Response to @dwinblood: Anarchism Not for The Individual #debate - #politics - #anarchism - #debate - #democracy

To see his full comment (which I recommend) please follow this link - I'll be citing parts of it.

1.

 There is no true Democratic government. The term gets used a lot but I can't actually find a case where there is/has been one. There are a lot of Republics that shroud themselves in the term Democracy, but they are still representative forms of governance. 

I agree. 

What I meant by Democracy, was just general Western form of governance. Not a strict democracy, which I'm not sure I even support.

 Furthermore, there are some fundamental reasons true Democracy would scare the hell out of me in this day and age. To make GOOD decisions you need access to two very important things Education (especially familiarity with reason and critical thinking), and ALL the information on the topic related to the decision. Omission of information can steer your decision in a direction you may not approve of simply because, important information was withheld. If the place that the masses get most of their information from is censored and carefully controlled then that "Democracy" is practical effect essentially CONTROLLED by whichever people are disseminating the information. 

As long as information is excludable, which it is, this is a risk in any political system.

But yes, true.

Althought, I have no problem with representative government, more specifically a system of delegated technocracy. Where the educated and informed make decisions based on modelling that would fit their background such that their personal interests can be assumed to be aligned with that of the people they're representing.

 A true democracy would ONLY work the way people imagine it to IF everyone had EQUAL ACCESS to education (still would need to take advantage of that), and 100% uncensored access to information. There could be no such thing as Top Secret, Classified, etc. You cannot make an informed decision without access to all information related to that decision. Now IF it is as good as people think it could be there should be no reason to hide that information. 

On the first part of your argument I agree.

Though I support a representative technocratic democracy.

Those being represented are trusting in their delegates to make informed decisions.

So if the delegate believes it's not in the interests of his voters to reveal certain information, he would not be doing his job if he revealed that information.

 As long as human nature is a factor there is NO true Utopian idea. Human nature and especially cronyism can corrupt them ALL. 

I disagree. Systems should be and can be designed with built in insulation from malicious actors.

A system of representative technocracy with delegates being rigorously profiled to match their voters, seems pretty solid to me.

Human nature wouldn't affect the modelling.

 I tend to believe in the morality of natural law. This morality works with Anarchy and it completely fails with Democracy. 

Natural law forces me to impose draconian disincentives to protect my position.

I'd rather pool commission from my capital in a fund which goes to my delegate, so that imposing these disincentives can be done at a cost cheaper to me.

The negative impact of malicious behaviour by the delegate, can be restrained by increasing his reliance on his pool of voters.

So the little skimming on top of the funds, or illegal collusion shouldn't be so grave that it would counterbalance the cost-saving I get from delegating incentive administration.

 They love democracy, especially when the bulk of the population is more concerned about the latest sporting event, or what celebrity X is doing than the stuff that is likely impacting their lives. 

Sure. Which will be solved by profiled technocratic representative democracy.

If there's any flaw you can see with technocratic representative democracy, I'd love to hear it.

#politics #anarchism #democracy #debate