Atheists in Florida are celebrating the erection of the first atheist monument on public land in the U.S. It seems that some religious people are upset at this. One of their objections is that this monument serves the purpose of protesting the monument to the Ten Commandments that has been present at the same courthouse for some time. It was stated that the Ten Commandments were the source of law in this country.
I would say that if some people want a monument to advance the view that they were a source for law in this country, that people who disagree with this should be able to promote their views in the same manner. As it happens I think that the opponents of the Ten Commandments are right.
To examine this issue let's take a look at the Decalog and compare it to the Constitution.
1. Do not worship any other gods. It seems that the writers of our constitution not only forgot to put this one in, they directly contradict it. American Atheists rightly point out in their monument that under Old Testament law the punishment for this is death. Our constitution fails to mention gods at all. As near as I can tell the part that deals most directly with the practice of worshiping other gods is the first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It seems that not only have the writers of the Constitution failed to establish the death penalty for worshiping other gods, but they have made it impossible for Congress to make any laws establishing a punishment for this infraction. So far were the writers from prohibiting the practice that they actually managed to protect it.
2. Do not make any idols. Again we search in vain for any reference to idols, graven images, likenesses to anything on heaven or the earth and so on. There is no mention of these whatsoever. It seems that this practice enjoys the same protection as the first. It seems to me that there is quite a bit of difference between protecting a practice and establishing a death penalty for that same practice. Apparently this distinction has escaped the attention of some of our more theistically inclined friends.
3. Do not misuse the name of God. Again no mention of any god in the Constitution. It would seem that this practice would fall under the same first amendment protection as the last two.
4. Keep the Sabbath holy. Again no mention of a Sabbath or even a day of rest, nor any mention of anything being kept holy or sacred. There's nothing in the Constitution specifically protecting people who want to work on the Sabbath, but the writers have neglected to prohibit the practice. However, laws against working on Sunday are not entirely unknown in our legal history.
5. Honor your father and mother. Again the writers of the Constitution left this part out. There is no mention of mothers and fathers in the text at all. If you follow the link to the Constitution that I have provided above you will find father only once and that is in a supplementary note at the bottom providing a link to the biographies of "founding fathers" who didn't sign the Constitution. However, there have historically been laws in our country stipulating that children obey their parents.
6. Do not murder. There is no mention in our constitution of murder. However, here it seems that the promoters of the Decalog have some justification. We see this in the fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
See the part near the end where no person is to be deprived of life without due process of law.
7. Do not commit adultery. I find no mention of adultery, cheating, husband or wife. I doubt that the writers of our constitution intended for the government to establish a death penalty for the practice. Some may even have been guilty of the offense. However, there have been laws enforcing this commandment.
8. Do not steal. In addition to the fifth amendment quoted above there is the fourth:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Score one more for the Decalog.
9. Do not lie. I believe that this commandment is more narrow than this. Other versions specifically prohibit bearing false testimony against a neighbor. It is probably a prohibition against defamation of character, or perhaps perjury. This is indeed a part of our legal tradition, though it didn't make it into the constitution.
10. Do not covet. This commandment is traditionally interpreted as a prohibition against envy, which would be very difficult for human institutions to enforce. I have run across a video of a TEDx talk that looked at the word used for covet as it was used in other parts of the Old Testament. The speaker made a persuasive case that the original meaning referred to taking something for one's own use. Unfortunately I am unable to provide a link to the video. This interpretation gives the most charitable interpretation of the commandment. Thus we could make a case that this rule is part of our legal tradition, even though this is probably by accident and it is difficult to tell how this differs from a prohibition against stealing.
In summary three of the Ten Commandments are directly opposed by the Constitution. It is specifically those commandments that deal with God and worship that are likely to be opposed. Of the remaining seven, only two or three have anything that could remotely be considered support in the Constitution. However, there either is some support for them in other parts of our law or was at some point in the past. The penalties for infractions have only been as severe in the case of murder.
