Thread: О тех, кто в России у власти

Originally Posted by Ramil

I gave you the modern definition of the democracy as it is stated in Wikipedia (not a very reliable source in general, but the definitions are usually up to date). You gave a wrong definition.

Sure, so try and ask Wikipedia why is that 'equal say' part is not working. I can only answer for myself, I can't defend Wikipedia. I gave you my definition of democracy that makes it different from the other forms of government we see today and I'm ready to discuss the pros and cons of it. Your complaint should be addressed to Wikipedia - why is that the definition of the democracy they provide is different from what we see today.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But in modern democracies the threat of physical violence remains the same.

That's what they call the power, my young padawan learner. Remember, I mentioned the approach is child-safe? What do you do with a child that behaves very bad and does not respond to either of the finely-refined pedagogy? You slap his butt, and when he starts crying you tell him to behave well. If he still goes on, you slap harder. But here's another option: do not bother that pedagogy which veils and obscures the truth - as soon as a child starts behaving bad, slap his butt with all your honesty so he falls down to the floor. (I saw that happening, by the way.) Can you tell some pros and cons in those two approaches? No sophistry, remember?

Originally Posted by Ramil

All I know that in countries with dictatorships the population is more law abiding.

Have you ever been to the US?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you ever been to the US?

There was a big scandal in the UK when an English tourist visiting Washington DC was arrested and kept in prison for several hours, just because he crossed the street when the red man was showing! LOL!!! I agree with the USA on that - he should not have done it, and he should have apologised and paid the fine when asked.

In Belarus it is probably illegal too, and I would not do anything illegal here because there are policemen and other people in military uniforms all over the place...!

For some reason they have been in my block of flats several times and knocked on all the doors in the building. I have no idea what they want and didn't open.


Yesterday I saw them deal with a drunk man. They were actually very polite, even though he was practically half dead from boozing. They tried to wake him up in a nice way and asked him to try to stay awake so they could get him to hospital. I have seen police be A LOT worse than that to drunk people in many other countries.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Sure, so try and ask Wikipedia why is that 'equal say' part is not working. I can only answer for myself, I can't defend Wikipedia. I gave you my definition of democracy that makes it different from the other forms of government we see today and I'm ready to discuss the pros and cons of it. Your complaint should be addressed to Wikipedia - why is that the definition of the democracy they provide is different from what we see today.

We're dealing with two different definitions here. You advocate your own one while I'm pointing out that this is not the kind of definition 'democtatic leaders' use. You can explain all kind of contraversities with clever words and smart definitions, but again - your explanation does not fit the idea of democracy the most of people have in their heads.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

That's what they call the power, my young padawan learner. Remember, I mentioned the approach is child-safe? What do you do with a child that behaves very bad and does not respond to either of the finely-refined pedagogy? You slap his butt, and when he starts crying you tell him to behave well. If he still goes on, you slap harder. But here's another option: do not bother that pedagogy which veils and obscures the truth - as soon as a child starts behaving bad, slap his butt with all your honesty so he falls down to the floor. (I saw that happening, by the way.) Can you tell some pros and cons in those two approaches? No sophistry, remember?

Well, from the humanitarian point of view I would agree, that beating children without explaining a few things before that is bad, but in the long run, I don't think there will be any difference when that child grows up. Yes, those two hypothetical kids would have different characters and will act differently, but the 'beaten one' would probably have better sense. Having said so, I must admit that this is a pure speculation and if we assume that in this example by saying 'parent' we mean 'government' and by 'child' we mean 'the subjects' then the allusion is wrong. A parent gives life to its offspring and he provides for his offspring therefore he can be at least partially justified while in the government/subjects pair the situaion is the opposite. It's the subjects who feed their government and it's the subjects who 'gave birth' to the government.

So, if we have a dictator who ascended the power by violence and mistreats his population will be overthrown sooner or later and there will be a new system of state power, but in a 'democratic country' it doesn't matter who currently the president is because the system won't change. A new president will continue to maintain the current system and lie on TV about 'equal rights and possibilities'.

Well, now, that's why I'm against any forms of government.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Have you ever been to the US?

