I think democracy is more of a levy to capitalism than an accelerator: democracy, thus far, has happened to help capitalism, but that's because democracies are overwhelmingly not democratic even in the representative sense. The people there come from money and so vote for things that help thems, like all humans do. (this is a big problem for representative democracy: since humans vote for themselves, by human nature, you can't build representative systems since the apes that get the office are no better than the apes at home, and will vote for themselves) 

But if you build in more steps for scrutiny then this gets tampered as the individual decision becomes collective. — Moliere

Why not just go straight to monarchy? That's where ancient Greek democracies always ended up.

I'm laughing but I suppose I'd go to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance: the likelihood that I'd be a King is very low, so it's simply not attractive.

I'm laughing but I suppose I'd go to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance: the likelihood that I'd be a King is very low, so it's simply not attractive. — Moliere

I guess I take that question more seriously than you do.

Oh I didn't realize -- what can I say, while I criticize democracy I basically believe it's the right way to go.

Can you lay out a case?

Can you lay out a case? — Moliere

The case is basically what you've said, just with some Nietzsche added in. The outcome is the so called dark enlightenment philosophy. It says that democracy is not the pinnacle of social development for humans. It's just a tool, and it's now failing, so it's time to ditch it in favor of authoritarianism. Its fans include Peter Thiel (pronounced Teel) and JD Vance.

I look at it more in terms of where social currents are headed. Authoritarianism has become appealing for a reason, right? In spite of being the most comfortable humans in history, there's a loss of faith in democracy. It's been highjacked. That's how people all across the political spectrum feel. They point at each other as the highjackers. The question for me is: why is this happening now? What does it mean? Historically, democracies and republics tend to end in monarchy due to crises like war. I wonder if I'm watching how the stage is set for the transition prior to the crisis. People lose faith in themselves for whatever reason, and once the crisis happens, people close ranks around a powerful leader. That part is just human nature.

My thought is that as soon as you're "the representative" then, in the material sense of being-able, you're no longer the same as whom you represent. (one of the mechanisms of syndicalism is that representatives cannot re-present, so a new person has to go up to say what the people they represent think every time, whatever that "time" happens to be designated as) — Moliere

The idea of representative democracy is what differentiates modern democracies from the ancient Greek model. They were all run on the basis of citizen assemblies. No representatives. You had to turn up in person. But that can't work in a state much larger than a city.

There's a fundamental issue in the concept of representation, which seems to be completely neglected in what I've seen. (But I'm not a serious academic political philosopher. I'm more interested than what is than in what ought to be.) The left wing, on the whole, sees a representative as someone who is delegated to report to the assembly what the people think, not what they themselves think. Such representatives are, in the jargon, described as mandated. (This is usually based on some formal vote after debate in a local assembly.)

The syndicalist view you describe is an extreme version of mandating representatives. It seems to me to be a recipe for chaos, since each representative will have slightly different views and may differ radically from the previous one. On the whole, the left wing seems to prefer mandating representatives and/or making them bring their decisions back for a popular vote before it is finalized. (That's how the trade unions work, on the whole - at least in the UK.) The alternative view is that representatives are there to decide on behalf of the people, exercising their judgement and discretion. Of course, if the people don't like the decisions their representative makes, they can vote them out next time round. Such representatives are more like agents - acting for their people. That is more popular on the right wing.

The story about the UK Parliament 50 years ago was that electing an MP was about electing the right sort of person to make decisions on one's behalf. That seems to have almost completely disappeared in favour of the hopelessly impractical idea that one votes for a set of policies, which the representative is expected to do their best to implement. But implementation is not always possible or wise, and often results in changes of detail. Hence the popular idea that you can't trust a politician.

You can see a similar issue in the Electoral College for the US Presidency. It seems like an empty ceremony because the people elected to the Electoral College are elected on a mandate. But in the late 18th century, with communications being so much slower, it was more practical to send representatives to vote on behalf of their people, rather than a specified candidate. I don't know when that changed.

The custodes custodorum problem is fraught with infinite regress and is therefore fundamentally unsolvable. — Tarskian

In general I would say your maths training leads you astray about the real world. More statistical theory might help you on how effective solutions are good enough. You don’t need exact precision.

I covered that in my shrinkage example. Corruption only needs to be kept within tolerable bounds. Like all social problems. Same goes for the upright citizens. We only need people to be averagely virtuous in their conduct for things to work.