The parts of the Ten Commandments that made it into our constitution and laws were often present in societies that drew from other sources. For instance the Code of Hammurabi contains numerous provisions against theft and a few against violence along with references to other gods. It is thought by most scholars to predate the Decalog by centuries. It is simply not the case that civilizations with other religious traditions thought that theft and murder were acceptable. So much for the Ten Commandments being a unique source from which our constitution and laws derive.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Politics
Now I'm turning to the subject of what sort of political institutions one should consent to. Thomas Jefferson pointed out that government derives its due powers from the consent of the governed. Others have suggested that it would be impossible for any government to function without that consent. It is necessary that people at least tolerate the institutions that govern them. Otherwise those institutions could not function.
It is not the case that we should look at the institutions that our "founding fathers" set up as reflecting the will of the people. Our constitution was not written by the people, not even the ones living at the time. It was written by elected legislators. "We the legislators of the United States of America..." would be a more accurate, though less eloquent and idealistic, beginning to the preamble to our constitution. At the time women and slaves were excluded from the vote. Even if they had been included and ignoring the conflicts between the interests of elected officials and the ones who vote for them (or, in the case of a minority, against them), this does not justify our consent today, although the survival of those institutions over time may be taken as a point in their favor.
First I begin with the individual since it is individuals who will have to decide whether to consent or not. This decision will depend in part on whether others are likely to consent or not, or rather on whether or not each individual sees them as likely to consent. This will motivate the individual to favor abstract principles in determining who should govern, as opposed to having each individual support their own dictatorship. Each individual will want to retain control over their own person and will want to cooperate with others in setting up abstract principles that are to govern the people they are likely to interact with. A natural consequence of this is that those same institutions will govern them as well.
I believe that under current conditions it is unrealistic to expect that a large proportion of society will support pure capitalism. Likewise it is unrealistic to expect people to support pure socialism. We will, however, want to set up some set of rules to determine how we are to treat those parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person. Some parts are to be treated as a common well from which any may draw, subject to certain rules set by the group as a whole. Others are to be treated as individual property, each part under the exclusive control of a single person which can be transferred either to another individual or the group as a whole only in accordance with the wish of that individual or in order to satisfy some abstract principle that the group has decided on.
People are part of natural groups, for the purpose of government based on whether they are likely to interact in such a way that one person would have the ability to directly effect the person of another or on whether they are likely to have conflicts over control of certain parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person. I, along with an overwhelming majority, support the traditional approach of dividing the world into geographic zones, where exclusive jurisdiction is given to governments in each zone and aggression on the part of governments is prohibited.
I strongly support the features of our constitution that guarantee certain rights to individuals. Freedom of speech, the press and religion. In addition to this there are protections against unreasonable seizure of one's person or property and ones that are not part of the due process of law, which I regard as a guarantee that any transfer of assets, confiscation or arrest of a person must be in order to satisfy some abstract principle which the group has decided on as a whole.
Now the people in each of these zones will have to determine a process where they can determine which course of action will be considered the will of the group as a whole. A simple majority in an election is generally considered suitable for most purposes. However, in the case of some constitutional protections of individual rights we will want these to be harder to override. Hence the people will want to place certain protections of individual rights in their constitutions and specify a somewhat more cumbersome process for altering those protections.
People may want a more complex set of laws than they are willing to specify directly through a system of elections. In addition, they may want to delegate legislative decisions to people who are more competent to make such evaluations. Similarly it might be desirable for the people to select others who will administer the law and act as judges. That is traditionally described as filling the legislative, judicial and executive powers of government. I'm not entirely sure that people will necessarily see the need to have a sufficiently complex set of laws to justify delegation. In any case, I wouldn't constitutionally rule it out. As for the other two functions of government I see no viable alternative than to delegate them.
Any such delegation should be set up so as to select legislatures, executives and judges that are willing and able to govern wisely and in the interest of the governed. I would support exams to test ability and a system of elections to hold them accountable, so that they will be willing to serve the people.
