Question for y'all:

[tiurin]

Do you think that the population of this country has gotten to the point where having a good, efficient, and fair method of government is pretty much impossible and that we can only try to find/use the method of fucking up least?

If so, and this is pointed at dolohov in particular, is there _any_ size N of human population(where N > 1) where being able

Comments

[dolohov]

That is in fact exactly what I would have said. (Although I have serious doubts about the efficiency of a government of N=1.)

However, I have two little brothers and at one point was bigger than them, so I can confidently also say "N < 4". Arm me a little better, and give me a good supply of amphetamines so that I don't need to sleep, and that number might get as high as 10.

The question is somewhat ill-posed, because it leaves out a crucial part of the equation: longevity. A good, fair, and efficient government is entirely possible for a reasonably large N... provided that it is not intended to last very long. If it is fabricated out of whole cloth, lasts a month, and then goes entirely away, then it is a success.

A large part of the problem is one of homogeneity, both real and perceived. If George W. Bush really did rule over an entire nation of fundamentalist Christians, then his presidency would be fair and possibly even good. His perception that this is the case (combined with his apparent perception that he is fair, efficient and good) is the root cause of many of the injustices and idiocies of his tenure as president.

By the same token, the current prime minister of Japan is considered by many to be a good and fair leader, chiefly because Japan approached cultural and political homogeneity to a much greater extent than the US does. (The Japanese government is not efficient, however -- its entrenched bureaucracy is a significant problem, which reacts badly with widespread cronyism)

I personally think that "fair" and "efficient" are at odds with each other in a heterogeneous political environment. In just about any society with a wide variety of social mores and taboos and other cultural idiocies, there are going to be laws that, while well-meant, are just plain unfair to some people. Only a relative lack of efficiency can ameliorate things. (Of course, a lack of fairness and a lack of efficiency are even worse -- see Prohibition) leora would probably argue that this is the case more vociferously than I would, given her opinions on the Golden Rule. These problems can be overcome for brief periods. Over time, however, small pet peeves turn into Grievances, and something has to give.

[dolohov]

I also wanted to make the point that longevity is directly at odds with homogeneity. A group of people changes over time. If it's too easy to make and change laws, then it's too easy to target minority groups -- but if you make it hard to target groups like that, then you usually make it hard to change laws that are no longer fair. We are just not culturally homogenous with our ancestors -- but most of their laws and procedures are still on the books!

For example, there used to be laws that women couldn't wear trousers. At the time, we can assume that nobody had a problem with it. However, tastes and styles changed, and these days the concept is laughable. But going to the bother of repealing a law is generally not worth it, especially when the law is just not being enforced (efficiency again) and when one or two crackpots are always willing to raise a fuss if you try.

[zandperl]

I read somewhere that Joan of Arc was eventually burned for the heresy of wearing men's clothes. They couldn't catch her on anything else.

Regarding homogeneity, what do y'all think of the concept of "tyranny of the majority"? In case you're unfamiliar with it, the concept is that in a democracy, the majority always rules, even if they are in direct opposition to all the others. As this country becomes increasingly polarized, it becomes more apparent. Another situation is the union I'm in. Our union represents two very separate types of employees, and one group is 80% of the union, so we overwhelmingly go with what's good for them and ignore the other 20%'s needs.

Maybe we could come up with some modified democracy, where the majority rules for N% of the time where N represents its fraction of the populace...

[dolohov]

In many cases there isn't a real majority, but rather a plurality. As long as the dominant group has an ally or two, it gets its way. But if everyone is opposed, it can be forced down.

As for the latter point, I think that's kind of what you're getting in Iraq. The trouble is that each successive government remembers all the shitty things the previous government did, and tries to outdo it.