[onoway]

In the Brxit thread this comment was made in response to a post;

Zelandakh, on 2016-July-13, 08:41, said:

Is it your considered opinion then that any time the elected representatives decide that the best interests of the country are different from the opinion of the majority of voters, this is a bad thing? How about if the majority of Americans decided it would be a good idea to hunt down all African-Americans? or Mexicans? or Muslims? Do you think this would be good government? Similarly, if you surveyed Americans and asked them if a tax cut to 5% across the board was a good idea, the majority may well answer affirmatively. Again, that does not mean it would end well. People are stupid, this is why we have elected officials who, hopefully, are in a position to look at issues from a broader perspective. Perhaps they have looked into the issue more deeply than you have. Perhaps they are corrupt. And perhaps turning every WC thread into a discussion of GMOs and climate change is unnecessary. At least leave the odd thread for a sidebar to religion - that is always just so entertaining.

One comment stood out for me "people are stupid". Really? So because the people MIGHT vote to hunt down Mexicans they are less intelligent or responsible than the people who get elected then manufacture a reason to go to war and slaughter thousands of people on the pretense that there is a threat? Or who actually CAUSE a threat by their manipulation of events and interference in other country's affairs which lead to lives without any future or hope for millions of people living in refugee camps, sometimes for two and three generations? Or make decisions leading to the very real possibility, according to scientists, that the oceans are dying, the world is increasingly losing arable land to desertification, which is a direct threat to the potential of the world to feed people, a situation entirely avoidable? Or adopt policies which lead to a debt load that would have led to bankruptcy a long time ago in any normal household but that is blithely ignored as it careens ever upward? You consider that good government? It seems to me that the attitude that people are stupid is indeed the attitude that most politicians have and that's why they feel free to ignore voters wishes as soon as they get into power, and that's precisely the reason that people around the world are becoming increasingly restless with their governments.

The "elected officials" can be elected only from the people offered as choices and it seems to be often the case that the electorate is not particularly happy about any of the choices they are being given. Good examples are the apparently relatively unenthusiastic response by a whole lot of Americans to the choices in the upcoming Presidential election, or indeed the rate of voter turnout in most western elections.

The vast majority of politicians seem to believe that their responsibility is not to the people but to their party, come hell or high water. No matter what the party, the objective is to get elected, obviously, and then to stay in power, so electoral districts are rearranged; failed politicians get parachuted into "secure" ridings so as to get back into power; voter eligibility is restricted and all sorts of other shenanigans employed to tilt the odds in their favor are common tactics. What has any of that got to do with democracy?

I think the concept that people are stupid is a very unfortunate and arrogant attitude. People may be ill/misinformed, scared, they may be manipulated and forced into situations they don't understand and don't know how to cope with. But I most decidedly do NOT buy into the idea that because someone was elected they are automatically wiser or better informed or any more capable of making a good decision than anyone else. What being elected demonstrates is a desire to have power, for whatever purpose, and that they know how to get elected, usually as much a result of being a good party member, as anything else. That's all. To assume otherwise is like assuming that someone who rode the winning horse at the Kentucky Derby will automatically be adept at playing bridge.

I also don't believe that the majority of people are vicious and hostile by nature, but that much of today's world is pushing people into defensiveness. When something like the Japanese tsunami, or the Katrina hurricane happens, for sure there were some who tried to take advantage, but there were thousands more who tried to help. So where is this deep mistrust of and disdain for common people coming from and were the Founding Fathers so entirely wrong in trying to set up a system entrusting people's own future to them rather than to what is virtually a self selected group?

This post has been edited by barmar: 2016-July-14, 08:33
Reason for edit: fix qutoing

[Trinidad]

Zel's key point is that representatives / governments are democratically elected to devote all their time to dealing with often technically complicated questions. It is silly to have technical decisions made by people who are poorly informed (which, btw, is different from stupid), who -in most cases- don't have the "helicopter view" to oversee the consequences of their decision, and who have hardly given the matter any thought before they formed their opinion. (If they have formed an opinion to begin with. In many cases, it is a gut feeling rather than an opinion.)

This doesn't mean that I am against referenda. But I think they should not be used for technical issues. This leaves the conscience questions. These are the kind of issues where MPs don't vote along party lines (and where, as a result, the voter did not have much influence to begin with).

Rik

[helene_t]

The majority is always right. One can hope that the majority will decide to grant protection to minorities, and that they will decide to delegate difficult technical decisions to experts who they trust to understand the limit of their democratic mandate, and that they will decide on a constitution with checks and balances that offer protection against panic reactions and power abuse.