In previous posts I have described how I believe the legislative and executive functions of government should operate. I support a parliamentary system. Those wishing to serve in parliament should take an exam. The people will vote on which proportion of the parliament should retain office. The requisite number should be dismissed at random and replaced by randomly selected candidates who have passed the qualifying exam. Alternately they could be replaced by those who got the highest scores. The random feature was placed here so as to prevent the parliament from altering the exam in order to prevent their replacement. I do not support a separate president because I believe the office gives too much power to a single individual.
Now judges could also be selected by a similar process. People could vote on whether a judge retains office. If not, that judge would be replaced by the individual who got the highest score on a qualifying exam excluding the judge who was just dismissed.
I oppose the current practice of delegating changes in the constitution regarding individual rights and the way the people delegate authority. It is entirely irrational to give those in power exclusive control over alterations on limits to that power. Similarly it is unwise to give them control over changes in the method that the people will use to replace them. If the people want to make it more cumbersome to make changes to these rules, we can always require a supermajority instead of a simple majority. I believe that this is a feature of constitutions that exists only because they were written by legislators instead of the people and one that does not merit our consent.
It is not the case that we should look at the institutions that our "founding fathers" set up as reflecting the will of the people. Our constitution was not written by the people, not even the ones living at the time. It was written by elected legislators. "We the legislators of the United States of America..." would be a more accurate, though less eloquent and idealistic, beginning to the preamble to our constitution. At the time women and slaves were excluded from the vote. Even if they had been included and ignoring the conflicts between the interests of elected officials and the ones who vote for them (or, in the case of a minority, against them), this does not justify our consent today, although the survival of those institutions over time may be taken as a point in their favor.
First I begin with the individual since it is individuals who will have to decide whether to consent or not. This decision will depend in part on whether others are likely to consent or not, or rather on whether or not each individual sees them as likely to consent. This will motivate the individual to favor abstract principles in determining who should govern, as opposed to having each individual support their own dictatorship. Each individual will want to retain control over their own person and will want to cooperate with others in setting up abstract principles that are to govern the people they are likely to interact with. A natural consequence of this is that those same institutions will govern them as well.
I believe that under current conditions it is unrealistic to expect that a large proportion of society will support pure capitalism. Likewise it is unrealistic to expect people to support pure socialism. We will, however, want to set up some set of rules to determine how we are to treat those parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person. Some parts are to be treated as a common well from which any may draw, subject to certain rules set by the group as a whole. Others are to be treated as individual property, each part under the exclusive control of a single person which can be transferred either to another individual or the group as a whole only in accordance with the wish of that individual or in order to satisfy some abstract principle that the group has decided on.
People are part of natural groups, for the purpose of government based on whether they are likely to interact in such a way that one person would have the ability to directly effect the person of another or on whether they are likely to have conflicts over control of certain parts of the material world that are not part of anyone's person. I, along with an overwhelming majority, support the traditional approach of dividing the world into geographic zones, where exclusive jurisdiction is given to governments in each zone and aggression on the part of governments is prohibited.
I strongly support the features of our constitution that guarantee certain rights to individuals. Freedom of speech, the press and religion. In addition to this there are protections against unreasonable seizure of one's person or property and ones that are not part of the due process of law, which I regard as a guarantee that any transfer of assets, confiscation or arrest of a person must be in order to satisfy some abstract principle which the group has decided on as a whole.
Now the people in each of these zones will have to determine a process where they can determine which course of action will be considered the will of the group as a whole. A simple majority in an election is generally considered suitable for most purposes. However, in the case of some constitutional protections of individual rights we will want these to be harder to override. Hence the people will want to place certain protections of individual rights in their constitutions and specify a somewhat more cumbersome process for altering those protections.
People may want a more complex set of laws than they are willing to specify directly through a system of elections. In addition, they may want to delegate legislative decisions to people who are more competent to make such evaluations. Similarly it might be desirable for the people to select others who will administer the law and act as judges. That is traditionally described as filling the legislative, judicial and executive powers of government. I'm not entirely sure that people will necessarily see the need to have a sufficiently complex set of laws to justify delegation. In any case, I wouldn't constitutionally rule it out. As for the other two functions of government I see no viable alternative than to delegate them.
