Democracy: The Anti-Trust Government

[Etherealsage]

Not too long ago, I was arguing about corruption and a point was brought up about if I was going to operate on the basis of people doing something wrong, I might as well argue that we should never do anything. I still feel a bit much, but I got the point. So I started thinking of ways to make a corruption-proof government and I started dissecting the U.S. system to have a framework to work with. Well, in trying to improve upon it, I realized that there was not much I could do besides fine-tuning. In theory, the system itself is very sound, which frustrated me. And then I realized something else, the system completely revolves around avoiding the worst-case scenario (even though it was by no means, fool-proof, no system ever is). This is probably the number one rule of things not to do when designing a system or creating a plan because it generally becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Fine, no person can hold enough power in our country to turn it totalitarian, but no one (wo)man can hold enough power to stop rampant corruption either. In a way, all the effort put into creating a system that is resistant to influence of its leaders means that we've opened the door to corruptibility while maintaining structural integrity. It's hard to oppose. And the eventuality of corruption is inevitable in any system.

I'm going to leave this one open-ended and ask for all of your opinions and thoughts.

[Oso Mocoso]

And the eventuality of corruption is inevitable in any system.

I completely disagree with this assumption.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/04/World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png/800px-World_Map_Index_of_perception_of_corruption.png

Take a look at the green countries on the map. They seem to have set up governmental systems that are very intolerant of corruption.


I'm going to leave this one open-ended and ask for all of your opinions and thoughts.

Look up the Corruption Perceptions Index.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

According to this, if you're a governmental official in Denmark, New Zealand, Sweden or Singapore then you're probably not going to get away with very much political corruption.

My belief is that there is an element of culture to this sort of thing. In other words, my argument is that it isn't the system itself that disallows for corruption, but the assumptions brought to the government by the people who participate in the system. I'm sure the system has something to do with it as well, after all most of the places on the top of the list are western-style democratic republics. However, I think the mindset of your northern European people (check out where they all fall in the Transfair list) is what accounts for the absence of corruption seen in those governments.

[Etherealsage]

I agree that it has a lot to do with the people. That wasn't what I was trying to convey though. What I meant about the eventuality though is that someday somebody is going to get away with it in any system. The system itself can make it easier or harder, but just as good people come into power, so do bad people. That's all I meant by it. The scenario of what I was trying to get across is when corruption is widespread in the system. For example, multiple bribe-taking senators who may have a few corrupt officers in their pockets as opposed to a single bribe-taking senator who has to try and hide his/her activities from all. I'm not saying the system is particularly bad or anything like that, just that the very checks and balances that make it more difficult to corrupt make it harder to counteract when there's a larger volume. That's generally common sense that more corrupt people means it's harder to correct, but I mean it in that the system makes it extra difficult. For example, an uncorrupt monarch could throw a corrupt noble in jail on circumstantial evidence that makes him or her likely, whereas in our system you have to go through the judicial system, which in its best state means you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of your peer (which is fair), and in it's worst it means the one with money and connections makes the decisions (usually the corrupt side).

So basically I'm musing that our system makes corruptibility on lower levels of power more sustainable and stable while at the same time making it harder for it to completely take over. So I guess I'm marvelling at how a more easily corruptible system could, when the highest leaders are still uncorrupt, do a better job of keeping corruption at bay. The trade-off struck me, so I'm partially wondering what system would be all-around best and wondering what all of you think about my perception of the matter.

[pioneer_167]

Fine, no person can hold enough power in our country to turn it totalitarian

On what grounds do you base such an assertion?

To the contrary, I believe it only takes one person to turn a country totalitarian (and thus also corrupt). A long history of dictators seems to support this.

[Etherealsage]

On what grounds do you base such an assertion?

To the contrary, I believe it only takes one person to turn a country totalitarian (and thus also corrupt). A long history of dictators seems to support this.
Short of the government being already so throughly corrupt that one person could drum up enough support to take over, no one would be able to just appear at the top and manage to keep control because the balance of power is spread out. We don't entrust enough absolute power to the executive, judicial, or the legislative branches to take over without support from the others. Therefore, no 1 person can take over by abusing his or her absolute power (like a monarch could).

