|rule of law||fealty|
|legal customs||physical force|
|favors challengers||favors incumbents|
|logical reasoning||magical thinking|
Sometimes being a progressive means fighting for the equal rights of our enemies. Rights are not lost because someone is disliked, or disagrees with us.
At least, not in a democracy. You will find this view under fascism. You will also find this view under the umbrella of the American right wing. Be wary.
Is it possible the Condorcet jury theorem provides not just a mathematical basis for democracy and the justice system, but a model predictor of one’s political persuasion as well?
If you’re an optimist, you have no trouble believing that p > 1/2. You give people the benefit of the doubt that they will try their best and most often, succeed in tipping over the average even if just by a hair. That’s all it takes for the theorem to prove true: that the larger the number of voters, the closer the group gets to making the “correct” decision 100% of the time.
On the other hand, if you’re a pessimist, you might quibble with that — saying that people are low-information voters who you don’t think very highly of, and don’t find very capable. You might say that people will mostly get it wrong, in which case p < 1/2 and the theory feedback loops all the way in the other direction, to where the optimal number of voters is 1: the autocrat.
A political sorting hat of sorts
Optimists will tend to believe in the power of people to self-govern and to act out of compassion a fair amount of the time, thus leaning to the left: to the Democrats, social democrats, socialists, and the alt-Left. Pessimists will tend to favor a smaller, tighter cadre of wealthy elite rulers — often, such as themselves. They might be found in the GOP, Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, Libertarian, paleoconservative, John Birch Society, Kochtopus, anarcho-capitalist, alt-Right, and other right-wing groups including the KKK and other white militia groups around the country.
Granted the model is crude, but so was the original theorem — what is the “correct” choice in a political contest? Or does Condorcet’s political science theory imply that, like becoming Neo, whatever the majority chooses will by definition be The Right One for the job? 🤔
…if so, we definitively have the wrong President.
… some pure, holy, unchanging thing. A perfect, Platonic form.
But there is nothing unchanging. And religion is overall fading — except at the edges; the extremes.
We want desperately to believe in something. This can make us vulnerable to hucksters, tricksters, deceivers, and all kinds of charms and fakery. The modern life condition exacerbates this, with its fractious social isolationism, vapid consumerism, and erosion of community.
May I suggest that we could find solace by cultivating belief in ourselves, and in each other? Be critical when warranted, but beat back this terrible cynicism that engulfs public discourse, filling it with day to day ennui. We don’t have to be at each other’s throats.
For friends of the Open Society who, like me, would prefer not to block the movement of people, ideas, and trade:
- Trade agreements are net contributors to economic growth
- Immigrants are net contributors to economic growth
- Money spent on the security industrial complex economy has low ROI vs. education, infrastructure, and research spending
- A diversity of ideas more likely leads to the best outcomes vs. a paucity of ideas
- Companies with more women leaders are more profitable
- The more the merrier!
The Veil of Ignorance — John Rawls’ theory of how to make the best moral choices:
- Would you choose it if you were in the other guy’s shoes?
- Essential concept of fairness, akin to “do unto others”
- Similarity to the Golden Rule
- Akin to parable about the best way to cut a cake: the person who cuts it chooses the last slice. In this way they are incentivized to divide the dessert equally, lest they end up with the smallest piece.
- Would Peter Thiel still think apartheid were so awesome if he were a black man?
I’ve been reading John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” and reminded of the quintessential liberal definition of the term:
The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
It seems to me that Libertarian proponents tend to make a systematic error in portraying liberty as only commensurate with the first part of Mill’s description: essentially interpreting it as, “I should be able to do whatever I want, and have no constraints placed upon my person by the government whatsoever.”
This misses completely the essential boundary established by the second part: that doing what one wants has limits attached, and that those limits are a proscription on engaging in activities which either harm others, or deprive others of their own rights in pursuit of liberty.
Being fixated with avoiding taxation, the Libertarian will proclaim that the government is coercing him out of his hard-earned monies — but this fails to recognize the real harm being done to the lower classes by the deprivation of funds to support the basic level of public goods required to preserve life at a subsistence level as well as social mobility: the essence of the American dream.
In short, Libertarian dogma tends to be singularly focused on the self-interest of the upper classes without any attendant regard to the rights of others that may be trampled on by either class oppression or the capturing and consolidation of political power in the hands of the wealthy. It fails systematically to recognize the perspective of the “other side,” i.e. those who are harmed by the enactment of the Libertarian ideology — much as a narcissist lacks the capability of seeing others’ perspectives.
This is what a bot will use to determine whether the agent it’s talking to is a human or another AI.