Any such delegation should be set up so as to select legislatures, executives and judges that are willing and able to govern wisely and in the interest of the governed. I would support exams to test ability and a system of elections to hold them accountable, so that they will be willing to serve the people.
In previous posts I have described how I believe the legislative and executive functions of government should operate. I support a parliamentary system. Those wishing to serve in parliament should take an exam. The people will vote on which proportion of the parliament should retain office. The requisite number should be dismissed at random and replaced by randomly selected candidates who have passed the qualifying exam. Alternately they could be replaced by those who got the highest scores. The random feature was placed here so as to prevent the parliament from altering the exam in order to prevent their replacement. I do not support a separate president because I believe the office gives too much power to a single individual.
Now judges could also be selected by a similar process. People could vote on whether a judge retains office. If not, that judge would be replaced by the individual who got the highest score on a qualifying exam excluding the judge who was just dismissed.
I oppose the current practice of delegating changes in the constitution regarding individual rights and the way the people delegate authority. It is entirely irrational to give those in power exclusive control over alterations on limits to that power. Similarly it is unwise to give them control over changes in the method that the people will use to replace them. If the people want to make it more cumbersome to make changes to these rules, we can always require a supermajority instead of a simple majority. I believe that this is a feature of constitutions that exists only because they were written by legislators instead of the people and one that does not merit our consent.
Predation vs. Parasitism
I recently attended a political event where a guest speaker was talking about how we can restore the republic. He made a distinction between a republic and a democracy in that a republic was to include certain moral restraints. On this subject I would agree on the importance of voters being guided by moral and ethical values. On other subjects I would disagree with the speaker. He seemed to be advocating a form of government in which atheists and gays would be treated as second class citizens. I'm also skeptical of his idea that abolishing property tax on the basis that it violates the Mosaic prohibition against theft is an idea that is likely to bring about consensus on how people ought to be governed.
The main part of his speech that I want to explore in more detail is an idea he presented that democracy, unguided by moral restraint, is what happens when two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner. I'm sure that this idea did not originate with this speaker. I believe that I have heard it before. But for some reason I thought about this idea in more detail this time. I've come to the conclusion that while it may have a valid point behind it, it is mistaken in the form given. Democracy would tend to decrease predation. The danger lies with parasitism. There are subtle distinctions between parasitism and predation which I would like to explore in this post.
A predator seeks out its prey, chases it down, catches it and violently takes nourishment from its body. Often predation involves killing the prey. However, it sometime happens that the predator only removes part of the body of the prey and that the prey can still survive after the removal of that part. In contrast with parasitism the parasite is usually much smaller than the host. The parasite attempts to enter into the body of the host surreptitiously, without arousing the host's attention or even awareness. The predator is usually larger than the prey. The parasite is usually much smaller.
The reason why the speaker's characterization of democracy is inaccurate is because democracy would easily solve the problem of predation. In order for a population of predators to feed on a population of prey, the prey must greatly outnumber the predators. Thus in any democracy that would allow wolves and sheep to vote, the sheep would greatly outnumber the wolves. Hence predation would be illegal.
In contrast parasitism is quite viable under democracy. Being much smaller than their hosts, the parasites can easily outnumber them. Hence if sheep and some form of parasitic worm that feeds on them can vote, the worms can easily outvote the sheep and keep their activities legal.
Analysis of the comparative effects of parasitism and predation will reveal that over time parasites evolve to have simpler central nervous systems over time. That is, they will tend to become less intelligent. The small parasites latch on to a larger host and draw nutrients from it. Complex computation is not necessary for their daily lives. Hence a large brain is an unnecessary expense, and they no longer go to the trouble of growing it. More accurately this is an evolutionary process. Those parasites that invest less in growing a brain tend to survive and reproduce better than their more intelligent conspecifics.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Legislation and Unionization
In a group discussion I participated in last evening, there was some speculation on why rates of unionization in the U.S. had declined. The consensus of the group was that unions had been given unfairly negative coverage in the press or that companies had instilled unjustified fear of unions on the part of employees. I doubt this is the real explanation. Companies are fairly uniform in their hostility to organized labor. It seems likely that in other countries or at times in the past, companies would take steps to reduce or eliminate unionization.
