diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | phil/dembase.7 | 78 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | phil/demus.7 | 90 |
2 files changed, 0 insertions, 168 deletions
diff --git a/phil/dembase.7 b/phil/dembase.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 2b2c421..0000000 --- a/phil/dembase.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,78 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt dembase phil -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm dembase -.Nd Democracy: Fundamentals (Unfinished) -.Sh DESCRIPTION -.Pp -*Unless otherwise specified, "democracy" in this article refers to -representative democracy. "Country" can additionally refer to other -regions that have people and its own policies, such as a state, -provinces in some countries, etc.* -.Pp -We usually think of "democracy" as people influencing the policies of -the country by electing trustworthy experts that serve their interest to -make actual decisions about running the country. This type of democracy, -representative democracy, has evolved from direct democracy aging back -two thousand years ago as created by Athens in Greece. Representative -democracy is more scalable than direct democracy and also avoids some -forms of populism and uninformed decisions as its the experts in the -field that are making the actual policies. -.Pp -The Chinese term for democracy is "民主". The first character, "民", -means "people"; the second, "主", ascin "主人" means "owner". -You could understand it as saying "the people of the country own the -country (and thus get to decide on its affairs)". But at the same time, -"主" as in "自主" means "do things themselves", i.e. the right not -to be interfered by others while doing their own business. -.Pp -This is, of course, not the proper definition for democracy; democracy -is just saying that the general public ultimately runs the country. But -we could take the time to appreciate how with democracy we usually end -up with liberty and how we take personal liberty for granted. -.Pp -In any case, both democracy and liberty are important in a long-lasting -prosperous system of society. Note my wording in the first paragraph, -that the decisions of elected experts are for "running the -country"---I specifically mean issues that deal with either the general -public (such as public health and the environment) and things that would -be otherwise hard to solve personally (such as enforcement of contracts -and crimes). The "will of the people", represented by the government, -have no business doing things like banning freedom of thought or -mandating people not to smoke in their private property. Only when -things affect others such as smoking in public should the government, or -the will of the general public, have any say. And of course, people -should take responsibility for their own private deeds. It is argued -that a lung cancer patient who got lung cancer by smoking excessively -doesn't deserve medical insurance from taxpayers; but for cases where -an illness isn't caused by a identifiable private decision factor, -medical insurance and support should be given. (In practice the -distinction is subtle; this is also a very controversial topic.) -.Pp -People overemphasize the importance of democracy. In fact, democracy is -in my opinion less important than liberty---though in practice indeed -liberty wouldn't survive for long without democracy. -.Pp -Note that abortion and similar subjects may fall into the scope of -government. Some opponents of abortion believe that fetus is human life -and thus abortion is murder and shall be outlawed. The "privacy" and -"personal liberty" arguments don't stand up well against this as -it's no longer a personal matter when another human life is supposedly -on the line. [I oppose the abortion bans that Republicans in the US are -placing in many states for a different reason.](abortion.html) -.Pp -Modern populism (which is a poorly-defined term but does have the -following general scope) gives the power of deciding everything that -happens in the country to the people. This is bad in two ways. (1) The -general public often make uninformed and un-thought-through decisions -and are easily influenced. (2) The government, in this case directly the -collective decision of the people, is stepping its feet into the -personal lives of people. While it is democratic, it doesn't give -people liberty, creating a tyranny of the majority, and at the same time -making uninformed decisions which are better made by experts which -people elect. -.Pp -In future articles, I will discuss more practical issues in democracy -and society, especially on corruption of representatives, issues with -the modern voting system, etc. diff --git a/phil/demus.7 b/phil/demus.7 deleted file mode 100644 index 6fb6b10..0000000 --- a/phil/demus.7 +++ /dev/null @@ -1,90 +0,0 @@ -.Dd January 1, 1970 -.Dt demus phil -.Os Runxi Yu -.Sh NAME -.Nm demus -.Nd Democracy: The United States (Unfinished) -.Sh INTRODUCTION -.Pp -When people talk about democracies, it's common to think of the US -Constitution as the "defining point of democracy". While the US is the -first modern democracy, its is far from perfect. I will briefly go -through the following. -.Sh CORRUPTION -.Pp -A study shows that "Multivariate analysis indicates that economic -elites and organized groups representing business interests have -substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average -citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent -influence." -.Lk https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/S1537592714001595a.pdf/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens.pdf (Source) -.Pp -A near-ideal democracy would have a roughly linear positive correlation -between the fraction of voters who support a policy and the possibility -of the policy being passed in the legislature. But in the US, the line -is flat at about 30%. A representative democracy wouldn't have a -perfect correlation, because the general public is unable to be informed -on all topics; fluctuations are normal. But *a flat line* means that the -opinions of the people don't matter at all. This does not make sense in -any type of democracy. -.Pp -According to the study, the influence of economic elites and business -interest groups on politics is rather high with a rough positive -correlation as opposed to the flatline for the general public, making -the US an oligarchy rather than a democracy. Mass-based interest groups -have discernible impact on policies, but are still trivial compared with -economic elites and businesses. About three billion dollars are spent -yearly by large "politically active" businesses to bribe politicians -to pass policies for their interest. While businesses should have a say -in legislation, it is unacceptable that they have superior dominance -over public opinion. -.Sh THE SENATE -.Pp -The Senate of the USA consists of 100 members, with 2 from each state. -Two senators from California represent 39 million people while the two -from Wyoming represent 500 thousand people. The founding fathers never -could have imagined such a huge a difference between the population of -states. -.Pp -Some people believe that the Senate helps against populism as opposed to -the House. Although the number of Senators for each state do indeed not -correspond to the population, this has no correlation whatsoever with -preventing populism and doesn't serve an obvious purpose. It only -"helps" by giving completely unproportional voting powers to people -based on their location, period. -.Pp -The Senate also suffers from the fillibuster. Passing a bill in the -Senate has a few steps: Firstly the Senators must *agree to vote*, -passed at a supermajority. Then the Senators actually vote on the bill. -Those who are against the bill will just disagree to vote altogether, -effectively requiring all bills to have a supermajority support to pass -which is nearly impossible as the two dominant political parties almost -always oppose each others' bills and neither have a supermajority in -the Senate. -.Sh The Electoral College -.Pp -The electoral college makes it possible to win an federal election -without winning the national popular vote. It also, similarly but not as -badly as the Senate, represent the people of each state -disproportionally as each state has two extra electoral votes regardless -of their population. -.Pp -A subtle but serious problem with the electoral college is that -electors' listening to the votes of the people is only a *tradition*. -Legally, electors can vote however they want, meaning that the US is not -theoretically a democracy. This hasn't happened before, but this is one -more to the list of problems in the constitution, and is a potential for -disaster. -.Sh Plurality Voting -.Pp -Single-winner elections in the US uses what's called "plurality -voting", where each voter casts one vote to their favorite candidate -and the candidate with the most votes win. This contributes to the -partisan dualopoly (not an actual word, but it basically means -"monopoly" but with two rather than one) as voters who support smaller -parties will undergo the decision of choosing their honest favorite or -one of the two big parties that most closely ressembles their favorite. -As it's hard to gather votes for smaller parties, and thus there's a -small chance of them actually winning the electron, many voters -strategically vote for the big party in order to not be "taken over" -by the big party that they oppose more. |