[Keith]

Originally Posted by Brutha

We have this in our (German) democracy.
Is it perfect? No, it isn't. But our democracy produces it.

I'm a bit confused now. I thought this section was about capitalism vs socialism (which, as I noted, I consider a false dichotomy). Both socialist and capitalist nations (and hybrids) can be democratic (or not).

I'm not too familiar with Germany, but it sounds like you have a good balance.

Originally Posted by Brutha

In history we had a lot of countries where there wasn't a state with a power monopoly we can use as comparison.

I'm personally not familiar with those societies. Info about them would probably provide some useful hints but unfortunately wouldn't be suitable for use as a model for a modern society any more than ancient Athens is a suitable model for modern democracy. After all, ancient Athens makes it 'clear' that democracy isn't scalable to more than a couple of thousand people, tops.

Actually, lets flip the entire question around. Instead of asking "which historical model produces the best society?", lets ask "Given the resources and problems in the modern world what system would result in the best outcome?". Note that it doesn't have to be a system that we already have a name for.

Originally Posted by Brutha

People don't run amok. They make decisions that are advantageous for themselves, but aren't for society as a whole.
You need some force that balances that. That may be forcing people who pollute the climate to buy licenses for their CO2 emisions to make decisions that are best for them, the same decisions that are best for society as a whole (reduce CO2 emissions).

I put that poorly, let me rephrase: you say that "people make self-centred decisions with unfortunate spillover effects that require a government to contain" whereas I say "It's better to resolve (a) what is causing people to make self-centred decisions at the expense of others, and (b) what is causing the decisions to result in unfortunate spillover effects".

BTW, note that the current 'representative’ democracy systemically encourages politicians to make decisions geared at re-election. ie. It encourages decisions that are oriented towards short-term popular outcomes at the expense of responsible and long-term ones.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Worthwhile things aren't produced by single individuals.
They are produced by groups of people who need resources to get their job done.
Even non-profits need their money donations.
You may object that non-profits could also receive non-money donations, but those people who donate aren't in possession of the specific thing that the non-profit needs. It is simpler to transfer money, and let the non-profit buy the thing on the free market.

Like I said: reputation isn't everything. I never advocated doing away with money. I advocate considering it one of many forms of motivation, each of which is best suited to different circumstances.

Monetary reward is an attempt to channel people's self-centred decisions toward societally beneficial ends. And, where it works, it works well. It just doesn't work well as the one and only answer, for the reasons discussed.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I am not talking about things. I am talking about people. Sure a democracy isn't perfect, but it is good at prevent the mob from hanging someone.

Again I would ask: why do the mob want to hang someone just for being unpopular in the first place? That strongly suggests a serious cultural problem. Having police may contain the symptoms of that problem but they don't address the cause. And they introduce a whole raft of new problems (corruption, enforcement of unjust laws, abuse of power, 'us vs them' mentality etc.).

Perhaps the major point of contention is that you believe selfish, destructive behaviour is inherent (and thus requires external containment) whereas I believe it's largely learned (and thus can be prevented in the first place)?

IMO, if people are raised in an environment of scarcity with a scarcity mentality then they will be motivated by selfishness to meet their own basic needs - at the expense of others if necessary. Alternately, if people are raised in an environment of abundance with an abundance mentality then they will feel their basic needs are already satiated. They will still want and pursue things, but they won't feel that fear-driven need that causes so many of society's problems.

Yes, this assumes children raised in a certain way. Yes, as noted earlier, it's a lot harder (though not impossible) with adults who've been raised in an alternate society.

Note that being raised in abundance doesn't necessarily require vast material wealth. A monk can feel abundantly content in spartan surroundings while the richest man in the world can feel he never has enough. IMO, it comes down to (a) consistently meeting basic physical needs (food, shelter) and (b) meeting emotional needs (both directly and through building emotional resilience).

Another way to envision it is a culture of gratitude rather than dissatisfaction.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You overrate the effect of government on culture. People are free to value personal responsibility in their friends regardless of the existence of goverment. Culture almost never develop the way some government wants it to develop.

Certainly Government is unable to deliberately fine-tune a society's culture, but its existence and actions still strongly shape that culture. As you point out, they put constraints on that culture without really understanding what effects those constraints will have. Culture doesn’t just stop at those constraints, it interacts with and rebounds off them.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You still fail to give reasons why in a society where there is someone who organises (or governs) that talking, is less effective than a society where nobody moderates the talking.

Really? I was pretty sure I had.

Obviously a consensus system would result in a more nuanced understanding of an issue than any individual or small group could produce. It could also generate more complex and layered outcomes in response.

Equally obviously, an individual or small group will have its own vested interests that will bias its decisions away from the optimal solution as compared to decision-making by all concerned.

However, even if a small group could generate equally effective decisions, the main problem isn't actually how effective the final decision is. The problem is the “us and them” dynamic that automatically creates. That dynamic creates resentment in the populace, a corresponding ‘need’ for enforcement and a situation where the people feel no connection or loyalty to the nation.

Again, it’s not a binary thing. The beauty of democracy is that the populace have input into the decisions that affect them through their power to elect representatives. The more those representatives actually represent the populace, the less the people feel disconnected from the nation. Conversely, the more distant and disconnected the ‘representatives’ seem from the populace, the less respect the populace has for their decisions (and the greater the resulting social cost).

For the populace to directly represent itself without any need for intermediaries is the end of the spectrum. The closer you get to that ideal, the greater investment the populace has in the nation. The ideal itself may even be coming within our reach technologically.