I agree with the opinion expressed here that the decline in unionization is due to legislation passed in the U.S. The article cites differences in legislation between the U.S. and Canada to explain differences in the strength of organized labor in the two countries. I think this is a weak argument. The author is making the case using only two countries. A better case could be made by looking at the timing of increases and decreases in unionization to see if they coincided with changes in legislation.
This is certainly the case in the U.S. Looking at the graph we see a decline in unionization in the early 1920's, leveling off from the mid '20's to the mid '30's, a sharp increase from the mid '30's to the mid '40's, leveling off from the mid '40's to about 1960, and a decline since then interrupted by a slight increase in the late '70's.
The history of labor law in the U.S. can be found here. Of particular interest are the Railway Labor Act of 1926, Norris-Laguardia in 1932, Wagner in 1935, Smith-Connally in 1943, Taft-Hartley in 1947, Landrum-Griffin in 1959 and the Federal Labor Relations Act of 1977. The first three pieces of legislation are changes that favored organized labor, leading to the stabilization of unionization in the late twenties and early thirties, followed by an increase in unionization in the late thirties and early forties. Unionization was then stabilized by Taft-Hartley, and has undergone a decline since Landrum-Griffin, interrupted only shortly in the late seventies by the legalization of public sector unions under the Federal Labor Relations Act of 1977.
It is beyond the scope of this post to comment on the wisdom of any of these pieces of legislation or on whether unionization is good or bad for the country as a whole. I am only pointing out that changes in unionization rates seem to coincide with changes in legislation in the U.S. It would be interesting to know if a more comprehensive look at legislation in other countries also showed this connection.
I agree with the opinion expressed here that the decline in unionization is due to legislation passed in the U.S. The article cites differences in legislation between the U.S. and Canada to explain differences in the strength of organized labor in the two countries. I think this is a weak argument. The author is making the case using only two countries. A better case could be made by looking at the timing of increases and decreases in unionization to see if they coincided with changes in legislation.
This is certainly the case in the U.S. Looking at the graph we see a decline in unionization in the early 1920's, leveling off from the mid '20's to the mid '30's, a sharp increase from the mid '30's to the mid '40's, leveling off from the mid '40's to about 1960, and a decline since then interrupted by a slight increase in the late '70's.
The history of labor law in the U.S. can be found here. Of particular interest are the Railway Labor Act of 1926, Norris-Laguardia in 1932, Wagner in 1935, Smith-Connally in 1943, Taft-Hartley in 1947, Landrum-Griffin in 1959 and the Federal Labor Relations Act of 1977. The first three pieces of legislation are changes that favored organized labor, leading to the stabilization of unionization in the late twenties and early thirties, followed by an increase in unionization in the late thirties and early forties. Unionization was then stabilized by Taft-Hartley, and has undergone a decline since Landrum-Griffin, interrupted only shortly in the late seventies by the legalization of public sector unions under the Federal Labor Relations Act of 1977.
It is beyond the scope of this post to comment on the wisdom of any of these pieces of legislation or on whether unionization is good or bad for the country as a whole. I am only pointing out that changes in unionization rates seem to coincide with changes in legislation in the U.S. It would be interesting to know if a more comprehensive look at legislation in other countries also showed this connection.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Revolution
One of the most disturbing trends in the U.S. is that a sizable minority of Republicans believe that we will need a violent revolution against the government. I believe that people in general and Republicans in particular tend to overestimate the effectiveness of violence. I find it puzzling that so many Republicans think that they would benefit from such a revolution.
It is easy to see where their frustration comes from. The size of government seems to be rising, even under Republican presidents. In addition to this, our society seems more inclined to support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana and perhaps some other substances as well. Conservatives seem to be losing ground in all areas. The country is even becoming less religious.
