Idiots allowed to vote.

[Day]

EDIT: as a non-native english speaker, and for lots of other reasons, I disagree with the idea of dividing blocks depending on the mainly used language.

You read an obvious, but unintended, implication. I don't know what other languages Professor Dawkins speaks. If he speaks French he should obviously rule French-speaking lands too.

I would gladly volunteer to rule France for you, if I spoke the lingo, but I don't. (If I won lotto I'd be over there in a flash - ta, ta, bye, Australia. And if I won lotto I'd employ a bilingual flunky to speak to my neighbours for me. For historical reasons Australians take a perverse pride in being monolingual.)

I'm not sure anybody who ends up ruling France really knows what they put their feet into.
Most France rulers have delusions of grandeur. For Giscard and Sarkozy, it was at the medical stage. For Hollande, it's well-hidden. For Chirac and Pompidou, I think they were not affected.
But for De Gaulle, it was his own delusions of Grandeur for France which allowed him to secure France world's place post-1945!...

Concerning Dawkins's rule of France, this exactly exemplifies what I said before: he hasn't led LOTS of people, and leading the french is harder than herding cats: if they don't like what you do, they demonstrate, sometimes with tons of manure in your office, and when you fail to hear them, they revolt and put you out of power, sometimes cutting your head.
So... I push harder for Linus Torvalds If he doesn't manage, nobody would.

You are of course welcome to come here, even monolingually. Most french will take a unadulterated pleasure in regaling you with interesting chat, of course all of it in french, and sometimes shouting for you to better understand.
As to rule here yourself... we've got a saying here, which loosely translates as: "Fascism is "Shut up!" Democracy is “Talk all you want!”". So, you're totally welcome to try

And given who will be the candidates for the next presidential election, I would really welcome you and vote for you. (On the basis that the state machine probably would stop anything you do , and some times need no action rather than the proposed bad actions of the other candidates.)

[UK_Eliter]

in principle, democracies are improvable

Please, what do you mean?

Thank you for your response, Day. I mean that (democracies are improvable in that) their electorates are improvable. By 'improvable' I mean: can become better informed and less factional. As to why I think that (think that electorates are improvable): well, surely, at least given certain conditions, that change is possible. Why think it is not?

Well, I do realise that totalitarian regimes can understand 'improving the electorate' in a perverse way that warrants scare-quotes. I am not commending such perverse construals. Nor do I think that determining exactly what a good electorate would be, or how we could justifiably encourage such a thing, is entirely straightforward. However, I am confident that we have a rough idea of what a good electorate would be, and that there are some acceptable and reasonably practical means of encouraging it.

I can sum up thus: we can try to have an unpartisan, informed electorate, as against a factional, stupid electorate; and it seems clear which type we should (by reasonable means) strive for.

As to Richard Dawskins as 'prime-autocrat-tyrant-dictator of the English-speaking world' (Wildeblood; and with apologies if I take this too seriously): even aside from objections to dictatorship, I don't want him in chage. Dawkins gets some of his appeal by philosophising, and (/but) he is a poor, even very poor, philosopher. I can expand on this if necessary. (I will point out immediately, though, that the introduction to Dawkins's book The God Delusion is, perversely, a rant against the accusation that its author is a ranter. I might add - though it has little argumentative force - that I am an atheist but I would rather not have allies like Dawkins.)

[Day]

I can sum up thus: we can try to have an unpartisan, informed electorate, as against a factional, stupid electorate; and it seems clear which type we should (by reasonable means) strive for.

Thank you UK_Eliter,

I confess I read improvable as "not provable"... I had a meaning in head about the fact that to be able to make an assertion, it has to be falsifiable (else the assertion is useless).
So, my mistake.

About the improvability of the electorate, as much as I agree with you that it is desirable and that not trying to improve it is NOT desirable, I'm very much in doubt that it is feasible.
It goes against an important and mainstream tenet of our democracies, personal auto-determination. If somebody doesn't want to assign some time to improve himself on a non-personnaly chosen subject, who has the legitimity to force him to do it ?

And if we force people to learn, then we use tyrannical means.
I don't remember how it was decided to make mandatory the school in anglo-saxons countries, but in France, it was made so children learn the ideals of the République, and not the ideals of their factory workers parents. It was at the time of the birth of workers syndicates.
What I mean is mandatory schooling was a tyrannical decision limiting people freedom, put in place nonetheless with the goal of society well-being.