Oh? I like to waste my time in exactly that pursuit. — Moliere

I’m suitably impressed.

In spite of being the most comfortable humans in history, there's a loss of faith in democracy. — frank

When something is working so relatively well, folk can just take it for granted. Then as things start to go wrong, it can take those who have become disconnected from the realities quite some time to understand why.

Authoritarianism has become appealing for a reason, right? — frank

Yep. People like to imagine all the things they could do if they were dictator for a day. But you try actually running a country. Think of all the fun Putin and Xi are having.

When something is working so relatively well, folk can just take it for granted. Then as things start to go wrong, it can take those who have become disconnected from the realities quite some time to understand why. — apokrisis

Could be. Or I was thinking it might be a problem with aggression during peacetime. We turn on each other.

Or I was thinking it might be a problem with aggression during peacetime. We turn on each other. — frank

Read Richard Wrangham’s The Goodness Paradox for an evolutionary perspective of how we are set up for social organisation. We shifted from the reactive aggression of apes to the proactive aggression of social groups.

So within the tribal structure, you are either in or you are out. And simply agreeing to kill the tribe mate that doesn’t fit is a very human response. Wrangham argues this is how we became the self-domesticated ape. This capacity for blunt and bloody in/out group assessments.

Obviously a psychology that worked well in a world of a few million hunter/gatherers needed some rejigging to turn it into the world of agrarian empires, then colonial trading empires, and now a fossil-fuelled technocracy sustaining a population closing fast on 9 billion.

But the basic dynamic is plain to see. The village all gets along until it collectively decides someone is actually “not one of us”. We are evolved to make these sudden in-group/out-group determinations at the level of a general democratic choice.

Unlike apes, we can plan violence with cool heads. And that can be a good thing when that is channeled into justice systems and police forces.

And also unlike apes, we can be instinctively empathetic and inclusive. We have that complementary side which makes us seem so tame and domesticated in a group setting. We can be good citizens as well. The other side of the coin when it comes to constructing our social hierarchies founded on their balances of competition and cooperation.

And also still, like apes, we can just be reactively violent when lost and confused. That is a further natural response we retain.

So a bit of emotional complexity there. But it helps to explain why certain social structures seem to work. They take what worked as we were evolving as tribal foragers and developed it into social algorithms that could scale economically as we gained technological mastery over the world. As we moved from simple foraging to complex agrarianism and then industrialism, now consumerism as the purest expression of Nature’s entropic imperative.

Is the current state of the world a success? Well it is certainly remarkable that it even exists. A species able to change a planet in its own image. Approaching 9 billion people and with most of its ecology transformed into factory farming.

The democracy vs autocracy debate seems a little superficial as an analysis given the reality we have constructed here. The world is a fairly robust human system for converting natural capital into social capital. And now it is suffering the effects of its own success. Where once people wandered with rumbling bellies, they now sit stuffed on their sofas waiting for the next pizza delivery. That kind of thing.

Sure in the US we witness all the drama of woke vs MAGA. And yet going from Trump to Biden only saw the US’s general economic and international policy continue on its logical self-interested course. The continuity of a direction is more impressive than the threat of an insurrection and civil war.

So my reply is that there is always aggression during peacetime. These are the basic things that a social hierarchy learns to juggle. And we humans are even adapted to be more binary about it. We exist to be in tune with a group mood, a group identity. And thus to be able to flip on a dime as a group.

Whatever you might call democracy or autocracy as a political system then has to operate in recognition that there is this natural dynamic in play. We can still design the world system. But we have to be clear about the realities that underpin it.

Well said :up:

Too late.

That's true. But I was also thinking of the political influence wealth can have indirectly, not by influencing politicians. Where does that new factory go? Who going to be laid off? Where am I going to put my money? That sort of thing. Money talks. To put it another way, "it's all about economics, stupid" — Ludwig V

Yes, but most wealth is not seizure resistant.

If you do not fall in line, you may suddenly get an "audit" from the IRS, or from some other federal departments who will conveniently discover a host of worrisome "irregularities".

The wealth is your until the government decides that it isn't anymore.

Corruption only needs to be kept within tolerable bounds. — apokrisis

The average strength of the wall of a besieged city does not matter. Only the weakest spot does.