I have. Twice, but I'm not in a position to judge basing on my own experience. Simply because of I had not witnessed any committed crimes this doesn't mean that the Americans are all that law-abiding. If that were so, US wouldn't have had the largest prison population in the world and a crime statistics worse than it is in some less democratic countries.

Originally Posted by Ramil

We're dealing with two different definitions here. You advocate your own one while I'm pointing out that this is not the kind of definition 'democtatic leaders' use. You can explain all kind of contraversities with clever words and smart definitions, but again - your explanation does not fit the idea of democracy the most of people have in their heads.

But, you said it yourself, the democracy according to the definition of the Wikipedia and the 'democratic leaders' does not exist. So, why are we spending time discussing something that doesn't exist and not something that actually exists?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Having said so, I must admit that this is a pure speculation and if we assume that in this example by saying 'parent' we mean 'government' and by 'child' we mean 'the subjects' then the allusion is wrong. A parent gives life to its offspring and he provides for his offspring therefore he can be at least partially justified while in the government/subjects pair the situaion is the opposite. It's the subjects who feed their government and it's the subjects who 'gave birth' to the government.

I fail to see how that would make any difference in our discussion. In either case, we're down to the situation of exercising the power. It's either veiled or unveiled and I think it's pretty obvious that the veiled power is much more humane and, therefore, preferable. I can give you another analogy: there are (among the others) two types of management: the first is - do your work or I'll fire you right away and you'll be on the street, and the second is - let's work as a team to reach our common success (blah-blah-blah). Which one you'd choose if you're an employee?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, if we have a dictator who ascended the power by violence and mistreats his population will be overthrown sooner or later and there will be a new system of state power, but in a 'democratic country' it doesn't matter who currently the president is because the system won't change. A new president will continue to maintain the current system and lie on TV about 'equal rights and possibilities'.

You're saying you really want only the red pills?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, now, that's why I'm against any forms of government.

Свято место пусто не бывает.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I have. Twice, but I'm not in a position to judge basing on my own experience. Simply because of I had not witnessed any committed crimes this doesn't mean that the Americans are all that law-abiding. If that were so, US wouldn't have had the largest prison population in the world and a crime statistics worse than it is in some less democratic countries.

I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all. The largest prison population actually shows that: (1) the law is enforced rather strictly, (2) the living condition in those prisons are a way better than in some less democratic countries, and (3) the US is a large country. Also, what I was talking about is that the judicial system in the US happens to encourage people to constantly sue each other for just about anything and it causes the Americans to become very law-abiding very quickly. Also, the corruption of the judicial system is not visible for the middle class and the lower class Americans, so it's not like they can buy their way out. On the sharp contrast with the judicial system of the less democratic countries.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I fail to see how that would make any difference in our discussion. In either case, we're down to the situation of exercising the power. It's either veiled or unveiled and I think it's pretty obvious that the veiled power is much more humane and, therefore, preferable. I can give you another analogy: there are (among the others) two types of management: the first is - do your work or I'll fire you right away and you'll be on the street, and the second is - let's work as a team to reach our common success (blah-blah-blah). Which one you'd choose if you're an employee?

From the other hand, both forms of management exist and a more authoritatian boss gets better results in 80% of cases (my own observations). Provided he's not an idiot. What concerns the 'exercising of power' I can only add that provided he is not qualified to rule (due to mental instability or worse) any dictator would not abuse his power beyond measure. We're looking at this problem from two different points of views. In your case the means do not justify the ends, but sometimes the ends are more important. I cannot imagine USSR becoming a nuclear power and launching the Sputnik without truly an effective management of L. P. Beria. Taking a bit lower down to your analogy with two kinds of bosses - I am a boss myself, not a very big one, but if I have a dead-end I would demand, I would threaten and I would even play 'an idiot boss' in order to get the job done in time.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You're saying you really want only the red pills?

Yup. Knowing that you're livin in an illusion is unbearable. I might have preferred to be unaware, but once it comes to the choice there would be no choice for me. I will always take the red one.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Свято место пусто не бывает.

As an alternative I see only a direct electronic democracy. No central government (i.e. there are no special people who make decisions, perhaps only some secretaries to do the paperwork). I won't go into details because I haven't really thought it thoroughly yet, but it's an only acceptable choice for me.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all.

