So Would YOU Reverse A Presidential Election
Forget about the advisability of a test that would increase the chances that the better candidate won. Cut to the chase and tell us if you would push a button to reverse the results you didn't like, if somehow it could be done, no one knew you did it, and no one even knew it happened. Many of you will try to equivocate by answering that it depends on how much worse one candidate, in your mind, was, compared to the other. You wouldn't do it if it was Dwight Eisenhower versus Adlai Stevenson but you would if it was Lincoln vs Hitler.
OK fine. So what about Trump vs Harris?
Would it be better to go with the wise philosopher king who is going to be awesome but reign until their death maybe like Bukele or a corrupt and mediocre person who is going to respect democracy?
You should read Capitalism and freedom by Friedman, it answers your conundrum.
Yes normal people goals are about a good quality of life. Problem is you don't reach it without a good portion of what we consider "democratic freedoms".
China proved you can copy the success of capitalist societies fairly quickly if an autoritarian, technochratic leadership is determined to do so, but only till around what economists already called the "middle income trap" (which is a big problem even for countries tha
That was a very good reply and very good counterarguments to my stance. I also liked that it was different than the argument used on the TV segment "people are not dogs". You are not saying that the average person should be ashamed of themselves for not valuing freedom as much as day to day comforts, but rather that in the long run they will actually wind up better, even using their criteria. But what you didn't do is show how the arguments justifying your stance outweigh the arguments justifying my stance. Because they don't. You seem to not get how much trivial day to day stuff means to 90% of the world who live lives of quiet desperation. And though I don't know you I don't need to, to know what I just said is true. All I have to do is read your words "better to die with dignity than to live without it" Most people don't care that much about dignity or how the world will be twenty years from now. They are more interested in knowing they can go to a restaurant once a week, an amusement park once a month and having an air conditioner and a smart phone.
That was a very good reply and very good counterarguments to my stance. I also liked that it was different than the argument used on the TV segment "people are not dogs". You are not saying that the average person should be ashamed of themselves for not valuing freedom as much as day to day comforts, but rather that in the long run they will actually wind up better, even using their criteria. But what you didn't do is show how the arguments justifying your stance outweigh the arguments justifyin
Are you familiar with real life tests of the ultimatum game, or the "lost wallet" test, for real resources in poor countries? people do show a preference for dignity and/or punishment of people acting badly against them over personal gain of meaningful amounts of resources over and over, with the known exception of .... economics students.
Would it be better to go with the wise philosopher king who is going to be awesome but reign until their death maybe like Bukele or a corrupt and mediocre person who is going to respect democracy?
Why take Bukele which has just started his path (and it might be a normal one), you already have a real life example in Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, and for many people that was awesome.
personally, I would overturn the election, even if it was Trump versus Mitt Romney. The value at issue being preserved is whether or not it’s worth it to overturn democracy because of the danger of a certain candidate. My threshold would be Trump because he actually attempted to overturn the last election. whether it would be Romney or Harris or Biden, as long as it’s someone that would respect democracy then I think I would overturn it. (that is of the mainstream political figures)
but again for
Would you overturn senate elections to have enough votes to get whatever you want to pass, passed ?
How could you have data in something so subjective? I don’t get this whole line of inquiry tbh..
You’re going to subvert democracy on a hunch?
how about if we go back in time. does anyone not swap out George Bush? does anyone not swap out Biden? 2 of the biggest mass murderers in American history.
how about if we go back in time. does anyone not swap out George Bush? does anyone not swap out Biden? 2 of the biggest mass murderers in American history.
I think the question for you Victor, is "you have the button and Stalin just got elected. Do you stick with the Moet or treat yourself to the Dom Perignon?"
how about if we go back in time. does anyone not swap out George Bush? does anyone not swap out Biden? 2 of the biggest mass murderers in American history.
Going back in time is slightly different because then you have a concrete outcome to analyze and choose to change, vs attempting to predict the future using a variety of rough probabilities with no way of accurately estimating each possible outcome.
This hypothetical in the OP, at least to me, is more a question of are you arrogant, selfish, and delusional enough to change the outcome of the group vote to something you personally think *might* be better.
how about if we go back in time. does anyone not swap out George Bush? does anyone not swap out Biden? 2 of the biggest mass murderers in American history.
Swapping out Trump for Hilary probably wouldn't have made a huge difference (despite loathing him) which is why I'm circumspect about swapping him for Kamala (who may be even more likely to start WW3 imo).