[30footsmurf]

I've put some thought into this as well, and I think the key to getting anywhere with it is understanding that people operate these governments, and don't do so based on good understandings of the principles of government, but rather through the courting of interest groups which they are then indebted to. So even with a perfect system you are utilizing imperfect players.
The way things really go down have more to do with how politicians interact with interest groups, and how much sway those groups have over politics is dependant on how much they can offer politicians. So I'd say first thing you gotta do is create a means of public discourse that doesn't allow private interests any greater sway than an the individuals that make it up would have under the constitution. In essence, if you want to do something, you have to create a means of election that doesn't require politicians to run for office at the pleasure of those with the most money. Its really more of an oligarchy when money has too much of effect on the outcome.

[30footsmurf]

Short of the government being already so throughly corrupt that one person could drum up enough support to take over, no one would be able to just appear at the top and manage to keep control because the balance of power is spread out. We don't entrust enough absolute power to the executive, judicial, or the legislative branches to take over without support from the others. Therefore, no 1 person can take over by abusing his or her absolute power (like a monarch could).

Perhaps the balance of power should be spread out. True freedom. Buy a gun.
I think thats actually a great idea. If you are always around your peers, and anyone of them might lose their mind and beat you to death for even being perceived as screwing them over, then you have to watch your ass a little better, and corruption would be more dangerous to engage in. If someone wants to take that risk its on them.

[pioneer_167]

Short of the government being already so throughly corrupt that one person could drum up enough support to take over, no one would be able to just appear at the top and manage to keep control because the balance of power is spread out. We don't entrust enough absolute power to the executive, judicial, or the legislative branches to take over without support from the others. Therefore, no 1 person can take over by abusing his or her absolute power (like a monarch could).

I find this reasoning to be disturbingly naive and very two dimensional.

For example, what says the person taking over even has to come directly from inside any of the three branches? One person could, through various methods, exert control and/or strong influence over many people including perhaps several from each branch.

Another example would be a perversion of use of executive orders.

Arguing that these three branches actually keep each other in check is akin to arguing that the free market actually keeps prices where they should be. In actuality you end up with things like cartels (where they aren't illegal).

I agree with you in theory. But reality is quite a different and much messier matter.

[Etherealsage]

I find this reasoning to be disturbingly naive and very two dimensional.

For example, what says the person taking over even has to come directly from inside any of the three branches? One person could, through various methods, exert control and/or strong influence over many people including perhaps several from each branch.

Another example would be a perversion of use of executive orders.

Arguing that these three branches actually keep each other in check is akin to arguing that the free market actually keeps prices where they should be. In actuality you end up with things like cartels (where they aren't illegal).

I agree with you in theory. But reality is quite a different and much messier matter.
Simple. Attempts to take over without having the 3 branches in control or wiping them out in some form or another (bloody or not) would lead to civil war. Army/National Guard, Police forces/SWAT, and the CIA. So really, I'm talking about taking over and maintaining the infrastructure. A bloodless coup. Anyone can gain power to start a war.

Do I really need to cover every technicality in an abstract discussion?

[C.J.Woolf]

Concentrating power into one person's hands will naturally increase that person's leverage, for good or for ill. Modern societies have pretty much decided that the bad outweighs the good, at least when absolute power is open-ended.

Republican Rome invented the office of Dictator, but they elected theirs for a one-year term, and only in times of grave crisis -- not just any war, not just any big war, but a big war they were losing. Every Roman Dictator voluntarily left office at the end of his term, until the Republic unraveled under assholes like Sulla and Caesar who didn't respect the customs and institutions of the Roman state.

The end of the Roman Republic is a good lesson about the fragility of a government that depends of institutions rather than raw force.


My belief is that there is an element of culture to this sort of thing. In other words, my argument is that it isn't the system itself that disallows for corruption, but the assumptions brought to the government by the people who participate in the system. I'm sure the system has something to do with it as well, after all most of the places on the top of the list are western-style democratic republics. However, I think the mindset of your northern European people (check out where they all fall in the Transfair list) is what accounts for the absence of corruption seen in those governments.
I agree. Every political system is a product of culture. The idea of democracy is still uncomfortable to some cultures, though it's probably not alien anymore.


Perhaps the balance of power should be spread out. True freedom. Buy a gun.
That idea taken to its logical extreme is Somalia.