Yeah, right, "у вас статистика неправильная".

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The largest prison population actually shows that: (1) the law is enforced rather strictly

While the people don't stop committing crimes.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

(2) the living condition in those prisons are a way better than in some less democratic countries,

Living conditions in USA's prisons may or may not be better than in some other countries, but does it prove anything in a problem we are discussing? Or, perhaps, the conditions in the American prisons are so nice that people commit crimes for no other reason than to get there. Then, perhaps, they should go to Norway and go to jail there (right, Hanna?)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

and (3) the US is a large country.

There are larger countries and they are less democratic. China, for example.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Also, what I was talking about is that the judicial system in the US happens to encourage people to constantly sue each other for just about anything and it causes the Americans to become very law-abiding very quickly.

I would not take the American judical system as an example. The fact that it makes people constantly sue each other doesn't prove its effectiveness, quite the opposite, actually. I think than in civil matters (when no crimes are committed), taking your case to the court should be the last resort only. And only in case the law-enforcing institutions failed.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Also, the corruption of the judicial system is not visible for the middle class and the lower class Americans, so it's not like they can buy their way out. On the sharp contrast with the judicial system of the less democratic countries.

Oh, the corruption is simply formalized, that's all. You don't pay a bribe to the judge, instead you pay your lawyer. If you have money, you hire a good lawyer and your chances of getting out of trouble improve tremendously, even if you've been caught with a knife over a dead body. On the contrary, if you cannot afford a good lawyer (especially in a civil case) your chances of winning are pretty weak. So, what's so different? Only that the lawyers pay taxes? And of course there's a nice thing called 'plea bargain'. The American judical system can be VERY flexible when the situation (or someone powerful's interests) demands.

Originally Posted by Ramil

From the other hand, both forms of management exist and a more authoritatian boss gets better results in 80% of cases (my own observations).

Yes, but look at the big picture. That system would only work if you constantly fire people and hire the new ones. Then the employees would really be afraid to lose their job since they know there's always someone happy to replace them. On the other hand, the most talented professionals tend to prefer a more liberal approach if have an alternative, so they would flee to your competitors. Such tough system can only work effectively for the relatively short period of time. Stalin's system worked as long as he purged the party and the controlling bodies. The KGB have done it elsewhere. Once the process stopped and the nomenclature became a lifelong privilege (with Brezhnev), the whole system became paralyzed by the ineffective management at all levels. In the meantime, while the main objective of the Soviet Regime was incomplete, many of the potent people were purged with no decent replacement. And at the same time the West didn't have that authoritarian system spurred by L.P. Beria but still was a way ahead (except for the weapons, of course).

The authoritarian approach stops being effective once the system becomes very complex. The inventors of the planned economy didn't know that back then. The system should be designed so that it works autonomously in a de-centralized way.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yup. Knowing that you're livin in an illusion is unbearable. I might have preferred to be unaware, but once it comes to the choice there would be no choice for me. I will always take the red one.

You're tough. I think most people would prefer living in the oblivion (for the most part). And the comfort oblivion is usually preferable to the only-getting-by oblivion.

Originally Posted by Ramil

As an alternative I see only a direct electronic democracy. No central government (i.e. there are no special people who make decisions, perhaps only some secretaries to do the paperwork). I won't go into details because I haven't really thought it thoroughly yet, but it's an only acceptable choice for me.

Right, you need to think it though keeping in mind the flesh-mobbing phenomena. I'm pretty sure the manipulation with the mass consciousness would step to an entire new level of sophistication. But, I find it interesting to discuss that option if you choose to.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yeah, right, "у вас статистика неправильная".

I think you're probably the heaviest user (in this forum) of the "lie, big lie, and the statistics". Now, all of a sudden, you're resorting to it?????? I would never have thought...

Originally Posted by Ramil

While the people don't stop committing crimes.

For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Living conditions in USA's prisons may or may not be better than in some other countries, but does it prove anything in a problem we are discussing?

Not really. That's why I think it was useless to resort to the crime statistics. You gave your interpretation, I gave mine. That doesn't prove anything in either case.

Originally Posted by Ramil

There are larger countries and they are less democratic. China, for example.

