Part 9: Misconceptions About Democracy

This section is somewhat redundant (2,800-words), so I’ve placed it into a pdf.

Part 10: Competition, The One True God

Think of all the mistakes made – by everyone – every day, everywhere in the world, throughout all of time. All the mistakes.

What if we had the power to turn each mistake into a blessing? The worse the mistake, the greater the blessing.

What a god-like power that would be!! All misfortune would be turned to prosperity, and every frown would become a smile.

images

Above: “The Adoration of the Calf”, by Nicolas Poussin - Web Gallery of Art.

A. Turning Bad Into Good

In mathematics, “multiplication by -1” turns a negative number to a positive. The more negative the number is, originally – the more positive, it will be, after the multiplication. In the fictional story “Legend of Zelda”, the knight-like hero obtains the Mirror Shield. Like any shield, it block harmful attacks – but unlike other shields, it reflects [many] attacks back at the assailant. Even powerful dark magic (previously unblockable), will be reflected. Certain enemies, such as the especially-powerful Twinrova, can only be defeated by reflecting their own projectiles back at them.

image

How unrealistic is it, really?

Competition is the magic that makes this possible, in our world. In the free market, if you open a restaurant, you are hoping that all the existing restaurants are defective in some way – everyone is missing something (about food service), that only you can see. That way, you will attract diners and customers. In academia, every scholar is hoping that their foundational textbook (aka, the prevailing wisdom) contains a mistake – something that everyone else has missed. If so, then the scholar can write his Great Paper, and push outward the frontiers of knowledge. Every entrepreneur is hoping that existing entrepreneurs have failed to do something. Every investor (every trader) is betting against ALL the rival investors around them. Every journalist is trying to be the first to break a big story; every comedian tries to be the first to come up with an insightful joke; every artist wants to bring novelty and originality into the world; every engineer wants to push the envelope on efficiency – just a little bit further.

B. Error-Correction Across Behavior

How are errors handled in a world of monopoly?

You go to the dictator, the king, the CEO (whatever), with your brilliant idea – and he turns you down. You have no recourse. All you can do, is become frustrated. Your beautiful improvement… will not be made. Time will pass – men, women, and children will suffer needlessly. Adding insult to injury, their suffering will harm their ability to make further improvements. The whole timeline will dim, and darken. Years later, you might finally be proven correct – if so, there will be no vindication or accountability. The Monopolist will feel awkward, that he mistakenly shunned your good idea – that his actions, worsened the situation. Surely, he will make excuses for himself – instead of praise you. He may even blame you – for not presenting the idea correctly. After all, your mere existence has suddenly become a problem for him, politically. In fact, the better your idea was, the worse you made the Monopolist look. A truly sublime idea might get you hanged for treason.

In our modern world, innovators are no longer sentenced to death, by kings. But the overall fate is mostly the same – ridicule (at first), resentment (later) if successful.

In contrast, how are errors handled in a world of competition?

You go to the King, with your brilliant idea – and he turns you down. You say: “Fine, idiot – this is the biggest mistake you’ll ever make!”, and you go across the street to King II. You explain your brilliant idea (maybe you explain it a little differently this time), and you also explain why King I has wrongly rejected it. Now, a smile comes across King II’s face – finally, a mistake from King I, that King II can exploit. You are swiftly appointed, as project manager and high advisor to King II. Your improvement is made – people enjoy it, and prosper accordingly. King I is properly humiliated, for wrongly rejecting the idea – the other Kings study his mistake, so as not to repeat it. You are fully vindicated, and increasingly sought out for your newest ideas. All around the world, the people you have helped, are happier and healthier – some are inspired to become innovators themselves. The entire timeline brightens.

Competition, in other words, is how society corrects mistakes in human behavior. If we mistreat our friends, they may stop associating with us. If we are mistreated, we can take our business elsewhere.

image

Above: Amazon customer service. If you want to return an item, Amazon asks: “how can we make it right?”. Their focus is on deleting wrongness.

If we are mistreated by the police, or by politicians, or the tax man, or civil servants – what recourse do we have? Can we say: “Fine, idiot – this is the biggest mistake you’ll ever make!”?

That is why we need two strong parties. Every mistake made, by the Ruling Party, must automatically transform into ammunition for the Opposition Party. Any error the government makes, will be reflected back at the Ruling Party, come Election Day. Our suffering will become theirs. Our unjust treatment… will become their problem.

The Opposition Party should be scouring the world –preemptively– for problems. When the government screws up, the Opposition Party should lift its sleepy head. “Finally!”, they will think, “Christmas comes early this year!”. They will leap into action. The ruling party will scramble, to quickly correct its mistake – or to justify its actions. And thus, all of society is activated, to solve each problem as soon as it is noticed. As if we were all one unified body.

C. Fuel for Competition

Competition isn’t free. It is psychologically burdensome in these ways:

  • Clear rules, enforced – The temptation to cheat will always be there; we must fight back against it. This takes effort.
  • Evaluation – Competitors must volunteer to be publicly assessed and compared. That is inherently insulting.
  • Callousness – While the competition is ongoing, we must maintain a stoic, detached indifference to whichever side is losing. We have to just stand there and watch them humiliate themselves.
  • Inequality – The competition’s winner must be treated better than the loser, by definition. This is awkward (for everyone).
  • Good Sportsmanship – Losers are entitled to respect; winners must express humility. This involves restraint.
  • Rejection – Some people in the audience, (maybe half or more) are rooting for you to fail. We no longer pretend “we’re all in this together”.
  • Dynamism – In adult competitions, new “game-changing” will be discovered… forever. If you were hoping for nostalgia (or job security), you won’t find it.
  • Open-mindedness – We must tolerate “weird” people [innovators, entrepreneurs, and risk-takers]. These people challenge our model of the world. This sometimes puts us to shame… or else we feel embarrassed on their behalf if they are wrong.
  • Risk – Sometimes, a competitor will do everything right, but still lose, due to bad luck. We all have to just accept that.
  • Humility – It’s fun to blather about topics such as French Poetry [obscure], healthcare [vague], or tic-tac-toe [already solved]. In contrast, a competitive environment is inherently serious – forcing us to confront our limitations (and to hold our tongue).

