Shall We K.I.S.S.? Examining Governments
July 7th 2009 00:05
Well, it's the Fourth of July again. In the USA, that means picnics, fireworks, concerts and carnival food. It is an enormous and gluttonous celebration. Most people are content to ignore its true meaning. The media prints a variety of patriotic articles, but few read them; There are Tom Clancy movies on TV; People watch those, but mostly not for patriotic reasons. It is a social holiday, meant to commemerate the founding of a government that most of our citizens continually complain about. It is American hypocrisy distilled.
Is there reason behind the constant whining? How can a country which has such control over the election of its leaders find themselves so continually dissatified with said leaders? These are the questions. I can't answer them right off the bat, and perhaps I shouldn't be able to; You can't make a rational inquiry into any subject when you assume you already know the answer (google "confirmation bias", if you want to know why). In the spirit of rationalism, then, I shall propose hypotheses, and try to systematically disprove them. The usual rules of engagement apply (meaning that if you, the reader, think I've missed something, you post a comment and I'll look it over). Let's get to it, then.
Hypothesis 1: The Problem is the Type of Government
This is essentially an argument made from a cynical perspective. The government in question is a republic, in which the people elect leaders to speak for them. If there is a problem with the form of government, then it seems logical to conclude that the problem lies with one of two components: the people, or the leaders. We will examine each in turn.
Hypothesis 2: The Problem is the People
This feeds into both hypotheses. If the people can't elect good leaders, it might be because they are (a.) underinformed, or (b.) natively stupid. If (a.) is true, then hypothesis 2 is true; The type of government is workable, if the people would better themselves ( as if). If (b.) is true, the type of government is unworkable, because native stupidity cannot be changed (save, perhaps, by some as-yet-to-be-discovered drug). If (b.) is, in general, true, another type of government would yield better results, and Hypothesis 1 is correct.
Hypotheses 3: The Problem is the Leaders
As I've typed that last paragraph, I've formulated the final probability, which is that the people were misled by their would-be leader (who is a very good actor). Either the leader lied about what they would do when in office, and then did something else, or the people changed their minds between election and the passage of legislation. In the first case, if no one could tell the leader was lying, the problem is with the people; If there was no way they could tell he was lying, then the leader is primarily at fault. And finally, if the people changed their minds, the leader is at fault for not listening to the ever-changeing whims of the people.
Goodnight, everyone. Hopefully I'll have some comments by morning.
Is there reason behind the constant whining? How can a country which has such control over the election of its leaders find themselves so continually dissatified with said leaders? These are the questions. I can't answer them right off the bat, and perhaps I shouldn't be able to; You can't make a rational inquiry into any subject when you assume you already know the answer (google "confirmation bias", if you want to know why). In the spirit of rationalism, then, I shall propose hypotheses, and try to systematically disprove them. The usual rules of engagement apply (meaning that if you, the reader, think I've missed something, you post a comment and I'll look it over). Let's get to it, then.
Hypothesis 1: The Problem is the Type of Government
This is essentially an argument made from a cynical perspective. The government in question is a republic, in which the people elect leaders to speak for them. If there is a problem with the form of government, then it seems logical to conclude that the problem lies with one of two components: the people, or the leaders. We will examine each in turn.
Hypothesis 2: The Problem is the People
This feeds into both hypotheses. If the people can't elect good leaders, it might be because they are (a.) underinformed, or (b.) natively stupid. If (a.) is true, then hypothesis 2 is true; The type of government is workable, if the people would better themselves ( as if). If (b.) is true, the type of government is unworkable, because native stupidity cannot be changed (save, perhaps, by some as-yet-to-be-discovered drug). If (b.) is, in general, true, another type of government would yield better results, and Hypothesis 1 is correct.
Hypotheses 3: The Problem is the Leaders
As I've typed that last paragraph, I've formulated the final probability, which is that the people were misled by their would-be leader (who is a very good actor). Either the leader lied about what they would do when in office, and then did something else, or the people changed their minds between election and the passage of legislation. In the first case, if no one could tell the leader was lying, the problem is with the people; If there was no way they could tell he was lying, then the leader is primarily at fault. And finally, if the people changed their minds, the leader is at fault for not listening to the ever-changeing whims of the people.
Goodnight, everyone. Hopefully I'll have some comments by morning.
| 102 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