Even going back in time, the decision would still be extremely fraught. You would need a significant degree of certainty still in the expected utility of making the change. Regardless of past or future, the law of unintended consequences remains in effect, as well as the possibility of a perverse result. This is why you don’t just make guesses based on preferences when intervening in a complex system.
Where are all the Murphy law bros when you need them too.
Going back in time is slightly different because then you have a concrete outcome to analyze and choose to change, vs attempting to predict the future using a variety of rough probabilities with no way of accurately estimating each possible outcome.
This hypothetical in the OP, at least to me, is more a question of are you arrogant, selfish, and delusional enough to change the outcome of the group vote to something you personally think *might* be better.
right, we know what happened with both of these presidents and its hard for me to believe their alternatives would have been worse.
Going back, we tinker with these things at our peril. We do at least live in a world without a nuclear holocaust (at the time of writing).
Going back in time is slightly different because then you have a concrete outcome to analyze and choose to change, vs attempting to predict the future using a variety of rough probabilities with no way of accurately estimating each possible outcome.
This hypothetical in the OP, at least to me, is more a question of are you arrogant, selfish, and delusional enough to change the outcome of the group vote to something you personally think *might* be better.
Changing 'our' past in any meaningful way will 'unexist' the lives of vast numbers of people who will now never be born. I dunno if that matters but it requires some impressive arrogance.
Changing 'our' past in any meaningful way will 'unexist' the lives of vast numbers of people who will now never be born. I dunno if that matters but it requires some impressive arrogance.
Well naturally you would be on a completely new timeline. Maybe ask a utilitarian? I’m sure we’ll have at least a few amusing responses.
I think it’s worth pointing out that this is the main reason why I think overturning Trump’s election would be positive. There’s no point in protecting the principle of democracy and the constitution if the person themselves doesn’t believe in democracy. In reality, there’s no practical way to overturn it without doing far more damage to the system than Trump could. If people knew that an election was reversed, they would be so angry that it would create/precipitate far more conflict.
That’s part of the reason I don’t actually believe these people think the election was stolen, or else violence really would be justified to battle against the stealing of the election.
That makes no sense
Democracies can only last so long. They are subject to systemic corruption. Eventually people can vote against democracy itself and I don't see any way to safeguard against that which can be formally imbedded into our institutions because, at some level, you would be refusing people their fundamental democratic rights in order to maintain democracy. This seems like an unresolvable contradiction imbedded into democracy.
In the case of the U.S., unlike Germany, there is no greater military power that could come in and reimpose democracy once it is interrupted. So a reinstating of democracy could only come with internal violence. How would that violence be orchestrated given that, unlike many violent conflicts including the Civil War, the belligerents are not clustered into distinct regions? I think we'd be looking at widespread stochastic violence. Most people would not participate. All republicans would line up to kiss the ring. Most democrats would just sit still like a field mouse aware that it's being stalked.
There should probably be a thread like What if Trump Wins AND Declares Himself an Absolute Authority. How would that play out? I don't think Trump would do that, but the possibilities are interesting.
Democracies can only last so long. They are subject to systemic corruption. Eventually people can vote against democracy itself and I don't see any way to safeguard against that which can be formally imbedded into our institutions because, at some level, you would be refusing people their fundamental democratic rights in order to maintain democracy. This seems like an unresolvable contradiction imbedded into democracy.
In the case of the U.S., unlike Germany, there is no greater military power t
every agency system can only last so long and is subject by systemic corruption (if by that we mean the people tasked to fare for others do their own interests, or the interests of some groups that read them instead).
that happens in all human societies across history without failure.
you safeguard against many (not all) outcomes through decentralized power so when one power becomes cancerous the rest act against it removing it.
sometimes you will have various contemporary cancers and you die anyway yes.
like the people vote against democracy in some sense and the militaries and judges don't act on the unlawful orders of elected politicians.
there is no democratic right to vote against democracy btw.
if you mean they amend the constitution then yes, which is why it's terribly hard to amend it, on purpose.
but you can't have the 53% voting "against democracy" and succeeding in the USA. they can't strip opponents of their voting rights for example. they can't incarcerate them. and so on.
it is not a contradiction in constitutional democracies, the power of the 51% is limited by a chart (and by powers enabled by that char) that requires immense efforts and 75%+ of the people agreeing to be changed.
anyway if the USA democracy collapses, the USA break up and different areas have different reactions