The same holds true for protecting a computer system from a cyber attack. It simply does not matter that you have closed 99% of the open doors.

The same holds true for governments and their finances. It does not matter that corruption is under control in the department of education. It only means that the flood gates at the department of defense will go open even wider.

Statistics do not work against a living adversary.

You can indeed use statistical calculations to control the damage caused by hurricanes. You cannot do that, however, when it is about human adversaries.

The average strength of the wall of a besieged city does not matter. Only the weakest spot does. — Tarskian

And the weakest spot would be by definition the least average? Dude, plug your brain in.

You can indeed use statistical calculations to control the damage caused by hurricanes. You cannot do that, however, when it is about human adversaries. — Tarskian

Again, just stop and think a little deeper. This is why defence systems are hierarchically structured. You have a static frontline and then a mobile reserve. One just has to last until the other gets there.

Human attackers of course understand the principle from its other side. And that is what drives the hierarchical complexity. It has been the same ever since walls started getting built and attacked at the dawn of agrarian empire building.

Human attackers of course understand the principle from its other side. And that is what drives the hierarchical complexity. — apokrisis

More statistical theory might help you on how effective solutions are good enough. You don’t need exact precision. — apokrisis

You cannot protect a system from attackers who seek to exploit its vulnerabilities by means of statistically good enough solutions. It won't work.

Example: UNITED STATES v. KLYUSHIN (2022)

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-mas/2129870.html

In less than three years, Klyushin’s cybersecurity scam amassed more than $93 million.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/russian-businessman-found-guilty-90-million-hack-trade-conspiracy

Trial evidence showed that, between at least in or about January 2018 and September 2020, Klyushin, and allegedly Ermakov, Irzak, Sladkov and Rumiantcev, conspired to use stolen earnings information to trade in the securities of companies that are publicly traded on U.S. national securities exchanges, including the NASDAQ and the NYSE, in advance of public earnings announcements. Using the same malicious hacking techniques M-13 advertised to customers, Klyushin and, allegedly his co-conspirators, obtained inside information by hacking into the computer networks of two U.S.-based filing agents that publicly-traded companies used to make quarterly and annual filings through the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Armed with this information before it was disclosed to the public, Klyushin, and allegedly his co-conspirators, knew ahead of time, among other things, whether a company’s financial performance would meet, exceed or fall short of market expectations – and thus whether its share price would likely rise or fall following the public earnings announcement. Klyushin then traded based on that stolen information in brokerage accounts held in his own name and in the names of others.

No amount of hierarchical complexity can seal off this kind of vulnerabilities from attack. Every complex system is replete with an endless number of exploitable vulnerabilities. In fact, it is enough that just one low-ranking bureaucrat, who is apparently just some seemingly unimportant cog in the system, leaks the wrong information to the adversary, for corruption to start snow balling. You can imagine the damage if people higher up the ladder decide to start making money from their power, and they routinely do.

You cannot protect a system from attackers who seek to exploit its vulnerabilities by means of statistically good enough solutions. It won't work. — Tarskian

It works all the time everywhere in life.

Of course if you think in only rigid absolutist terms, this will be hard to accept.

No amount of hierarchical complexity can seal off this kind of vulnerabilities from attack. — Tarskian

In less than three years, Klyushin’s cybersecurity scam amassed more than $93 million.

Who in everyday life even knows or cares about such a chickenfeed scam? Did the stockmarket needle even register a flicker at the news? Was some gapping breach in the walls of capitalism created from which it could never recover?

Just like supermarkets write off shrinkage so as to keep their staff and not chase away shoppers, so capitalism in general just has to bank a steady 3% per annum on capital and everyone will agree, good job done.

In fact, it is enough that just one low-ranking bureaucrat, who is apparently just some seemingly unimportant cog in the system, leaks the wrong information to the adversary, for corruption to start snow balling. You can imagine the damage if people higher up the ladder decide to start making money from their power, and they routinely do. — Tarskian

Driving your car causes inevitable wear and tear. Does that mean you put it in a glass box and never drive it?

Shit happens in the real world. The aim of a system designer is to constrain the unwanted to the point that it doesn't matter, not to where it doesn't even exist.

You are being a perfectionist in a world where averageness is quite good enough as a baseline for action. And indeed a world that can't escape being average anyway as that is just statistics for you.