[pioneer_167]

Simple. Attempts to take over without having the 3 branches in control or wiping them out in some form or another (bloody or not) would lead to civil war. Army/National Guard, Police forces/SWAT, and the CIA. So really, I'm talking about taking over and maintaining the infrastructure. A bloodless coup. Anyone can gain power to start a war.

Do I really need to cover every technicality in an abstract discussion?

Of course not. I'm merely suggesting that there are more dimensions to this idea of corruption and takeover than you seem to be acknowledging.

I think you're imagining a takeover being like throwing a frog in boiling water. Of course it will just jump out--the takeover wouldn't work. I'm suggesting the slower more clandestine method of bringing the water to boil with the frog already in it.

If I were going to perform a coup, I'd start influencing key players until I could control them like puppets. Then whats to stop me from projecting my will (via those puppets) to the society in question?

[Etherealsage]

If I were going to perform a coup, I'd start influencing key players until I could control them like puppets. Then whats to stop me from projecting my will (via those puppets) to the society in question?
What makes you assume that you will succeed or that they're not playing you for their own gains?

[Zephyrus055]

I think that the capitalist elites just want their interests represented, and they tend to dislike traditional monarchies because they tend to be opposed to their interests. Think of Great Britain and how the old nobility wanted tariffs to protect their estates, while the interests of the capitalists was to destroy those tariffs so they could increase their profits.

Likewise, capitalist elites have had no problem installing a dictator loyal to them in the event that they know they're screwed otherwise, like in the case of Hitler and Mussolini. Sometimes I wonder if the repeated history of accidental installment of independent dictators taught them that it's better to buy off a lot of people than to trust a military dictator. In the case of "democracy," if someone goes independent they are expendable. I think that this may also be the case of Iraq. Trusting dictators works dandy until they decide to invade Kuwait. If you install a democracy in a foreign country, you have some insurance from someone who decides to back stab you.

Personally, I think that some countries are unwilling to become democratic because the elites have conflicting interests. You realize that they actually do when you observe some of those countries, and logically a democracy is difficult to run when the elites have such conflicting interests. One coalition of elites may just say "fuck it, I have a bigger gun than you!" In the case of the US especially, hehe, I am pretty sure the elites by and large are perfectly happy and comfortable with the status quo. There is little competition between them, and quite frankly I think that they're a little too comfortable.

In the case of corruption, I think it's tied to stability and interest in the state. Depending on how much competition and control the elites have over the country, it's kind of hard to prevent corruption when you don't have much control over it. It's also hard to have control over a country when the elites are competing for power. In other cases, the elites just don't care because they know they are milking the country dry before they will retire somewhere else.

In summary, my view is that every political system is a product of economics. Economics may affect culture, but really you just aren't going to have a democracy in an organized state with feudal economics. I'm sorry, won't happen! In such an economic system, the guaranteed political system is Monarchy or possibly Feudal Oligarchy.

[pioneer_167]

What makes you assume that you will succeed or that they're not playing you for their own gains?

I'm not assuming anything. All I'm saying is that it is a possibility and one of many at that.

[Etherealsage]

I'm not assuming anything. All I'm saying is that it is a possibility and one of many at that.
Well, "influencing key players" is so vague that it leaves the question of "to what?" Even if that's answered, there would be the issue of not blowing your cover and far too many factors to consider on a hypothetical because it would have to be based on a scenario involving real people. It's not that the understanding in thin, it's just that it would be a near-endless analysis that would require intense study of current political theory, political situations, politicians, and their personalities. And really, "how to stage a coup in the current government specifically" is not what I had in mind when writing this. :lol:

[pioneer_167]

And really, "how to stage a coup in the current government specifically" is not what I had in mind when writing this. :lol:

I know, sorry to get so far off on this tangent.

For those who might still be interested:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Stage-Military-Coup-Execution/dp/1602393753/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244757118&sr=8-1

...sometimes the internet scares me.

[CEOofRawness]

"I don't think we should be governing ourselves. What need is a king, and every now and then if the king’s not doing a good job, we kill him." - George Carlin

I think this other Carlin quote fits the topic somewhat as well:

"The owners of this country know the truth: It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."

I think the problem with a democracy (or republic) is that while it might be hard to corrupt it, it's also a lot harder to eliminate corruption if it ever gets to that point. Once everyone's "in", (moral) outsiders will be ostracized and believed to be the bad guys.