There are countries with no prisons at all and they are neither democratic nor communistic. I just offered another interpretation to the crime statistics you mentioned. I'm pretty sure if we collectively think hard enough we can also find some relationships of that statistics with the Antarctic penguins behavior.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The fact that it makes people constantly sue each other doesn't prove its effectiveness

No it doesn't, but it makes people be constantly conscious of the possible consequences of their actions. That significantly adds up to the overall law-abiding mindset.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I think than in civil matters (when no crimes are committed), taking your case to the court should be the last resort only. And only in case the law-enforcing institutions failed.

Sure. Build your case with several strong precedents and you win. In the US, if a police officer haven't responded to your call, you should immediately sue the police and demand some xyz compensation. Then settle for the 20% of the xyz they offer to avoid more legal expenses from their end. Once that happens 100 times and the police keeps paying, they would need to justify their budget for the next year: why their legal costs are higher than those of the other departments? That's how it starts to roll out higher and higher to the government. Once the Head of the Police position becomes vacant, all the candidates would promise their higher executive bosses to reduce the legal costs. And subsequently they would make the local police officers respond to the calls. So, when that process is exercised by most of the citizens under various circumstances with the different combinations, the government officials feel the pressure to do their job in a way that the citizens would not be able to find substantial cases to sue them. That more or less is their mindset.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Oh, the corruption is simply formalized, that's all. You don't pay a bribe to the judge, instead you pay your lawyer.

Exactly. That's why I mentioned the corruption is not visible to the middle class and the lower class.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Yes, but look at the big picture. That system would only work if you constantly fire people and hire the new ones. Then the employees would really be afraid to lose their job since they know there's always someone happy to replace them. On the other hand, the most talented professionals tend to prefer a more liberal approach if have an alternative, so they would flee to your competitors.

Professionals don't need to be reminded of their work duties. That's what makes them professionals. And I don't need to constantly fire people in order to get obedience, I only need to cut their salary this month a little bit and they usually get the picture immediately.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Such tough system can only work effectively for the relatively short period of time. Stalin's system worked as long as he purged the party and the controlling bodies. The KGB have done it elsewhere. Once the process stopped and the nomenclature became a lifelong privilege (with Brezhnev), the whole system became paralyzed by the ineffective management at all levels.

The so called 'liberal approach' began.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

The authoritarian approach stops being effective once the system becomes very complex. The inventors of the planned economy didn't know that back then. The system should be designed so that it works autonomously in a de-centralized way.

Look at the modern world trans-national corporations. They usually have effective management (and rather authoritarian ones) and they are vertically integrated - in other word - centralized.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

You're tough. I think most people would prefer living in the oblivion (for the most part). And the comfort oblivion is usually preferable to the only-getting-by oblivion.

If you remember, that character in Matrix who asked to plug him back put a condition - to forget everything. If that option is unavailable what's the point to be plugged back knowing that everything around you is not real.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Right, you need to think it though keeping in mind the flesh-mobbing phenomena. I'm pretty sure the manipulation with the mass consciousness would step to an entire new level of sophistication. But, I find it interesting to discuss that option if you choose to.

I think that flesh-mobbing will self-regulate. After all, people would have to live with their own decisions. Besides, I don't think you can organise a flesh mob large enough to get majority of votes.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.

Technically, yes, since you can't break a law that doesn't exist. Besides, the physical threat would remain.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

No it doesn't, but it makes people be constantly conscious of the possible consequences of their actions. That significantly adds up to the overall law-abiding mindset.

Right up to the point when the judical system turns into an absurdity.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

they would need to justify their budget for the next year: why their legal costs are higher than those of the other departments? That's how it starts to roll out higher and higher to the government. Once the Head of the Police position becomes vacant, all the candidates would promise their higher executive bosses to reduce the legal costs. And subsequently they would make the local police officers respond to the calls.

Yeah, in Utopia, probably. Such a system produces sh.tloads of bureaucrats who ultimately stop the self-regulatory mechanism which looks so good on paper. Moreover, bureaucrats generate corruption which adds to the chaos even more. Democratic society as USA sees it is the same non-working utopia as communism is. Perhaps it takes probably more time for some people to realize it.