[Disembodied]

It is a historical truism that all regimes - anything that we could recognisably call a state - collapse. All of them, every single one: they all, sooner or later, keel over, kick their sociological legs in the air and die. Generally what follows is a period of confusion and chaos, involving lots of misery and suffering for the weakest, and the emergence of a new regime - usually pretty much a clone of the previous one, with a mildly different bunch of utter bastards in charge. This then inflicts misery and suffering on the weakest, but usually more a regulated and less random misery and suffering, of a generally non-fatal kind.

To date, most of these regimes have been - unsurprisingly, given that we are by nature hierarchical primates - variations on the Big Man At The Top theme. A king dies, or is incapacitated, leaving no clear, popular and preferably adult successor; one or more usurpers vie for the throne until one wins out and establishes a new dynasty. Or a dictator dies, leaving a Party machine which is then convulsed in (more or less open, more or less active) warfare, until a new Party chief/Supreme Leader etc. emerges with a sufficiency of potential violence behind him to cow the rest into accepting his wise rule. Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

So far, democracy stands out from this tedious scrum of the most ghastly men (massively, overwhelmingly, it's men) in history in that it has regime change built in to it - regular, non-violent, and broadly accepted regime change. So far. What is of concern, presently, is that these democratic regime changes appear to be less and less meaningful. Leaders and governing parties are changing but the policies, by and large - the grand macroeconomic policies in particular - remain the same: take all the warmth, comfort, shelter, and sustenance from those who need it most, and give it to those who already have more of these things than they could ever possibly know what to do with.

This suggests to me that many of our democratic nations are no longer democratic in a meaningful sense. If a change of regime does not result in a noticeable change in the way in which a society is run, then is it really a change of regime at all? And if democracy ceases to provide meaningful, voluntary, non-violent regime change, then it will become subject to the same forces which have provided violent, involuntary regime change to all other forms of society throughout history.

[Cody]

[snip]

All too true... and on the day that a democratic vote may send a very clear message!

[UK_Eliter]

Disembodied: I agree, at least broadly.

Day: thanks for your courteous reply. We are getting into difficult stuff. You make me realise that I have not properly thought out my position. I feel safe in distinguishing trying to improve (1) children, (2) adults, and in saying that trying to inculcate certain values in children - being paternalistic towards children! - is desirable. However, I am unsure about how to fill this out. Ideas, anyone?

[Day]

So far, democracy stands out from this tedious scrum of the most ghastly men (massively, overwhelmingly, it's men) in history in that it has regime change built in to it - regular, non-violent, and broadly accepted regime change. So far. What is of concern, presently, is that these democratic regime changes appear to be less and less meaningful. Leaders and governing parties are changing but the policies, by and large - the grand macroeconomic policies in particular - remain the same

I'd like to explicit how: it is easy for those having the means (let's say megacorps) to propose legislation changes which promote their interests. One little change at the time, the balance is skewed in favor of those. Those targeting representatives indifferently of their professed orientation (left/right/whatever), these changes never stop.
I think it important to show that the built-in processes lead there, without needing any conspiracy theory.

: take all the warmth, comfort, shelter, and sustenance from those who need it most, and give it to those who already have more of these things than they could ever possibly know what to do with.

This is merely a by-product. Their goal isn't to make others poorer, but make themselves richer.

This suggests to me that many of our democratic nations are no longer democratic in a meaningful sense. If a change of regime does not result in a noticeable change in the way in which a society is run, then is it really a change of regime at all? And if democracy ceases to provide meaningful, voluntary, non-violent regime change, then it will become subject to the same forces which have provided violent, involuntary regime change to all other forms of society throughout history.

This is how a democracy switches to a tyranny, yes.
Sometimes, the democracy switches (violently) to another democracy, with short-term goals to address the public's woes.
I write short-term, because as soon as it is stabilized, the previous "little change by little change" method comes back.

[Disembodied]

I'd like to explicit how: it is easy for those having the means (let's say megacorps) to propose legislation changes which promote their interests. One little change at the time, the balance is skewed in favor of those. Those targeting representatives indifferently of their professed orientation (left/right/whatever), these changes never stop.
I think it important to show that the built-in processes lead there, without needing any conspiracy theory.

I agree, it's not a conspiracy theory, just human nature (especially if you remember that nature of big business tends to select for a certain personality type at the top):

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

This is how a democracy switches to a tyranny, yes.
Sometimes, the democracy switches (violently) to another democracy, with short-term goals to address the public's woes.
I write short-term, because as soon as it is stabilized, the previous "little change by little change" method comes back.

