Sorry OP, I think this is my hot take of the article. I'm open to the idea that democracy/capitalism may not be the best political system at this moment in time. I'd like to engage in a serious...
Sorry OP, I think this is my hot take of the article.
I'm open to the idea that democracy/capitalism may not be the best political system at this moment in time. I'd like to engage in a serious discussion about this topic, but I think that the opinions of the interviewee are far too underdeveloped to even engage with. What was 538 trying to achieve by interviewing this person? Their opinions were incredibly irritating, like hot garbage, edgy teen, irritating. To me, it sounded like they were saying 'I wish someone would just do things for me.' I suspect we all feel that way occasionally, and who would have a problem with a near-perfect benevolent oligarchy (should we be using the word technocracy)? However, to quote the interviewee, "That’s the obvious flaw in the plan. It only works out if the decision-makers are looking out for everyone’s best interests." Oh really? Then how does one create a system that attempts to ensure this outcome?
OP, I don't think this was the best article for provoking discussion. It seems like a 'garbage in, garbage out' situation. I like to think that most people on this website are a bit beyond the opinions presented. However, you clearly have more developed thoughts that, in my opinion, are great discussion topics. There are just too many in one comment to address. Is there one in particular that you want to hear opinions/thoughts about?
well, it's part of a series on people who have political opinions they wouldn't share with their friends, hence the name 'political confession.' presumably they saw someone with a rather...
What was 538 trying to achieve by interviewing this person? Their opinions were incredibly irritating, like hot garbage, edgy teen, irritating. To me, it sounded like they were saying 'I wish someone would just do things for me.'
well, it's part of a series on people who have political opinions they wouldn't share with their friends, hence the name 'political confession.' presumably they saw someone with a rather unorthodox political view (i want an oligarchy) and decided to investigate that because, let's be honest, how many people do you know that openly state that they would rather have an oligarchic system them a democratic one?
I didn't think that anyone living in a democratic country held that opinion, to be honest. It sounds like they got Anakin Skywalker to do that interview. I thought it was a ridiculous few lines of...
I didn't think that anyone living in a democratic country held that opinion, to be honest. It sounds like they got Anakin Skywalker to do that interview. I thought it was a ridiculous few lines of dialog when George Lucas wrote it because I didn't think anyone actually thought that way. There are obvious flaws there.
I think everyone would prefer to live in a benevolent oligarchy where their idea of a perfect society is de jure. The problem is that there is exactly zero chance of that ever happening. Dictators don't tend to have interests that align perfectly with the people they govern. Even if they did, there's no guaranteeing that the next person in line will. Once you give up the power to effect any sort of change to align with your interests, though, the only way to get it back is extended periods of extreme acts of horrific violence. You can't just decide that even though you liked the last dictator, this one is bad and we shouldn't have him any more. You have to fight and die for the remote chance of that happening.
It doesn't seem like Matt's actually thought through any of this, or if he has, he's being disingenuous simply in order to have an unconventional opinion.
oh no, he's thought through literally none of it. this exchange alone on the single most important aspect of making a functioning oligarchic system should make that clear:
It doesn't seem like Matt's actually thought through any of this, or if he has, he's being disingenuous simply in order to have an unconventional opinion.
oh no, he's thought through literally none of it. this exchange alone on the single most important aspect of making a functioning oligarchic system should make that clear:
CM: How would we select these people?
Matt: Boy, I don’t know if I’ve thought that deeply about that.
Emphasis mine. This is indeed some hot garbage. "Vapid man has dumb opinions on a subject he admits to not thinking very deeply on" is how I'd characterize it.
CM: Don’t we have those things right now? Economists in the Fed, people in the military running the military. What would you propose, for instance, should take the place of Congress and the presidency?
Matt: I don’t know if I’ve thought that far about it. But I think in terms of listening to politicians, I really don’t like ideological, emotionally-driven arguments. Like, “Oh, we should do this because it supports freedom or supports equality or whatever.” And I really do like things that have results or things that have numbers behind them. And I think that’s a lot more of an objective way to look at things rather than, like, rhetoric.
CM: How would we select these people?
Matt: Boy, I don’t know if I’ve thought that deeply about that.
Emphasis mine. This is indeed some hot garbage. "Vapid man has dumb opinions on a subject he admits to not thinking very deeply on" is how I'd characterize it.
