sc94597 said:
1. The problem is that representative democracies depend on the premise that representatives are representing their constituents. But how true is this premise? When I go to the voting booth I am not appointing somebody I know will represent my views and interests, but rather choosing from strangers whom have no reason to actually represent my views other than I might vote for their opponent(s), whom also won't represent my views. Some countries like Switzerland mitigate this problem by focusing on more direct and consensus-based democracy, but most countries don't even attempt to balance representative democracy with more participatory forms. 2. Well the Bill of Rights is an obvious example of institutionalized liberal values. I am not saying the Bill of Rights is wrong, as it is necessary to balance against the threat of majoritarian representative democracy, but it is an example of an ideologically institutionalized limit on democracy. Other's are the electoral college and senate, which are meant to mitigate majoritarian whims. None of these would be necessary if our system were consensus-based rather than majoritarian, or I guess in the case of the United States central government, not even that. 3. Do you have a more specific mechanism by which you think hierarchies arise? Generally the argument is that during the first agricultural revolution it became possible to accumulate resources, and there was an incentive to protect these accumulated resources. The first institutions of violence were then formed in order to protect said accumulated resources, and those who controlled said institutions were able to impose their will on those whom didn't. Hence, hierarchy and ruler-ship came to be. Over time this continued until societies where minority of people totally enslaved a majority of people came to exist. These slave societies self-destructed after the slaves revolted, and what remained were fragmented kingdoms and fiefdoms where feudal contracts were instituted. Eventually, after a bunch of class warfare the merchant class took power from the gentry (land-owning class) and helped abolish serfdom. What we have today is more egalitarian than feudalism which was more egalitarian than slave-societies. Socialism would be even more egalitarian than what we have today. Technology played a significant role in these developments, and there is no reason to believe that technology won't play a significant role in future developments (and the trend has been toward more equality rather than less.) So this static view that hierarchy will always exist, seems to be missing how much societies have changed within the last few millennia as technology has changed. |
1. But that is also why a representative democracy works: if you do not represent your voters in the way they expected you too, you will loose support. A democracy is not about everyone getting their own wishes through but to give the power to the people as a group. But ina representative democracy, or any democracy at all, checks and balances are important to balance the system.
2. I wouldn´t necessarily call is just liberal but also conservative and social democratic in many ways. And they are not protections against democracy but rather a viewpoint that, in order for everyone to have their rights and guarantee the democracy, control measures must be implemented. That is not to say that these foundations can´t be changed but it would require a massive dedication from the people to do so. It is the old question of whether a democracy should have the right to abolish itself if the people decide it?
3. Just because we might be a species that has an evolutionary tendency towards hierarchies, doesn´t mean that society will remain static or that these hierarchies will never change. But I try to look at this from a laymans perspective on evolutionary processes: it has been extremely benefitial for humanity in terms of technological development, how old we can become and how we can protect the young and the weak in the structure we have in society that it is reasonable to assume the our ability to form strong bonds in different groups and create ordered structures where we elect leaders and have people with different assignments is deeply entrenched in our genes and has been one of our evolutionary benefits compared to most other species. The downside of this is that we wage war against each other but when we look at it, we have had a net positive in our development. It is not a matter of what I personally would want us humans to be as a species, because the way we function has caused ourselves and the world around us a great deal of pain. But this is a question of what I personally find to be the most probable answer we have based on the emphirical data regarding the development of our species.
