No desire to change law. Desire to see visible government.
“Now listen to them. However, you should solemnly warn them; tell them what the king who rules over them will have the right to demand.”
So Samuel told the people who were asking him for a king all the words of Jehovah. 11 He said: “This is what the king who rules over you will have the right to demand: He will take your sons and put them in his chariots and make them his horsemen, and some will have to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself chiefs over thousands and chiefs over fifties, and some will do his plowing, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be ointment mixers, cooks, and bakers. He will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and he will give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grainfields and your vineyards, and he will give it to his court officials and his servants. And he will take your male and female servants, your best herds, and your donkeys, and he will use them for his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you will become his servants.
(Ten percent tax rate!)
“The day will come when you will cry out because of the king you have chosen for yourselves, but Jehovah will not answer you in that day.”
(No relief possible)
“However, the people refused to listen to what Samuel told them, and they said: “No, we are determined to have a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, and our king will judge us and lead us and fight our battles.’’
And I think this is the lesson. Visible, concrete, physical government chosen over ‘rule of law and not of men’. Or, as Hayek explained, applying abstract ideas to concrete situations. People want human connection, even if much worse than the abstract ideas that work better.
Think Hannah Arendt and her analysis of twentieth century totalitarianism.
Thanks for your work.
Clay
As I speak Texas might not pass school choice legislation. The objection seems to be from rural Republican legislators that are in the pockets of their local K-12 education establishment.
A plurality of voters in polls, including rural voters, support school choice, so this isn't the will of the people, but the will of a self interested faction.
In other states rural republicans have had to be primaries by insurgent political movements in order to pass school choice legislation.
It seems to me that if we just left this up to elites we would get what we always get with elites: status quo bias combined with a desire for their interest group to receive CPI + X% more then they received last year.
Sometimes, like with COVID, they even want sweeping new powers to abuse.
I'm afraid that an engaged polarized mass is the only way you are going to get school choice or any significant change to the status quo on anything.
Whether we want 10% less democracy depends quite a bit on the quality of our elites. If that quality is poor its not much of a gain for them to have more power.
Democracy exacerbates the problem of bad elites. If your elites had independent authority, they wouldn't have to beg for it from a teacher's union. The point of this post (validated throughout history over and over again) is that an "engaged polarized mass" is at best a temporary situation. Special interest groups are quite capable of sitting out such periods and re-asserting their will after.
"Democracy exacerbates the problem of bad elites."
None democracies have produced the worst leaders in history (Stalin, Mao, Tojo, etc). Even someone that sort of (not really) came to power in a democracy (Hitler) had to dissolve that democracy to do what he did.
In terms of limiting catastrophic failure, democracy is way ahead (I mainly speak of high IQ societies, I don't know the answer for low IQ ones).
"they wouldn't have to beg for it from a teacher's union"
All autocrats rely on special interests to hold power. There is no such thing as "independent authority". Even dictators rely on people to follow their orders which requires some level of support amongst important societal segments. When people decided they weren't going to follow the Tsars orders anymore, that was the end for him. Autocracies tend to descend into special interest nepotism.
1) Rural districts could send their kids to private schools. If they don't exist now, they would exist under school choice. This is like saying that if we leave it up to the free market who will provide the food (hint: grocery stores).
Most of the teachers at my kids private school are public school refugees who were repulsed by the public schools. If the funding is reduced they might layoff teachers, but then the private schools will hire those teachers. They spend less then the public school district spends.
2) "The wealthy suburban school districts whose constituents are more than happy with their public schools"
I'm not happy with my public schools (they engaged in child abuse during covid, and now they are thoroughly woke and corrupt).
Explain to me why these districts should subsidize failing schools (what else would you call urban schools) or jobs programs for areas that need to adapt or die (rural schools). Seems to me that public schools are a subsidy for failure. I moved from Baltimore where something like 80-90% of school funding came from outside sources. This infusion of money allowed their dysfunctional system to continue. K-12 and Medicaid were the main revenue sources for this pathetic welfare state that got worse every year.
We pay 3x what we did when I was a kid adjusted for COLA and I'm not seeing anything to show for it. It's not even as good as when I was a kid.
I think it’s pretty pathetic to think that if you gave people the money they wouldn’t find solutions. You think rather ill of rural peoples judgement. Been proven wrong pretty much every time.
“Fixed cost”, pathetic. Our private school is in the basement of an unused Presbyterian church, and I still like it better than the local public schools.
My understanding is that abbot tried to bribe the failing and useless rural teachers with a ton of money to make the transition and it was turned down because you all know that nobody would ever buy your product if they had a choice, no matter how long you had to adjust.
Basically a bunch of incompetent thieves using force to steal
A technical term is a word or short phrase with a specific, useful meaning. That precise meaning is important.
One can play many nasty rhetorical tricks by insisting on a redefinition of important words.
The scene with Humpty Dumpty was a warning. Charles Dodgson was a mathematician and logician.
The word "democracy" literally comes from the Ancient Greek words dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'. Kling can argue that the best aspect of our current system of government is peaceful transfer of power, but the argument that that is the proper definition of the word democracy is just not true.
Many thousands were killed in Iraq and Libya in the US led regime change. It seems the US is pursuing regime change in Russia and China and Iran and Venezuela and many nations of Africa via military means. From that lens the US seems less about peaceful transition of power. However, so far casualty stats have been in the thousands not the millions.
If the bellies of the public feel or are full and there is little worry/expectations with regard to the future, then elites can get away with whatever they want. Seems to be the case whether the form of government is autocratic, democratic, commie or socialist.
Most of the public wants to go to bed at night not feeling hungry and believing that the next day and successive days thereafter will be enriching in one way or another with little care as to what the elites are doing until their pocketbooks see a hit; it is then that the public will awaken.
Seems to be the case with push back in Germany re Climate, a country that has been very much looking to go Green ASAP
Democracy means sovereignty of the individual with no government above them. Power - kratos - is spread equally among the people - demos. Democracy is intended to prevent concentration of power so that no individual or group can impose its will on the rest - the object being to prevent tyranny. So-called Democratic Government does just that - concentrates power into the hands of a group. Tyranny of a majority is still tyranny. “THIS BIBLE is for the government of the people, by the people and for the people.” That is the correct quote, not the subversion that Lincoln used to justify tyranny of the majority by a bunch of goons in high office. With a set of morals, values, manners and Common Law, individuals in a society can self-govern. They can agree a judicial system and body to uphold law and order, but that does not require the corruption called ‘Government’. Until everybody, or enough, understand this simple fact they will never overcome the brainwashing that makes them believe no Government = chaos. In any case I don’t see an absence of chaos with Government.
This is just repackaged Lasch and Burnham
It’s all ye (don’t) know, and all ye (don’t) need to know.