Well if you only limit yourself to his context, sure, it's hard to argue. Every politician is perfectly moral and competent, and a perfectly fair selection process someone manages to ensure that...
I find this very hard to refute, because at a basic level he's right, again. In a perfect world the people best suited for positions would be put there by people best qualified to appoint them. In a democracy, uneducated voters can absolutely play a part in decisions that end up unfavorable for their nation, community, whatever. In order to even argue against this, I find myself falling back to the realms of reality, countering with questions like "Oh yeah, well how do you decide who is "expert enough" to get to vote then? How do you eliminate biases and not misconstrue the education process to favor one political party?" and while those are valid questions, they're not really relevant to arguing against this scenario directly. If someone asked me what I would choose as my preferred form of government for my community or nation in a scenario where my choices play out exactly as I want them to, and then they argue with me that those conditions are hilariously unrealistic (anarcho-syndicalism by the way, sorry) and that I should feel bad for giving that answer, I'd be annoyed. So I don't want to do that. I don't want to point out the flaws that these ideas have in the real world, I want to argue against them within the scenario as that's the only realm that's applicable at the moment. (Or, actually, you could argue it isn't, since this guy believes these things but also gets to vote like you or me. Do his personal beliefs then automatically transcend his scenario into reality when he exercises his ability to vote?)
Well if you only limit yourself to his context, sure, it's hard to argue. Every politician is perfectly moral and competent, and a perfectly fair selection process someone manages to ensure that only the best rise to the top. But I don't see the problem with pointing out that this isn't how the world works in reality. If a benevolent oligarchy only works in very specific, unrealistic conditions, then doesn't that undermine the case for it being superior to democracy as a form of government?
But I also take exception to comparing humans to an inanimate engine or a doctor. It's possible to somewhat accurately measure someone's competency with repairing engines or applying medicine, because these are relatively formulaic processes where the fundamental rules never change; acetaminophen doesn't just decide one day it's no longer going to dull pain, nor does it change depending on where you go. But people have wants, desires, and moods, and don't stay consistent. You can see this among some senior Republicans in the US who've been successfully winning elections and drafting policy for decades, are struggling to adapt to how rapidly the electorate has changed seemingly overnight in the past couple years, with Trump. Are these politicians now suddenly less competent, because they no longer understand their voters like they did before? Or where they sub-competent the whole time, because they're not capable of dealing with the rapid change?
Plus, where do we draw the line between benevolent and effective? If these oligarchical rulers for example ordered that anyone over the age of 55 were to be executed in order to save the state the burden of caring for them, would the significantly greater amounts of extra money that could be spent aiding the poor and the sick, and relieving people of worrying about retirement, be worth cutting off potentially the worst years of their life? In a democracy, this problem is an easy one; give the option out there and see what people vote for. What they prefer is then the morally correct choice. But in an oligarchy or benevolent dictatorship, how can the leader know that they really made the right decision? If there even is such a thing as a right decision in this situation?
It's very late at night and I'm tired, so I apologize if my questioning doesn't make any sense.
Matt seems to be focussing on the "what" and the "how", and missing the "why". It's all well and good to have an economist in charge of the Federal Reserve, but how is that person going to make...
I want an economist who is going to make data-driven decisions about doing things with the economy, and I want that person to be in charge of the Federal Reserve. I want someone who has a lot of expertise in military strategy to be in charge of the armed forces, etc.
Matt seems to be focussing on the "what" and the "how", and missing the "why".
It's all well and good to have an economist in charge of the Federal Reserve, but how is that person going to make decisions? Sure, he wants people who are "looking out for everyone’s best interests", but what are those best interests?
Here's an economic question for Matt: are people's interests best served in a capitalist economy, a socialist economy, a communist economy, or something else? If these benevolent oligarchs decide that socialism is the way to go (and, because they're experts, they know how to make it work), is Matt just going to go along with that? Similarly, I've seen some studies that show that humans were healthier, happier, and worked less, in hunter-gatherer societies. What if these experts decide that's the way to go for everyone? Give up our iPhones and cars and machines, and go back to nature? Because, according to the experts, that's in the best interests of everyone. Will Matt be happy with that?
Or does Matt have some opinions about what he wants his economy and society to look like? Does he have certain expectations for his life that he would like the structures in place for him to achieve? He may not like "ideological, emotionally-driven arguments", but I'm pretty sure he'd be arguing quite ideologically and emotionally if those oligarchs took his smartphone away!