I know the contra-argument: what if the majority decides to nuke Greenland? OK, we could appoint some wise emperor who could make wise decisions which the stupid people can't be trusted to make, but who appoints that emperor? What if he decides to nuke Greenland, against the will of the people? OK, we could have a number of bodies (senate, lower house, supreme court, referedum, individual member states, maybe even the trade unions, academia, clergy and royal house) each of which could veto nuking Greenland. But if that is the general recipe for decision making then we never get anything done. And we don't want special interest group to get their agenda through by tactically threatening to veto unrelated decisions.

So if the majority decides to nuke Greenland, or to delegate a lot of power to some TV star with dubious political motives and skills, then so be it.

Democracy works best in Israeli kibutzim and parish councils where everyone understands the consequences of the decisions they are voting on, and everyone knows the candidates personally. It is a bit hard to make this work in the modern World, unfortunately. You cannot make each apartment block of a big city a sovereign political unit.

We once had a debate in Denmark about whether there should be a referendum about nuclear power. The minister of energy famously said that the issue was not "suitable" for a referendum. Which probably means that they only subjects that are suitable for a referendum is those on which the public can be trusted to supply lip service to what the establishment has already decided. Which Cameron presumably thought was the case with Brexit.

Maybe Brexit was not suitable for a referendum because it is too complex and because it is not a yes/no issue. But we had a much simpler referendum a few years earlier about AV versus FPTP. The simplest possible political question one could imagine. And even that was beyond the comprehension of most people. I think my UK network is above average in political literacy but few of my colleagues understood what it was about.

Maybe the Irish referendum about gay marriage was a rare case of a "suitable" issue? I am not sure. I wonder how I had felt about it if it had been a "no".

So we are stuck with representative democracy. But it only works if the voters can be bothered to enlighten themselves about politics. There are a number of reasons why I don't think that is the case in the UK:
- The FPTP system gives you the choice between two evils (or one evil, if you are in a "safe" seat constituency).
- Local councils have very limited power.

Of course, the press is hopeless and the education system could probably do better as well. But if there were a demand for information about politics then it would be met. Apparently most people just don't want to know that much about politics.

[mike777]

Onoway the question you pose is not so much are people stupid but the age old question are people evil.

----


btw just as an aside per your last paragraph, just because people are helpful it does not logically follow they are not also evil. You can be both.

[kenberg]

I know people who are never wrong, but most of us are not so delusional.

Should the Fed raise interest rates at their next meeting? Actually I don't know when the next meeting is, I cannot name anyone on the board except Janet Yellen, and I have no idea if they should raise interest rates. How about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, should Congress approve? Well, I hope our negotiators have done a good enough job so that the answer is yes, I approve of the general concept but I do not know the details. Where by "don't know the details" I mean that I cannot quote a single line of it and I had to look up just which countries would be involved.

People have a voice. I voted in the recent primaries. I voted, for example, for Chris Van Hollen to be the Democratic candidate to run for the Senate seat being vacated by the long time Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski. Emily's List supported Donna Edwards. They would phrase it differently, but it came down to the fact that Barbara Mikulski is a woman, Donna Edwards is a woman, and Chis Van Hollen is a man. No brainer, vote for Edwards. Nah. Most agreed with me and the highly regarded Van Hollen is the candidate. I am not prepared to tell you his views or his votes on all issues.

I choose partly on whether a candidate reflects my general view of what is important and what isn't, and partly on whether or not I think they are competent. This leads me, a registered Dem, to sometimes vote for a Republican. And I am hoping that this year more than a few registered Republicans will be voting for Hillary Clinton.

I do not want to learn so much about the detailed provisions of the TPP that I could make an intelligent choice, and I certainly do not want the issue decided by a referendum. A healthy debate about whether, in general terms, we should pursue international trade agreements, that's fine. It's tough, since there is not a one paragraph explanation of why this is good or bad, but I think that such a discussion is important. And then we vote for candidates who reflect our views on this and other matters.

[billw55]

The emperor's nose fallacy is the bane of democracy. You don't improve accuracy by polling uninformed opinions. So this form of government is destined to produce some poor decisions in this way.

That doesn't necessarily mean that other forms of government are better though. The nirvana fallacy also applies. All forms have their flaws.

[Cyberyeti]

Swiss government seems to work with lots of referenda.

