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

[zandperl]

Well, once you get around eight cities you start to get too much corruption with Despotism, so I usually change to Republic around then. But if I'm at war (usually against the Germans, those fuckers) my citizens will start to get disgruntled under either a Republic or Democracy so I switch back to a Monarchy. It's usually quick to wipe out the Indians so that doesn't require a revolution, but it takes a while to reestablish the trust of the Zulu and Persians.

Wait, what's that? We're talking about the PC game Civilization, right?

[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

[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.

[blimix]

You know, I was thinking about something of the sort not too long ago. That is, a smaller nation has a smaller set of people to draw upon for leaders, so even when the most evil, power-hungry, maniacal person achieves rulership, that person is not nearly as bad as the most evil person in a large nation

[ukelele]

Malcolm Gladwell, in The Tipping Point, opines that that limit is about 150 people, and he has reasons (based in something resembling sciiiiience), though I don't remember them.

[blimix]

Pretty much, the idea is that all the people are friends to some extent. Fifty seemed like a reasonable cap. Maybe a hundred for a really good set of people.

Power corrupts, but people in power also tend to help their friends. So if the government has nobody to shit on, maybe they'll do a halfway decent job.

This situation probably can't last beyond a generation.

[akiko]

Back when I was a relatively naive college student, I thought we should break up the US into a half dozen or so smaller entities, each governed separately, but with open borders, one currency, etc. Sort of like the EU, but more unified.

I still think this would be a good idea, if it were remotely feasible.

[upsilon]

Well, that was kind of the original plan: a set of 13 states, independantly governed, with a weak central government that oversaw such things as currency, international diplomacy and inter-state commerce.

That plan pretty much failed in the early 1860's.

Trivia fact: Before the Civil War, "United States" was plural, as in: "The United States are a very powerful country." Nowadays, the phrase has become singular: "The United States is a very powerful country." This change is perhaps one of the greatest signifiers of this move from a federation of states to a powerful central government with weakened local governments.

[kirinn]

Interestingly, a discussion like this recently broke out in the comments of the journal of your polar opposite on my friends page (the guy with the nearly an-cap philosophy with not dissimilar conclusions

[kirinn]

There's supposed to be a close-paren after "philosophy" in the first sentence there. Just to clarify.