As for the armed forces... who decides when to go to war?
There are judgements and subjective decisions required about what the best interests of people actually are. The world is not a data-driven utopia. We are not robots.
CM: What would be the ideal population for the democracy we have right now in the U.S.?
Matt: I think on the size of a local community. That’s something a small group of individuals can actually influence, and I think on that scale you can actually get to know your representative and there’s more of an incentive for them to represent you rather than be answerable to a party or to a radical wing of a constituency.
And, each local representative sits in a regional forum, where they elect regional representatives to a national forum, and the national forum elects representatives to a global forum. Every member of every forum comes from grass-roots votes at their local level.
It's a lovely theory. I actually like the idea.
(And it reminds me of the 'Power to the People' episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister'.)
most of the schools of politics that seriously advocate for direct democracy like that are some degree of anarchist or leftist, honestly, which might indicate how marginalized that model of...
And, each local representative sits in a regional forum, where they elect regional representatives to a national forum, and the national forum elects representatives to a global forum. Every member of every forum comes from grass-roots votes at their local level.
It's a lovely theory. I actually like the idea.
(And it reminds me of the 'Power to the People' episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister'.)
most of the schools of politics that seriously advocate for direct democracy like that are some degree of anarchist or leftist, honestly, which might indicate how marginalized that model of democracy tends to be in practice. it's a cornerstone of anarcho-syndicalism and usually other anarchists bring it up as the model of democracy they'd adopt, but even in leftist circles it tends to compete with consensus decision-making, and outside of those circles i don't know that i've ever really heard it brought up as a viable alternative to delegative democracy by anyone, ever.
switzerland uses it more extensively than any other state in the world in the form of referendums but still obviously uses delegative democracy, and even in america, where there's a framework for some form of direct democracy in a lot of states, that framework is more of a quirk of the system that allows citizens to occasionally try and pass something they want than an integrated part of the system (and in recent years republicans in many states have made the bar for passing something through that framework so hard that it's realistically not possible to use it to pass things).
Sorry OP, I think this is my hot take of the article.
I'm open to the idea that democracy/capitalism may not be the best political system at this moment in time. I'd like to engage in a serious discussion about this topic, but I think that the opinions of the interviewee are far too underdeveloped to even engage with. What was 538 trying to achieve by interviewing this person? Their opinions were incredibly irritating, like hot garbage, edgy teen, irritating. To me, it sounded like they were saying 'I wish someone would just do things for me.' I suspect we all feel that way occasionally, and who would have a problem with a near-perfect benevolent oligarchy (should we be using the word technocracy)? However, to quote the interviewee, "That’s the obvious flaw in the plan. It only works out if the decision-makers are looking out for everyone’s best interests." Oh really? Then how does one create a system that attempts to ensure this outcome?
OP, I don't think this was the best article for provoking discussion. It seems like a 'garbage in, garbage out' situation. I like to think that most people on this website are a bit beyond the opinions presented. However, you clearly have more developed thoughts that, in my opinion, are great discussion topics. There are just too many in one comment to address. Is there one in particular that you want to hear opinions/thoughts about?
well, it's part of a series on people who have political opinions they wouldn't share with their friends, hence the name 'political confession.' presumably they saw someone with a rather unorthodox political view (i want an oligarchy) and decided to investigate that because, let's be honest, how many people do you know that openly state that they would rather have an oligarchic system them a democratic one?
I didn't think that anyone living in a democratic country held that opinion, to be honest. It sounds like they got Anakin Skywalker to do that interview. I thought it was a ridiculous few lines of dialog when George Lucas wrote it because I didn't think anyone actually thought that way. There are obvious flaws there.
I think everyone would prefer to live in a benevolent oligarchy where their idea of a perfect society is de jure. The problem is that there is exactly zero chance of that ever happening. Dictators don't tend to have interests that align perfectly with the people they govern. Even if they did, there's no guaranteeing that the next person in line will. Once you give up the power to effect any sort of change to align with your interests, though, the only way to get it back is extended periods of extreme acts of horrific violence. You can't just decide that even though you liked the last dictator, this one is bad and we shouldn't have him any more. You have to fight and die for the remote chance of that happening.