Driving your car causes inevitable wear and tear. — apokrisis

A car is not a living adversary. If it is not alive, then you can use statistics. If it is alive, then statistics are often misleading.

You are being a perfectionist in a world where averageness is quite good enough as a baseline for action. — apokrisis

In his book, "Black Swan. Impact of the highly improbable.", Nassim Taleb says that there are two situations to consider, mediocristan and extremistan.

In mediocristan, adding an individual to the sample, won't move the needle for the average. For example, if you have measured average height of a thousand people, adding one other person won't make any difference. You can happily model the situation according to a Gaussian bell curve.

In extremistan, adding an individual to the sample can drastically move the needle for the average. For example, adding Bill Gates to measure the average wealth of a thousand people, will completely change the situation. Bell curves do not work in that kind of situation.

According to Taleb, because of massive financialization of the economy and other reasons, we increasingly live in extremistan, where the Gaussian bell curve of averageness is misleading and is not good enough as a baseline for action. Taleb used to be a trader on capital markets. He made inordinate amounts of money by exploiting the fact that the calculation formulas used by his trading counterparts assumed mediocristan while in reality the situation was part of extremistan.

As far as I am concerned, the ruling mafia's bottom line is their problem and not mine. They are perfectly free to believe in fairy tales. However, they should never count on me to send the bill to.

In his book, "Black Swan. Impact of the highly improbable.", Nassim Taleb says that there are two situations to consider, mediocristan and extremistan. — Tarskian

Err yeah. Complex systems 101. The difference between normal and log distributions.

Yes, but most wealth is not seizure resistant. — Tarskian

That's true.

The wealth is yours until the government decides that it isn't anymore. — Tarskian

Nonetheless, in practice, it seems to last a lot better than political power.

Nonetheless, in practice, it seems to last a lot better than political power. — Ludwig V

Seizure-prone wealth is protected by the flimsy promise by the government that they will respect your so-called "property rights".

Your house, your car, your business, your stocks, your bonds, the balance on your bank account are just promises not to confiscate them from you, for now.

Furthermore, whatever they demand from you, you will have to cave in. Otherwise, they will simply seize your seizure-prone wealth with a press of the button.

Seizure-prone wealth is a form of slavery. It is not true freedom.

I do not trust promises made by the local ruling mafia, and in fact, I don't have to.

The true value of Bitcoin wealth is its seizure resistance.

It's not just a press of the button to take your coins away from you.

It requires either bullying you into revealing your secret or else solving the intractable elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP).

Formally, the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP) is the problem of finding an integer value e within the bounds of 1 and the number of points on the elliptic curve (which ~= the order of the finite cyclic group), such that the scalar multiplication of a primitive element G with e, i.e. eG, produces another point P on the elliptic curve.

Before solving the ECDLP, the adversary must first successfully carry out a preimage attack on the RIPEMD-160 hash function, known to be quantum resistant.

For the time being, the NSA and other intelligence agencies accept the fact that they simply cannot not pull it off by means of computational power.

Instead of a flimsy promise that they won't attack your wealth, we have something much better here. I vastly prefer to rely on the cryptographic intractability of successfully doing it.

Every time someone wakes up to the fact that the ruling mafia cannot be trusted, Bitcoin further increases in value.

I trust that ultimately the true consensus will be to distrust.

It's not just a press of the button to take your coins away from you. — Tarskian

... unless you are a fraudster!

Seizure-prone wealth is a form of slavery. It is not true freedom. — Tarskian

What is true freedom?

I trust that ultimately the true consensus will be to distrust. — Tarskian

Total trust in everyone is idiotic. Total distrust of everyone makes life impossible. The trick is, to know how far you can trust each person. You seem to trust Bitcoin.

unless you are a fraudster! — Ludwig V

The anatomy of a Bitcoin heist typically falls into three categories:

- social engineering (80%). No solution.
- faulty implementation of hot server side wallet (15%). Not your keys, not your coins
- trusting client side wallet software that cannot be trusted (5%). https://walletscrutiny.com

What is true freedom? — Ludwig V

I define true (or maximum) freedom as keeping just the laws of God. This level of freedom is probably unattainable. At times, you will still have to cave in to the whims of the local ruling mafia. But then again, hopefully as little as possible.

You seem to trust Bitcoin. — Ludwig V

It's based on a collection of math/cryptographic theories, that I investigated -- starting in 2013 -- and that are not easy to refute. Well, I am still waiting for someone to successfully do that. If someone really can, he will probably become a trillionaire.