I'm not sanguine about the ability of contemporary democracies to successfully resist the creeping takeover by corporate interests and the super-rich, without falling into some violent interregnum or perpetual "state of emergency". Democracy - contemporary nation-state democracy - is still a very new phenomenon, and there aren't many countries who have been running a full-blown democracy for more than a century yet. We need to see if, as a form of society, it has the ability to fight off the oligarchic tendencies of capitalism without collapsing.

[cim]

So far, democracy stands out from this tedious scrum of the most ghastly men (massively, overwhelmingly, it's men) in history in that it has regime change built in to it - regular, non-violent, and broadly accepted regime change. So far. What is of concern, presently, is that these democratic regime changes appear to be less and less meaningful. Leaders and governing parties are changing but the policies, by and large - the grand macroeconomic policies in particular - remain the same

I'd like to explicit how: it is easy for those having the means (let's say megacorps) to propose legislation changes which promote their interests. One little change at the time, the balance is skewed in favor of those. Those targeting representatives indifferently of their professed orientation (left/right/whatever), these changes never stop.
I think it important to show that the built-in processes lead there, without needing any conspiracy theory.

But additionally, in a democracy such as the northwestern European ones, the broad situation is - by historical standards - actually pretty good. No expensive wars on their own territory for a while (and sufficient stability in their neighbours too to suggest that this may continue in at least the medium-term); advanced technology; significant outsourcing of unpleasant stuff and other forms of economic exploitation to other countries whose citizens don't get a vote ... all creates a large mass of people (not necessarily a majority) who are basically happy with how things are, or at least only mildly discontented. They might be happier in a different society not practically reachable by incremental change in their lifetime ... but probably not enough happier for it to be worth the risks of a revolution (violent or democratic) to achieve it.

(There are certainly many people to whom this doesn't apply and for whom the status quo is anything but stable and pleasant, but while they may be a majority numerically they're not all wanting things to change in the same direction, and a lot of what they might want to change isn't necessarily within the scope of government to affect)

In that situation parties promising overall stability of the status quo will generally be the winners, and things won't necessarily change much between elections even if the party in charge changes (though details not related to the overall goal of stability can vary significantly between parties)

In the case of an internal or external crisis then the "pro-stability" parties are weakened, because "no major changes" then means "more crisis", and because confidence in their ability to provide stability has been lost because they "allowed" (irrelevant, of course, whether they could actually have prevented it) the crisis. Others with different approaches can potentially take their place.

"Different approaches" could be populist power-sharing types or overt "strong leader" dictators, so it's not automatically a positive thing if things do change quickly, either.

I'm not sanguine about the ability of contemporary democracies to successfully resist the creeping takeover by corporate interests and the super-rich

I'm not sure if that's the right way to look at it. If you think about the evolution of England's political systems (and later the UK's political systems) then there's a gradual devolution of power from an absolute monarch, through feudalism, the early "commons" parliaments consisting of the wealthy and influential non-nobility of the day, through to the abolition of the rotten boroughs and the gradual extensions of suffrage rights, to a greater number of people - but, relatively little power has actually been delegated in practical terms, and from the first acceptance that absolute monarchy was over what sharing has taken place has been grudgingly given.

I'm not sure "takeover" by the already powerful is the right way to look at it; while their personal identities may be CEOs rather than Earls, democracy largely hasn't changed that they have the majority of the "official" power.

I don't think there's a particular risk to democracy (collectively, rather than in individual nations where a military coup or the election of a dictator could occur) ending - the powerful are quite well served by "change of regime" meaning "minor adjustments and reorganisations required" rather than "risk of head on spike" for them, as well as - due to the slower pace of a democracy amending existing laws compared with a revolutionary council signing execution warrants - much more warning of the need to move.

[Day]

Day: thanks for your courteous reply.

It's a pleasure.

I feel safe in distinguishing trying to improve (1) children, (2) adults

Well, I don't feel safe with that. We are entering a society where the schema (initial formation -> professionnal work) is generally becoming (continuous formation <-> work).
So the opposition "learning child" vs "knowing adult" will evolve.

[Disembodied]

I'm not sure if that's the right way to look at it. If you think about the evolution of England's political systems (and later the UK's political systems) then there's a gradual devolution of power from an absolute monarch, through feudalism, the early "commons" parliaments consisting of the wealthy and influential non-nobility of the day, through to the abolition of the rotten boroughs and the gradual extensions of suffrage rights, to a greater number of people - but, relatively little power has actually been delegated in practical terms, and from the first acceptance that absolute monarchy was over what sharing has taken place has been grudgingly given.