Even if the conservatives were right on all of these issues it is difficult to see what they would gain through violence. The change in their power is due to the fact that they face a large, powerful opposition. Taking a gun and shooting people isn't going to make more people go to your church. The Republicans will have to take the unpleasant steps of reducing their expectation of what they can accomplish through political victory and widening their coalition by pursuing a more modest agenda. This is going through the normal, official political channels as opposed to revolution.
But when is revolution desirable and what form should it take? I would argue that revolution is only likely to achieve its stated aims if it enjoys widespread support. This is unlikely in a democracy, since if a movement had widespread support it is difficult to tell why the normal, official political methods were unable to bring about the desired results.
My opinion on this is that what is needed is an argument that the existing methods for changing the system in the desired manner are prevented by unfair features of the system as it was created. The problem that Republicans and Libertarians have in making this case is their near idolization of the men who created the system in the first place. Leftists and Democrats don't have this problem. They adhere to the idea of a living constitution. Aspects of the Constitution that they don't like should simply be ignored. They may be justified in pointing out that non-leftists also support a living constitution in practice, but this near worship of the founding fathers does have an impact.
Those parts of the Constitution that describe how the president and congress are to be elected tend to be followed, at least to the extent that our elections are honest. Hence if there is something wrong with the actual selection process, this part of the Constitution will be as dead as Antonin Scalia wants. The recourse that the people have to change the method of selection is spelled out in the same dead Constitution. A super-majority of the individuals selected by the imperfect process must agree on the desired changes. These are the very people who are least likely to desire a change, since it is the existing system that put them there in the first place.
I have an idea about how they should be selected. Those wanting to serve in the legislature should take a qualifying exam. Those who pass go into a pool of candidates to replace those in power. The people vote on what proportion of office holders should retain their positions. The appropriate number of legislators are then chosen at random for dismissal and replaced at random from the pool.
A number of other people have different ideas about how the system should be changed. One idea was that we should have legislators serve only a single term. I think that would be a bad idea because it would remove accountability from the system. My proposal holds the legislature collectively accountable, giving each individual an incentive to encourage the group make good decisions and attempts to place people who are likely to make good decisions there in the first place by using an examination system to select intelligent legislators.
It could be that my system has defects that I'm not aware of. Any system is likely to have defects. What I think is most obviously wrong with the system is that those who have the greatest interest in maintaining the existing method of selecting legislators are the very ones who are each given the most power to preserve the status quo.
It is easy to see where their frustration comes from. The size of government seems to be rising, even under Republican presidents. In addition to this, our society seems more inclined to support gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana and perhaps some other substances as well. Conservatives seem to be losing ground in all areas. The country is even becoming less religious.
Even if the conservatives were right on all of these issues it is difficult to see what they would gain through violence. The change in their power is due to the fact that they face a large, powerful opposition. Taking a gun and shooting people isn't going to make more people go to your church. The Republicans will have to take the unpleasant steps of reducing their expectation of what they can accomplish through political victory and widening their coalition by pursuing a more modest agenda. This is going through the normal, official political channels as opposed to revolution.
But when is revolution desirable and what form should it take? I would argue that revolution is only likely to achieve its stated aims if it enjoys widespread support. This is unlikely in a democracy, since if a movement had widespread support it is difficult to tell why the normal, official political methods were unable to bring about the desired results.
My opinion on this is that what is needed is an argument that the existing methods for changing the system in the desired manner are prevented by unfair features of the system as it was created. The problem that Republicans and Libertarians have in making this case is their near idolization of the men who created the system in the first place. Leftists and Democrats don't have this problem. They adhere to the idea of a living constitution. Aspects of the Constitution that they don't like should simply be ignored. They may be justified in pointing out that non-leftists also support a living constitution in practice, but this near worship of the founding fathers does have an impact.