I definitely consider this impediment to confiscation to be more solid than a flimsy promise by the local ruling mafia. I consider so-called legal property rights to be mostly an illusion.

For example, I'd rather park my money in Bitcoin than in buying a house. I simply don't trust the house's deed. It's just a piece of paper that the local ruling mafia can revoke with the press of a button. They often do. Just forget to pay a parking fine and there you go.

Every inhabited place on earth is governed by a local ruling mafia. That is inevitable, simply, because that is human nature.

Fortunately, you can still choose which local ruling mafia that you are going to suffer.

Some are actually not that bad. They may even be quite welcoming. Some of them are even willing to issue a digital nomad visa, if you politely ask them, and if you pay the associated fee, of course.

The local ruling mafia is actually a quite manageable problem. I am certainly not complaining.

It's based on a collection of math/cryptographic theories, that I investigated -- starting in 2013 -- and that are not easy to refute. Well, I am still waiting for someone to successfully do that. If someone really can, he will probably become a trillionaire. — Tarskian

It's certainly a protection in a different league. So I'm not saying you are wrong to trust it. How does that square with your policy of distrust?

I define true (or maximum) freedom as keeping just the laws of God. — Tarskian

Some people regard those as very restricting.

The local ruling mafia is actually a quite manageable problem. I am certainly not complaining. — Tarskian

I'm sure you're not. They might be watching. Anyway, that's the policy that most people go for, isn't it?

It's certainly a protection in a different league. So I'm not saying you are wrong to trust it. How does that square with your policy of distrust? — Ludwig V

I would have to distrust the math/cryptography. In fact, mathematicians and cryptographers generally do. That is why they invariably demand proof and then scrutinize it thoroughly. The method itself is already one of systematic distrust.

Some people regard those as very restricting. — Ludwig V

They are mostly a matter of self-discipline. If you happen to lapse -- shit happens -- then you can try to find the resolve to avoid that in the future. They are, in fact, not that restricting because they are supposed to reflect human nature. You can easily get used to it. Of course, you may have to unlearn some bad habits, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. It's like the habit of going to the gym. It's actually not that hard. People exaggerate that.

I'm sure you're not. They might be watching. — Ludwig V

Well, that would require one particular local ruling mafia in SE Asia to be interested in me, while I am not even there all the time, as I regularly end up in another ruling mafia's territory in SE Asia. Are they going to waste their time on that? I guess that they could. However, that is typically not what any local ruling mafia is interested in. They have other politically more interesting people on their radar as well as limited resources to watch them. For example, would the Vietnamese or Thai government be interested in me? Not a snowball's chance in hell.

I would have to distrust the math/cryptography. In fact, mathematicians and cryptographers generally do. That is why they invariably demand proof and then scrutinize it thoroughly. The method itself is already one of systematic distrust. — Tarskian

I'm really sorry, but the fact is that I have had many firm reassurances that IT is absolutely, finally secure, only to discover that it isn't. So I'm not buying.

They are mostly a matter of self-discipline. — Tarskian

H'm. Perhaps self-discipline is freedom. An interesting thought.

However, that is typically not what any local ruling mafia is interested in. They have other politically more interesting people on their radar as well as limited resources to watch them. — Tarskian

So you know how far to trust them? Or do you just think you know? Put a foot wrong and you might become an object of great political interest.

I'm really sorry, but the fact is that I have had many firm reassurances that IT is absolutely, finally secure, only to discover that it isn't. — Ludwig V

What exactly is insecure?

It really depends on the software that you use.

The software needs to be reproducible-build compliant free and open source only, turtles all the way down to the operating system. Example: Debian Linux running the Electrum wallet.

Secondly, it is necessary to physically prevent the secret from being exposed to the network. The secret may only be available on a network-disconnected machine -- or virtual machine, if you know how to manage that carefully. You always need two machines, physical or virtual ones, to implement this security principle.

I have used these principles since 2013. I have never had any security problem related to Bitcoin.

So you know how far to trust them? Or do you just think you know? Put a foot wrong and you might become an object of great political interest. — Ludwig V

The power of the local ruling mafia is continuously being challenged by other political clans who want to replace them. If you've got nothing to do with that, you are simply of no interest to them.