I think the historical "evolution" idea is a fallacy, myself: there is no direction to history. Narratives of development and progress are imposed on the past, ignoring the random internal and external forces of their day. For example, the English parliament gained a great deal of power during the reign of Elizabeth I because she, despite her (current, retrospectively applied) reputation as a "strong" ruler, spent a precarious reign balancing packs of noble, political, religious and moneyed interests against each other - largely because she was a woman in a massively masculine age. When James VI of Scotland took the English throne on Elizabeth's death, he was able to quite rapidly dispense with parliament altogether, and rule directly - in large part because, as a man, he didn't have to spend his life avoiding forcible or semi-forcible marriage.

Equally, the Civil War and the victory of parliament over the monarchy in the reign of Charles I was not part of a grand historical progress from absolutism to democracy: rather it was a retrograde motion, provoked by elderly parliamentarians who wished to return to the more powerful situation they had enjoyed under Elizabeth. If Charles had been able to fend off open civil war for just a few more years, most of his prominent parliamentary opponents would have died of old age. The younger generation, in Charles's day, tended to favour the hip new concept (at the time) of absolute monarchism.

I'm not sure "takeover" by the already powerful is the right way to look at it; while their personal identities may be CEOs rather than Earls, democracy largely hasn't changed that they have the majority of the "official" power.

I don't think there's a particular risk to democracy (collectively, rather than in individual nations where a military coup or the election of a dictator could occur) ending - the powerful are quite well served by "change of regime" meaning "minor adjustments and reorganisations required" rather than "risk of head on spike" for them, as well as - due to the slower pace of a democracy amending existing laws compared with a revolutionary council signing execution warrants - much more warning of the need to move.

Granted, the rich and powerful have always been with us - but although I agree that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, I'd also argue that the past is a very bad guide to what we can expect in the future. Especially in our current situation of globalised finance and very rapid, equally globalised change - to say nothing of other factors such as population size, resource depletion, and the destructive capabilities of military technologies.

All of which is to say, essentially, that I don't know what's going to happen, but that I think there are no guarantees or even reliable indicators of where we're heading. Collectively, we need to keep our wits about us, and take nothing for granted.

[Day]

I'm not sure "takeover" by the already powerful is the right way to look at it; while their personal identities may be CEOs rather than Earls, democracy largely hasn't changed that they have the majority of the "official" power

Personnaly, I see this as the evolution of the repartition of power. Putting names/labels on the ones in power is misleading, it's a fluid et (mostly) continuous transition from the previously well-placed for power to the new well-placed for power.

I can give an example: 50 years ago in France, most politicians were doctors, notaries, teachers. Now they're mostly lawyers. It's a fluid transition from people previously well-placed for power to people currently well-placed for power.
Digression: currently in France, notaries acts are progressively opened to lawyers.

An interesting (at least to me) thing to look for is the real legitimity of these powerful people. Goods owners are responsible for their goods; so it's only logical that people/company owning most of a country shape its legislation.

But if we push the idea further, it's not "owners", but "stakeholders" that count. As a citizen, i've got a stake in the future of my country, independantly from any property I may own. And, let's argue that young people having longer to live in this country, they should have a higher vote than old people.

So the problem is the representation isn't correlated with the stakes (Representation/taxation/revolution, I see a theme here ).
Now, if we graphed the couple (representation, stake) for each kind of person, I bet we wouldn't get a line, and we would have proofs and measures that megacorps have a more important representation that their real stake should warrant.

Being able to make such a graph would be a very interesting research subject, indeed.

[Smivs]

50 years ago in France, most politicians were doctors, notaries, teachers. Now they're mostly lawyers.

Well, here in the UK we seem to have a parliament full of politicians! Seriously, very few of them have ever had a 'proper job' but rather they have gone through Uni studying Politics (or Economics or somesuch) and then work their way up through the political system as activists or reseachers etc. until they are shoe-horned into a seat by their Party.
We have ended up with a government of professional politicians who seem to know nothing of the 'Real World'. No wonder the country is in such a bloody mess!

[ClymAngus]

I nominate Professor Richard Dawkins

It would be quite interesting to see what aspects of Ethology can be used to enrich the selfish nature of diplomacy.

[Wildeblood]

I nominate Professor Richard Dawkins

It would be quite interesting to see what aspects of Ethology can be used to enrich the selfish nature of diplomacy.

It might be an opportune time to confess I loath the guy. I thought I was setting the bar low to encourage you all to nominate better candidates.
Anyway, the discussion has taken a different direction so not too much harm done. I'm really enjoying reading all your thoughtful comments, but hesitant to add anything myself for fear of causing a digression.