Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday January 01 2017, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the prescient-author-or-eternal-situation dept.

A computer scientist who saw congressional decision-making up close in 1980 found it insufficient to the task of solving big problems.

"I've heard many times that although democracy is an imperfect system, we somehow always muddle through. The message I want to give you, after long and hard reflection, is that I'm very much afraid it is no longer possible to muddle through. The issues we deal with do not lend themselves to that kind of treatment. Therefore, I conclude that our democracy must grow up. I'm not going to give you a magic recipe on how that will happen—I wish I had one—but I offer some thoughts that I hope will stimulate your thinking.

What's principally lacking on the federal scene, it seems to me, is the existence of respected, nonpartisan, interdisciplinary teams that could at least tell us what is possible and something about the pluses and minuses of different solutions. Take energy, for instance. What I would love to see established, with the National Academies or any other mechanism to confer respectability, is a team that will ... say, 'Okay, there are lots of suggestions around, and most of them won't work. But here are six different plans, any one of which is possible. We'll tell you what each one costs, what's good about it, what's bad about it, how dangerous it is, and what its uncertainties are.' At least each option would be a well-integrated, clearly thought-out plan. I do not trust democracy to try to put together such a plan by having each committee of Congress choose one piece of it. Suppose Congress designed an airplane, with each committee designing one component and an eleventh-hour conference committee deciding how the pieces should be put together. Would you fly on that airplane? I am telling you we are flying on an energy plan, an inflation plan, and so on that are being put together in exactly that way.

Unfortunately the original 1980 article that this was excerpted from is paywalled.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @04:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 01 2017, @04:17PM (#448162)

    “What's wrong is the nature of Man and of his empire. Have you noticed that, paradoxical as it seems,
    when Man and his possessions are at their smallest and weakest, his government is usually a democracy,
    giving the people the broadest and most vocal representation. As Man and his empire grow larger and
    more powerful, quicker and more forceful decisions are required, and the government grows
    progressively less representative, from republic to oligarchy. And now, with an empire that literally
    encompasses the entire galaxy, the crying need is for one ultimate authority. There are too many diverse
    races and diverse interests for any form of fair representation; all that is left is the iron rule of one man.
    Call it what you will, but the proper word is ‘monarchy.’ Admittedly, you can handle only the tiniest
    percentage of the decisions personally, but in this case the appearance must be of a single leader whose
    rule is not subject to question or debate, whose power is absolute. I'll tell you something else, Director:
    When you repeal your orders, as you surely will, the problems will not abate one iota. Our means of
    governing will remain inefficient, literally thousands of worlds with legitimate problems and grievances will
    be ignored or mishandled, and problems sown decades and centuries ago will continue to crop up to
    embarrass us.
      “On the other hand, abdication of any of your powers will ultimately result in anarchy. Inefficient as our
    system is, it is still more effective than any other means of governing an empire this size. We've simply
    come too far to go back. Any form of election would take half a century, and the power void created by
    fifty years without an ultimate authority would be intolerable. The worlds of the Commonwealth are too
    economically and culturally interdependent upon each other ever to go back to isolationism. Even the
    alien races have been bound to us militarily and economically. No, the only alternative to this is a
    galaxy-wide state of anarchy, and I do not consider that to be an acceptable one.”

    ©1982 Mike Resnick

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by aristarchus on Sunday January 01 2017, @10:14PM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Sunday January 01 2017, @10:14PM (#448256) Journal

    Copyright? Author stole the ideas! Here's something closer to the original.

    Chance has given birth to these different kinds of governments amongst men; for at the beginning of the world the inhabitants were few in number, and lived for a time dispersed, like beasts. As the human race increased, the necessity for uniting themselves for defence made itself felt; the better to attain this object, they chose the strongest and most courageous from amongst themselves and placed him at their head, promising to obey him. Thence they began to know the good and the honest, and to distinguish them from the bad and vicious; for seeing a man injure his benefactor aroused at once two sentiments in every heart, hatred against the ingrate and love for the benefactor. They blamed the first, and on the contrary honored those the more who showed themselves grateful, for each felt that he in turn might be subject to a like wrong; and to prevent similar evils, they set to work to make laws, and to institute punishments for those who contravened them. Such was the origin of justice. This caused them, when they had afterwards to choose a prince, neither to look to the strongest nor bravest, but to the wisest and most just. But when they began to make sovereignty hereditary and non-elective, the children quickly degenerated from their fathers; and, so far from trying to equal their virtues, they considered that a prince had nothing else to do than to excel all the rest in luxury, indulgence, and every other variety of pleasure. The prince consequently soon drew upon himself the general hatred. An object of hatred, he naturally felt fear; fear in turn dictated to him precautions and wrongs, and thus tyranny quickly developed itself. Such were the beginning and causes of disorders, conspiracies, and plots against the sovereigns, set on foot, not by the feeble and timid, but by those citizens who, surpassing the others in grandeur of soul, in wealth, and in courage, could not submit to the outrages and excesses of their princes.

    Under such powerful leaders the masses armed themselves against the tyrant, and, after having rid themselves of him, submitted to these chiefs as their liberators. These, abhorring the very name of prince, constituted themselves a new government; and at first, bearing in mind the past tyranny, they governed in strict accordance with the laws which they had established themselves; preferring public interests to their own, and to administer and protect with greatest care both public and private affairs. The children succeeded their fathers, and ignorant of the changes of fortune, having never experienced its reverses, and indisposed to remain content with this civil equality, they in turn gave themselves up to cupidity, ambition, libertinage, and violence, and soon caused the aristocratic government to degenerate into an oligarchic tyranny, regardless of all civil rights. They soon, however, experienced the same fate as the first tyrant; the people, disgusted with their government, placed themselves at the command of whoever was willing to attack them, and this disposition soon produced an avenger, who was sufficiently well seconded to destroy them. The memory of the prince and the wrongs committed by him being still fresh in their minds, and having overthrown the oligarchy, the people were not willing to return to the government of a prince. A popular government was therefore resolved upon, and it was so organized that the authority should not again fall into the hands of a prince or a small number of nobles. And as all governments are at first looked up to with some degree of reverence, the popular state also maintained itself for a time, but which was never of long duration, and lasted generally only about as long as the generation that had established it; for it soon ran into that kind of license which inflicts injury upon public as well as private interests. Each individual only consulted his own passions, and a thousand acts of injustice were daily committed, so that, constrained by necessity, or directed by the counsels of some good man, or for the purpose of escaping from this anarchy, they returned anew to the government of a prince, and from this they generally lapsed again into anarchy, step by step, in the same manner and from the same causes as we have indicated.

    Such is the circle which all republics are destined to run through.

    Machiavelli, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius [marxists.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:19AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:19AM (#448390)

      Nice quote, Aristarchus! Do you have portions committed to memory? Or did you just read it and say "hey I remember Machiavelli saying something similar" and if so how did you search to re-find it?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:22AM (#448392)

      PS - you can't copyright an idea (you can patent one) but you can copyright the expression of an idea.

      eg. if one writes a review of a book, the review is a different copyright. Similarly, there are countless renderings titled "the Madonna [and child]" each holding their own copyright to the same idea, rendered with slight variations.

      Copyright might be broken, but your protest that copyright is impossible because the ideas were unoriginal is incorrect.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:13AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 02 2017, @04:13AM (#448388)

    Who the fuck voted this funny? This is serious futurism.

    Lightspeed communication means even alpha centauri is years to run the candidate announcements and elections.

    It'll be the problem of our great^n grandkids but that doesn't make it less of a problem.