Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

 
   
6 of 6
6
The difference between a democracy and an oclocracy
Posted: 23 July 2009 07:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7094
Joined  2006-12-17
SFTor - 22 July 2009 10:49 PM

Interesting thread, that has wandered a ways from the original question: “how do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an ochlocracy?”

That is a truly interesting question. The opposing principles in it are the mostly constructive power of the individual, and the destructive power of the mob. We have the psychological research to know what we’re up against: Zimbardo and his Lucifer Effect, Elias Canetti with Crowds And Power, and onwards. Now we have the Internet combining the power of the written word with the insidiousness of demagoguery, propaganda, and rumor. The central problem is the willingness of sociopaths to use the mob for their own purposes. It is alive and well today, the most recent example is the tacit support offered by some Republican members of Congress to the Birther fringe, who believe Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

The only practical way to create a citizen fit for democracy is to teach the individual to withstand the power of the mob. There is no way around it as far as I can see. It is a slow grind, an endless effort by decent people to educate their children and demand behavior from others that makes it possible to live together. Someone once expressed it as “all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” I think that is at the heart of it: an unglamorous, steady insistence on decent behavior, adherence to democratic principles, and a rejection of notions that have been tested in the past and have shown their potential to corrupt. It has been expressed over and over through history, from the Golden Rule, to the Christian and Buddhist reciprocity principles “do unto others” and “do not cause suffering.” All of these, from homilies to philosophical principles, are concerned with creating boundaries between people based on respect, of setting up the psychological turf each needs for comfort and self-realization.

There is no magic in it, and few pat answers. It is the evolving effort to discern a pragmatic good, reject its enemies, and stay ahead of the curve as society evolves. It means speaking up, sticking your neck out now and then, and holding people in power to account. It is a Reason Project in an of itself, full of uncertainty and doubt, without guidelines, except those offered by our failures in the past. I think most people on this thread are involved in this project no matter how much they would like to call each other undemocratic assholes, ignorant assholes, or just plain assholes. In the end it is probably healthy to recognize the capacity of each of us to be assholes, and to keep each other in check.

We all have a part to play in this, and we should wish each other the best of luck.

Excellent post. 

From Prisons We Choose to Live Inside by Doris Lessing:
“I am talking about people who think about what is going on in the world, who try to assimilate information about our history, about how we behave and function—people who advance humanity as a whole.  It is my belief that an intelligent and forward-looking society would do everything possible to produce such individuals, instead of, as happens very often, suppressing them.  But if governments, if cultures, don’t encourage their production, then individuals and groups can and should.

“We are back with the concept of an elite, and that is all right with me, in this context.  We cannot expect a government to say to children, ‘You are going to have to live in a world full of mass movements, both religious and political, mass ideas, mass cultures.  Every hour of every day you will be deluged with ideas and opinions that are mass produced, and regurgitated, whose only real vitality comes from the power of the mob, slogans, pattern thinking.  You are going to be pressured all through your life to join mass movements, and if you can resist this, you will be, every day, under pressure from various types of groups, often of your closest friends, to conform to them.  It will seem to you many times in your life that there is no point in holding out against these pressures, that you are not strong enough.  But you are going to be taught hot to examine these mass ideas, these apparently irresistible pressures, taught how to think for yourself, and to choose for yourself….  You will be taught that no matter how much you have to conform outwardly—because the world you are going to live in often punishes unconformity with death—to keep your own being alive inwardly, your own judgment, your own thought…

“Well, no, we cannot expect this kind of thing to be in the curriculum laid down by any state or government currently visible in the world.  But parents may talk and teach like this, and certain schools may.  And groups of young adults who have run the gauntlet of state education, or private education, and survived with enough of their critical faculties intact to want more than they have been given may teach themselves and each other what they will.  Such people, such individuals, will be a most productive yeast and ferment, and lucky the society who has plenty of them.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 08:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7094
Joined  2006-12-17
arildno - 23 July 2009 02:01 AM

And, as for brilliant academics:
Newton was a bastard.
Einstein was a bastard, at least to his wife.
Heisenberg was an opportunistic bastard, and so was Werner von Braun.

The list of brilliant bastards can easily be made even longer, and intellectual brilliance is never an excuse for immorality.

“If each man got his just deserts none of us would escape horsewhipping” Ben Franklin

“The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 01:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1061
Joined  2008-07-20
SFTor - 22 July 2009 10:49 PM

Interesting thread, that has wandered a ways from the original question: “how do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an ochlocracy?”

That is a truly interesting question.

But, is it a problem?  Other than maybe the Paris Commune for a time, has history produced an ochlocracy?

Isn’t the problem too little democracy, not too much? 

How do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an oligarchy?

 Signature 

THE TEUCHTER ABRIDGED BIBLE:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.

26 Then man said, “Let us make God in our image, in our likeness, and let him let us rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,  and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So man created God in his own image,
    in the image of man he created him;
    male and female they created him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  412
Joined  2009-05-11

I think perhaps the first three year’s of Hitler’s Germany could be termed an ochlocracy. While the Reichstag was still operating etc.

How do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an oligarchy? Simple. You allow your country to become one, and then you wait for the oligarchs to self-destruct. As far as I can tell that is the recipe we have followed in this country.

 Signature 

“Forget the foolish belief that you and your fellow human beings were born evil.”
Blackfoot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 01:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1061
Joined  2008-07-20
SFTor - 23 July 2009 01:31 PM

How do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an oligarchy? Simple. You allow your country to become one, and then you wait for the oligarchs to self-destruct. As far as I can tell that is the recipe we have followed in this country.

Yeah we sure showed those bankers a thing or two, didn’t we!  Didn’t we?

And while they are buying up legislators like day old donuts, the health insurance execs are seeing record profits.  I wouldn’t mind opening up a can of ochlocracy on their asses.

 Signature 

THE TEUCHTER ABRIDGED BIBLE:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was God.

26 Then man said, “Let us make God in our image, in our likeness, and let him let us rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth,  and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So man created God in his own image,
    in the image of man he created him;
    male and female they created him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  412
Joined  2009-05-11

Our problem with oligarchs is no less than Russia’s. They must be broken, but as far as I can tell the opportunity came and went.

Now we wait for the next implosion, which should be the cap and trade bubble going bust in, say, 2016.

 Signature 

“Forget the foolish belief that you and your fellow human beings were born evil.”
Blackfoot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 July 2009 09:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7094
Joined  2006-12-17
teuchter - 23 July 2009 01:24 PM
SFTor - 22 July 2009 10:49 PM

Interesting thread, that has wandered a ways from the original question: “how do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an ochlocracy?”

That is a truly interesting question.

But, is it a problem?  Other than maybe the Paris Commune for a time, has history produced an ochlocracy?

Isn’t the problem too little democracy, not too much? 

How do you prevent a democracy from degenerating into an oligarchy?

Am reading an interesting book, Why Socrates Died, which goes into the legal and constitutional structure of the Athenian democracy.  Bracketing the fact that only around 30,000 of the 220,000 population were considered citizens with full rights, it was for those 30,000 probably as close to a total democracy as it’s possible to get.  Randian types ought to love it.  No police, most public offices selected by lottery, any citizen could bring criminal charges and bear the responsibility of arguing them in court.

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6