Those parts of the Constitution that describe how the president and congress are to be elected tend to be followed, at least to the extent that our elections are honest. Hence if there is something wrong with the actual selection process, this part of the Constitution will be as dead as Antonin Scalia wants. The recourse that the people have to change the method of selection is spelled out in the same dead Constitution. A super-majority of the individuals selected by the imperfect process must agree on the desired changes. These are the very people who are least likely to desire a change, since it is the existing system that put them there in the first place.
I have an idea about how they should be selected. Those wanting to serve in the legislature should take a qualifying exam. Those who pass go into a pool of candidates to replace those in power. The people vote on what proportion of office holders should retain their positions. The appropriate number of legislators are then chosen at random for dismissal and replaced at random from the pool.
A number of other people have different ideas about how the system should be changed. One idea was that we should have legislators serve only a single term. I think that would be a bad idea because it would remove accountability from the system. My proposal holds the legislature collectively accountable, giving each individual an incentive to encourage the group make good decisions and attempts to place people who are likely to make good decisions there in the first place by using an examination system to select intelligent legislators.
It could be that my system has defects that I'm not aware of. Any system is likely to have defects. What I think is most obviously wrong with the system is that those who have the greatest interest in maintaining the existing method of selecting legislators are the very ones who are each given the most power to preserve the status quo.
Government and the Mode of Prodution
Karl Marx stated that the form of government is determined by our relationship to the means of production. I suspect that there is some truth to this, although his further claim that history will inevitably progress in certain stages, as he laid them out, is probably wrong. Much of his reasoning is very difficult to follow. If by dictatorship of the proletariat he meant universal adult suffrage, then I suppose you could say that the industrial revolution has led to this. However, the result has not been socialism, as he predicted.
I think a clearer explanation for what is going on is that large scale industrialization has led to the creation of an urbanized proletariat, which was much more difficult to repress than the rural peasantry that preceded it as the poorest class. Political repression in this case became so difficult that it was not even practical to prevent female suffrage, which nearly all societies had managed to do prior to the industrial revolution.
Another factor to consider is that the proportion of production that was done for purposes of trade has increased. In the more primitive, agrarian societies, subsistence farming was a rather practical method of production. Thus the government was unable to extract as large of a proportion of what was produced in taxes.
The combination of these two factors, universal adult suffrage including women and a state that was able to extract a much larger proportion of the economy, led to the formation of the social welfare state. In many countries, about half of everything that is produced goes to the government to be distributed as transfer payments, or to provide goods and services. The U.S. with its system of checks and balances slows down the growth of these social programs so that spending is quite a bit less than this. Spending would also probably be a bit less if voters were able to control it directly through a system of initiatives and referenda, as is the case in Switzerland. Nevertheless, the differences under these various forms of government may lower the proportion spent to 35% of GDP, as opposed to about 50%. This is much less than the difference between the 3-5% peacetime budgets in agrarian societies and the 35-50% that we see for modern social welfare states.
So the major factors leading to the change in the government are large scale production and urbanization. Where are we likely to go from here? I see two possibilities. One is that we will simply see more of the same. We might see a slight decrease in the size of government relative to the economy if initiatives and referenda become more widespread. Urbanization is likely to continue. Large scale industry may as well.
On the other hand, it could be that technological advances will lead to smaller scale production, perhaps to the point where industrial production by the user becomes attractive. The development of 3-D printers is an example of a technology that could change our relationship to the means of production in this way. There would be a reduction in the proportion of economic output consisting of goods produced for the purpose of trade. This would result in a reduction in the amount that the government could collect in taxes. I would predict that this would not have much impact on urbanization, as production would require access to the internet, which would be much better in urban areas, particularly if the decline in the proportion of economic output that the government could tax made it difficult for the government to subsidize rural access to the internet.
Hence urbanization is likely to continue, ensuring that democracy is likely to thrive, but production is likely to move to a smaller scale, where production for use can easily replace production for trade. Thus the social welfare state will not thrive. Actual production for use is not necessary in order for the tax rates to decline. Merely the threat of production for use would do. The government would have to be aware that higher tax rates would lead to a sharper shift toward production for use as opposed to production for trade.