It doesn't seem like Matt's actually thought through any of this, or if he has, he's being disingenuous simply in order to have an unconventional opinion.
oh no, he's thought through literally none of it. this exchange alone on the single most important aspect of making a functioning oligarchic system should make that clear:
Emphasis mine. This is indeed some hot garbage. "Vapid man has dumb opinions on a subject he admits to not thinking very deeply on" is how I'd characterize it.
Well if you only limit yourself to his context, sure, it's hard to argue. Every politician is perfectly moral and competent, and a perfectly fair selection process someone manages to ensure that only the best rise to the top. But I don't see the problem with pointing out that this isn't how the world works in reality. If a benevolent oligarchy only works in very specific, unrealistic conditions, then doesn't that undermine the case for it being superior to democracy as a form of government?
But I also take exception to comparing humans to an inanimate engine or a doctor. It's possible to somewhat accurately measure someone's competency with repairing engines or applying medicine, because these are relatively formulaic processes where the fundamental rules never change; acetaminophen doesn't just decide one day it's no longer going to dull pain, nor does it change depending on where you go. But people have wants, desires, and moods, and don't stay consistent. You can see this among some senior Republicans in the US who've been successfully winning elections and drafting policy for decades, are struggling to adapt to how rapidly the electorate has changed seemingly overnight in the past couple years, with Trump. Are these politicians now suddenly less competent, because they no longer understand their voters like they did before? Or where they sub-competent the whole time, because they're not capable of dealing with the rapid change?
Plus, where do we draw the line between benevolent and effective? If these oligarchical rulers for example ordered that anyone over the age of 55 were to be executed in order to save the state the burden of caring for them, would the significantly greater amounts of extra money that could be spent aiding the poor and the sick, and relieving people of worrying about retirement, be worth cutting off potentially the worst years of their life? In a democracy, this problem is an easy one; give the option out there and see what people vote for. What they prefer is then the morally correct choice. But in an oligarchy or benevolent dictatorship, how can the leader know that they really made the right decision? If there even is such a thing as a right decision in this situation?
It's very late at night and I'm tired, so I apologize if my questioning doesn't make any sense.
Matt seems to be focussing on the "what" and the "how", and missing the "why".
It's all well and good to have an economist in charge of the Federal Reserve, but how is that person going to make decisions? Sure, he wants people who are "looking out for everyone’s best interests", but what are those best interests?
Here's an economic question for Matt: are people's interests best served in a capitalist economy, a socialist economy, a communist economy, or something else? If these benevolent oligarchs decide that socialism is the way to go (and, because they're experts, they know how to make it work), is Matt just going to go along with that? Similarly, I've seen some studies that show that humans were healthier, happier, and worked less, in hunter-gatherer societies. What if these experts decide that's the way to go for everyone? Give up our iPhones and cars and machines, and go back to nature? Because, according to the experts, that's in the best interests of everyone. Will Matt be happy with that?
Or does Matt have some opinions about what he wants his economy and society to look like? Does he have certain expectations for his life that he would like the structures in place for him to achieve? He may not like "ideological, emotionally-driven arguments", but I'm pretty sure he'd be arguing quite ideologically and emotionally if those oligarchs took his smartphone away!
As for the armed forces... who decides when to go to war?
There are judgements and subjective decisions required about what the best interests of people actually are. The world is not a data-driven utopia. We are not robots.
And, each local representative sits in a regional forum, where they elect regional representatives to a national forum, and the national forum elects representatives to a global forum. Every member of every forum comes from grass-roots votes at their local level.
It's a lovely theory. I actually like the idea.
(And it reminds me of the 'Power to the People' episode of 'Yes, Prime Minister'.)
most of the schools of politics that seriously advocate for direct democracy like that are some degree of anarchist or leftist, honestly, which might indicate how marginalized that model of democracy tends to be in practice. it's a cornerstone of anarcho-syndicalism and usually other anarchists bring it up as the model of democracy they'd adopt, but even in leftist circles it tends to compete with consensus decision-making, and outside of those circles i don't know that i've ever really heard it brought up as a viable alternative to delegative democracy by anyone, ever.
switzerland uses it more extensively than any other state in the world in the form of referendums but still obviously uses delegative democracy, and even in america, where there's a framework for some form of direct democracy in a lot of states, that framework is more of a quirk of the system that allows citizens to occasionally try and pass something they want than an integrated part of the system (and in recent years republicans in many states have made the bar for passing something through that framework so hard that it's realistically not possible to use it to pass things).