[Winstonm]

There is natural variation within species, and intelligence is only one aspect of variation. People ARE stupid - but they are also extremely intelligent and many shades in between. By creating a representative government with checks and balances, the architects of the U.S. government tried to find a way to distance governing from mob rule.

[barmar]

Specialization is a necessity in a complex society. Different people have different interests and expertise. It's not a matter of people being smart or stupid, they're just not qualified for certain activities. Why would you expect a rocket scientist or brain surgeon to be able to make decisions about national budgets, international affairs, or race relations? Legislators are supposed to be people who have expertise in governing, and we elect them so we don't all have to know how to solve complicated societal problems.

The problem is that knowing who to elect is in itself a difficult problem. People vote with their intuition and emotions, because that's the only real tools most of them have at their disposal. As a result, most successful politicians learn how to manipulate those subconscious processes (much like the advertising industry), rather than becoming real experts at governing.

[mike777]

It is important to point out at least here in America there is an inherent distrust of so called "experts at governing"

On one hand we complain about how inefficient the government is and on the other live in fear of the government becoming too efficient.

For example we want our police to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our tax collectors to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our local building and housing codes enforced but not too enforced.

[PrecisionL]

The USA is a Republic, the people don't get to vote on everything as in a Direct Democracy. Representatives are chosen to do the will of the people (and special interest groups). :<)

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 11:43, said:

It is important to point out at least here in America there is an inherent distrust of so called "experts at governing"

On one hand we complain about how inefficient the government is and on the other live in fear of the government becoming too efficient.

For example we want our police to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our tax collectors to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our local building and housing codes enforced but not too enforced.

I don't think this is in any way accurate. I don't think it is mistrust of government rather a statement that the government they see does not reflect to their taste their personal biases.

I know of no one who wants slightly inefficient police: slightly inefficient tax collectors: or lax enforcement of codes.
Instead, I know people who want police who are not bigoted, fair taxation that does not benefit the wealthiest 1%, and safe and affordable housing.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 11:43, said:

It is important to point out at least here in America there is an inherent distrust of so called "experts at governing"

On one hand we complain about how inefficient the government is and on the other live in fear of the government becoming too efficient.

For example we want our police to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our tax collectors to be efficient but not too efficient.
We want our local building and housing codes enforced but not too enforced.

Right. We want our police to protect us from crime/criminals, but not by shooting (or tazering or choking) dead anyone they distrust or are upset with.

We want our tax collectors to be efficient ( including going after people with offshore accounts and multinational corporations which pay virtually no tax) but not to seize a 12 year old's $15 bank balance from a paper route because the tax people have decided his or her parents owe them money.

We want our building and housing codes to be enforced when they involve safety; things like trying to build a house that makes people sick from the use of materials which seriously off gas toxins, or that's built on a flood plain without adequate design and materials or which is clearly going to fall down on top of anyone in it the first time there's a high wind, but not when they involve things like preventing people from lining their walk with potatoes rather than petunias or using solar panels instead of being hooked up to the power company, or indeed choosing to live in a house that has a 200 square foot footprint instead of at least a 600 square foot footprint (or possibly much much more). ( Ironic to think that the jail cell they could be sent to if they are particularly intransigent would be much much smaller, isn't it?!)

You think this is unreasonable?

[mike777]

Ok guys I disagree with you but ok.
All you guys are saying is you want them to be more efficient against other people, I mean look at your list of other people!

I will use our tax collectors as an example. I have a group of friends that I have known since roughly my college days. They have worked for the IRS for over 30 years> They started out at the bottom and over time became managers. We do not give them or do we want to give them all the resources they need to be efficient. Still they are more efficient than the vast majority of countries, including many in Europe where tax dodging is the national sport.


As for the police we dont give them or the justice system the resources to police common crimes such as DUI or property crimes or drug crimes. We limit their ability to gather information on us which would make them much more efficient. To truly become more efficient they need vastly more resources and we dont want to give them more vast policing power.


We want them to be efficient but not that efficient.

As for everyone wanting all the numerous busybody housing codes enforced...please give me a break...

[onoway]

did you miss the phrase BUT NOT in all of those examples?

[mike777]

Sort of a side note on this whole issue of just h ow conflicted the public is on the issue of an efficient government.


