I don’t think concentrating on democracy is wise. It’s but a particular form of human self-organization that is currently popular, but is far from universally good. Some counterexamples to your naive-seeming political assertions:
Democracy grants legitimacy to the government.
So does monarchy or whatever else people agree is legitimate.
Democracy is fair and egalitarian—each person has a single vote.
Depends on your concept of fair and on what constitutes a person. Certainly many readers of this site cannot vote, yet. And those who can cannot really affect the decisions made by the government, anyway.
Democracy aligns the interests of the rulers with that of the ruled.
Most of your country’s poor people will disagree.
Democracy is stable—powerful groups can generally seize power within the structure, rather than overthrowing it.
Applies equally or more so to monarchy
Democracy allows the competition of governing ideas.
Yet the #1 democracy in the world is clearly stuck in the governing rut.
Democracy often leads to market economies, which generate large wealth.
Counterexample: China
Democracy often lead to welfare states, which increase happiness.
Is welfare state a good thing? And whose happiness?
Democracy doesn’t need to use certain coercive methods, such as restrictions on free speech, that other systems require to remain stable.
If I recall, US jails more people per capita than many non-democracies.
Democracy stops a particular group from hanging on to power indefinitely, which can reduce corruption, inefficiency and excessive use of state power for private purposes.
First, the real power is behind the scenes and non-elected. Second, Pinochet’s Chile, for example, was much less corrupt than the neighboring democracies, if I recall correctly. So there is some other factor in play, probably worth isolating.
Anyway, I think a smarter approach would be to figure out possible forms of self-organization suitable for the Em-world, starting from scratch.
Some counterexamples to your naive-seeming political assertions
I am not claiming that these are all true (most are true to a certain extent, as far as I can tell—but that’s not relevant here), simply that these are features often believed about democracies, and are good starting points to think about.
Anyway, I think a smarter approach would be to figure out possible forms of self-organization suitable for the Em-world, starting from scratch.
I think an analysis of what kinds of democracies work or don’t work for Ems is a first step before the designing from scratch (we can also toss in a few other current models of governments), as this will help isolate the key features of the Em world. This is often better than starting from scratch, as it reduces premature commitment to a fantastic-sounding idea.
This is often better than starting from scratch, as it reduces premature commitment to a fantastic-sounding idea.
Yes, there is a danger of that, certainly. On the other hand, if you start from what works for meat beings then there is a danger of being stuck in a local optimum. Probably both ought to be explored, and I am not sure if one or the other ought to have precedence. My personal opinion, admittedly not rigorously quantified, is that failure of imagination is a worse sin than reinventing the basics when dealing with predictions. But then in my physics studies I learned the importance of always being able to rederive the conclusions from the first principles, not just from half-processed expressions with potentially a lot of hidden or forgotten assumptions built in.
I don’t think concentrating on democracy is wise. It’s but a particular form of human self-organization that is currently popular, but is far from universally good. Some counterexamples to your naive-seeming political assertions:
So does monarchy or whatever else people agree is legitimate.
Depends on your concept of fair and on what constitutes a person. Certainly many readers of this site cannot vote, yet. And those who can cannot really affect the decisions made by the government, anyway.
Most of your country’s poor people will disagree.
Applies equally or more so to monarchy
Democracy allows the competition of governing ideas.
Yet the #1 democracy in the world is clearly stuck in the governing rut.
Counterexample: China
Is welfare state a good thing? And whose happiness?
If I recall, US jails more people per capita than many non-democracies.
First, the real power is behind the scenes and non-elected. Second, Pinochet’s Chile, for example, was much less corrupt than the neighboring democracies, if I recall correctly. So there is some other factor in play, probably worth isolating.
Anyway, I think a smarter approach would be to figure out possible forms of self-organization suitable for the Em-world, starting from scratch.
I am not claiming that these are all true (most are true to a certain extent, as far as I can tell—but that’s not relevant here), simply that these are features often believed about democracies, and are good starting points to think about.
I think an analysis of what kinds of democracies work or don’t work for Ems is a first step before the designing from scratch (we can also toss in a few other current models of governments), as this will help isolate the key features of the Em world. This is often better than starting from scratch, as it reduces premature commitment to a fantastic-sounding idea.
Yes, there is a danger of that, certainly. On the other hand, if you start from what works for meat beings then there is a danger of being stuck in a local optimum. Probably both ought to be explored, and I am not sure if one or the other ought to have precedence. My personal opinion, admittedly not rigorously quantified, is that failure of imagination is a worse sin than reinventing the basics when dealing with predictions. But then in my physics studies I learned the importance of always being able to rederive the conclusions from the first principles, not just from half-processed expressions with potentially a lot of hidden or forgotten assumptions built in.