I think a clearer explanation for what is going on is that large scale industrialization has led to the creation of an urbanized proletariat, which was much more difficult to repress than the rural peasantry that preceded it as the poorest class. Political repression in this case became so difficult that it was not even practical to prevent female suffrage, which nearly all societies had managed to do prior to the industrial revolution.
Another factor to consider is that the proportion of production that was done for purposes of trade has increased. In the more primitive, agrarian societies, subsistence farming was a rather practical method of production. Thus the government was unable to extract as large of a proportion of what was produced in taxes.
The combination of these two factors, universal adult suffrage including women and a state that was able to extract a much larger proportion of the economy, led to the formation of the social welfare state. In many countries, about half of everything that is produced goes to the government to be distributed as transfer payments, or to provide goods and services. The U.S. with its system of checks and balances slows down the growth of these social programs so that spending is quite a bit less than this. Spending would also probably be a bit less if voters were able to control it directly through a system of initiatives and referenda, as is the case in Switzerland. Nevertheless, the differences under these various forms of government may lower the proportion spent to 35% of GDP, as opposed to about 50%. This is much less than the difference between the 3-5% peacetime budgets in agrarian societies and the 35-50% that we see for modern social welfare states.
So the major factors leading to the change in the government are large scale production and urbanization. Where are we likely to go from here? I see two possibilities. One is that we will simply see more of the same. We might see a slight decrease in the size of government relative to the economy if initiatives and referenda become more widespread. Urbanization is likely to continue. Large scale industry may as well.
On the other hand, it could be that technological advances will lead to smaller scale production, perhaps to the point where industrial production by the user becomes attractive. The development of 3-D printers is an example of a technology that could change our relationship to the means of production in this way. There would be a reduction in the proportion of economic output consisting of goods produced for the purpose of trade. This would result in a reduction in the amount that the government could collect in taxes. I would predict that this would not have much impact on urbanization, as production would require access to the internet, which would be much better in urban areas, particularly if the decline in the proportion of economic output that the government could tax made it difficult for the government to subsidize rural access to the internet.
Hence urbanization is likely to continue, ensuring that democracy is likely to thrive, but production is likely to move to a smaller scale, where production for use can easily replace production for trade. Thus the social welfare state will not thrive. Actual production for use is not necessary in order for the tax rates to decline. Merely the threat of production for use would do. The government would have to be aware that higher tax rates would lead to a sharper shift toward production for use as opposed to production for trade.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
What the Presidential election looks like now
2012 Presidential Election Interactive Map: Interactive map for the upcoming 2012 presidential election. Use it to predict which candidate will reach the necessary 270 electoral votes.
It looks like Barack Obama will win handily with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. Things have swung toward the Democrats since I last wrote on this subject. It looks like they are given a roughly 60% chance of nominally controlling the Senate, with a 20% chance going toward each of the two remaining possibilities, namely a Republican majority and no majority whatsoever. In any case since a majority is likely to consist of something like 51 seats, this will be well short of the 60 seat supermajority that would be necessary to overcome a filibuster, much less the 67 seats necessary to override a presidential veto, which is mostly relevant for the party opposite that of the president.
The House seems likely to remain Republican, although their majority is likely to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 230 votes, well above the 218 necessary for a majority but much less than the 290 necessary to override a presidential veto.
It looks like Barack Obama will win handily with 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney's 206. Things have swung toward the Democrats since I last wrote on this subject. It looks like they are given a roughly 60% chance of nominally controlling the Senate, with a 20% chance going toward each of the two remaining possibilities, namely a Republican majority and no majority whatsoever. In any case since a majority is likely to consist of something like 51 seats, this will be well short of the 60 seat supermajority that would be necessary to overcome a filibuster, much less the 67 seats necessary to override a presidential veto, which is mostly relevant for the party opposite that of the president.
The House seems likely to remain Republican, although their majority is likely to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 230 votes, well above the 218 necessary for a majority but much less than the 290 necessary to override a presidential veto.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)