My good buddy worked for the IRS for 36 years. I was his best man and he was mine. He is now a manager. Over the decades I have heard horror stories about how underfunded his group is when it came to computers and software. Their stuff was always out of date and they could not obtain more funding. Now his group, yes they call themselves a "group" audited complex financial companies such as Hedge funds in the Midwest part of the country. My sister in law is head tax accountant for some of the largest hedge fund in the MIdwest. She is their outside tax advisor. She is also the partner in charge of her "group". She actually got to work with Buffett on one of his takeover deals a few years ago.

Anyway...now he is getting older and so are all of his buddies, my friends, in his group. They are all way past max retirement. The IRS has its own and pretty darn good pension plan. He has told his bosses his whole group is about to retire and they have no young people to train and replace his group. His bosses just tell him they will just stop doing most of these audits when they retire due to lack of resources.
---
----

Now we just dont see voters crying out for politicians to hire thousands and thousands of new revenue IRS agents. We dont see voters demanding billions and billions more for the IRS budget. Yet they bring in most or most all of the revenue.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 14:00, said:

Ok guys I disagree with you but ok.
All you guys are saying is you want them to be more efficient against other people, I mean look at your list of other people!

I will use our tax collectors as an example. I have a group of friends that I have known since roughly my college days. They have worked for the IRS for over 30 years> They started out at the bottom and over time became managers. We do not give them or do we want to give them all the resources they need to be efficient. Still they are more efficient than the vast majority of countries, including many in Europe where tax dodging is the national sport.


As for the police we dont give them or the justice system the resources to police common crimes such as DUI or property crimes or drug crimes. We limit their ability to gather information on us which would make them much more efficient. To truly become more efficient they need vastly more resources and we dont want to give them more vast policing power.


We want them to be efficient but not that efficient.

As for everyone wanting all the numerous busybody housing codes enforced...please give me a break...

You are only saying that efficiency must mean collection power - which is not the case. I would like the IRS to have better computers and better productivity. That is not the same as wanting to give them power to close my bank account without due process. Not the same thing at all.

[barmar]

The way I interpret "IRS should be efficient, but not that efficient" is that we want them to be vigilant when they go after other people, like the big bad Wall Street guys, but we don't want to be audited whenever we make a mistake on our tax returns.

Similarly, you want police who are effective at solving "real crimes", but not so effective that they catch you whenever you're speeding.

[mike777]

barmar, on 2016-July-14, 19:02, said:

The way I interpret "IRS should be efficient, but not that efficient" is that we want them to be vigilant when they go after other people, like the big bad Wall Street guys, but we don't want to be audited whenever we make a mistake on our tax returns.

Similarly, you want police who are effective at solving "real crimes", but not so effective that they catch you whenever you're speeding.

I think you are being a bit too kind.


Barmar I can give you two very specific examples of how the IRS got more efficient and I hated it.

1)When I was young and did a great job at work I got a free, very nice trip.
As I got older these free trips cost me thousands of dollars, cash I never received. IN other words these free trips cost me thousands of bucks, bucks I did not have as a reward for doing a great job.
2) When i was young we could go to the company cafeteria for lunch and pay something close to zero for lunch.
In later years at the end of the year you had to pay taxes for those lunches with zero extra cash.

My take is people in general dont want to be caught when maybe they dont have all of their receipts or proof deductions. Or want the IRs to have access to such huge amounts of information about us through super computers and thousands of super programmers for those computers. As a result we deny them the money. But ya we want them to go after those greedy , evil corporations and 1%.


As for the police again perhaps a bit too kind. We dont want the police to know when we have 2 drinks at dinner or at that bar and then get into our car. We dont want cars to be able to give us a test for drugs or booze or sleeping before we turn on our car. Just one example of information that a super computer might have. Of course there are many other examples of data mining given enough money and great programmers and efficiency! Of course we want them to arrest those greedy corporate and 1% guys.


We want housing guys to go after Trump and his buildings...not not our local home that may be a tiny bit out of local code.

[barmar]

mike777, on 2016-July-14, 20:38, said:

As for the police again perhaps a bit too kind. We dont want the police to know when we have 2 drinks at dinner or at that bar and then get into our car. We dont want cars to be able to give us a test for drugs or booze or sleeping before we turn on our car. Just one example of information that a super computer might have. Of course there are many other examples of data mining given enough money and great programmers and efficiency! Of course we want them to arrest those greedy corporate and 1% guys.

Nobody likes Big Brother, until there's a serious crime committed and surveillance cameras would have helped find the perpetrators.

You don't want your car to have a built-in breathalyzer, but if you get hit by a drunk driver you probably wish his car did.

There's always a difficult balance between protection and privacy.