Perhaps gym is an important class after all! By [1] forcing children into teams, [2] having them compete, [3] enforcing the game’s rules (and keeping score), and finally [4] compelling the “handshake line”, we teach the emotions of competition.

handshake

Above: America’s future heroes. Source.

D. Make Democracy Great [For Once]

And it is heroic. It is heroic to fight for a better world.

Democracy is rarely hailed as “great” – even by its top supporters. Churchill quipped: “Democracy is the worst form of government… except all the others that have been tried”. Karl Popper wrote: “we do not base our choice on the goodness of democracy, which may be doubtful, but solely on the evilness of a dictatorship, which is certain”. Faint praise!!

Despite that lack of enthusiasm, Democracy has conquered. Sure – you can find an odd monarchy here or there – such as Vatican City (population: 882) or Eswatini (75% of whom are subsistence farmers) – and some backward Islamic countries. But those counter-examples are so feeble, you have to wonder if their heart is really in it. Democracy is what we’ve got.

And it does matter. North Korea is basically hell – but South Korea is quite nice. The Mexican side of Nogales, is worse than the [previously identical] American side – the Mexican kids cross the border daily to attend US schools (if they can). People risk death, to get to a better country. People literally drown, crossing from Cuba to Florida – or from Africa to Italy.

He fell back into the death-strip on the East German side,
where he remained in view of [hundreds of] West German onlookers,
including journalists. Despite his screams, Fechter received no
medical assistance from the East German side, and could not be
tended to by those on the West side. West Berlin police threw him
bandages, which he could not reach, and he bled to death after
approximately one hour. [He was 18 years old.]

Above: Wikipedia.

So – the pain we feel, as we gaze in the ballot box upon our two wretched choices, is not something we should ignore. We should take it personally. We owe it to ourselves – and to everyone else – to build the best government we possibly can.

(Since it does affect us after all.)

The End.

Appendix 1. Obvious Flaws in the 2024 Candidates

A. Biden/Kamala 2024

B. Trump 2024

  • Trump’s age (which during 2025-2028 would be 78-82)
  • January 6th (especially: “hang Mike Pence”)
  • A mutinous “Never Trump” movement, including former cabinet members and generals, who have put everything on the line to argue against him.
  • A rude style (disliked by most citizens), including the [fully-in-context] “grab em by the pussy” comment.
  • Pointless, absurd lies (“no one respects women more than I do”) that even his supporters cannot possibly believe.
  • We must explain Trump’s cynicism carefully, because Democrats have unwisely destroyed their credibility on this matter. First, it is true that Trump has a very good sense of humor – these are are all hilarious. Second, many quotes attributed to Trump are vile hoaxes. With that out of the way, we can explain why Trump’s disconnection from the truth, is both so profound and so dangerous: Trump manipulates today’s environment of media-distrust (ie “the story of a woman, playing a man playing a woman”) to wrap himself in armor, and thus test the waters with ominous power-grabs, to advance himself politically. (Eg flippant remarks like: “why can’t we use our nuclear weapons?”).

C. The Process

What is disturbing, is that all of these flaws are known. Each party knew – when they chose the candidate. But they chose anyway.

With Trump it is more understandable – with congressional approval low for decades, and low voter turnout – many citizens openly despise the government. Trump is so good, [as a candidate] because he is so horrible. He is the ultimate wrecking ball – he is the “bad boy” you don’t want your daughter to date.

But why is the Democratic Party not shaping up, as a result? As Tim Carney said in 2016: “Any normal, decent candidate would be mopping the floor, with this thrice-married, philandering, con-man…”. A random young Congressperson or CEO, is 99.99% likely to be a better president than Biden/Trump/Kamala – and also more likely to defeat them on election day. Why would the Democratic Party instead commit suicide?

Appendix 2. What To Do If Both Parties Hate You

If each democracy has just two parties (Ruling and Opposition), then what should you do if both parties hate you?

The WORST thing you could do, is start a 3rd party.

A. Libertarians, Gays, and Blacks

Libertarians started their own party in 1971 – and how has that worked out? No libertarian objectives have been accomplished since!

This is no coincidence. Forming a 3rd party, will signal to BOTH parties (ruling & opposition) that your vote is un-get-able. The ruling party will despair of keeping your vote – but they rest easy, with a smile on their face, knowing it will NOT go to the opposition. The opposition party will feel the exact same way. Both parties will ignore you, and your issues, since you pose no threat to them. Your enemies face no opposition (for Libertarians, these would be authoritarians/fascists/communists) and will continuously gain ground on you.

Contrast the Libertarian movement, with the Gay Marriage movement.

The Gay Marriage movement ran on the following strategy: [1] organize politically, [2] form a special interest group (called “pressure groups” in UK), [3] form a coordinated voting block, [4] provisionally back one party, [5] push for one single tangible outcome, and finally [6] be prepared to stab this party in the back, if they don’t give you what you want.

The NRA [National Rifle Association] is a “red” version of this. The NRA provisionally backs Republicans. But the NRA will stab those same Republicans in the back, if they are anti-gun. Just as HRC [Human Rights Campaign] will criticize Democrats if they are anti-Gay.

Contrast Gay Marriage with the strategy taken by Black Americans.

"We Blacks, we look at the Gay Community, and we go: God
 Damn it, Look at how /well/ that movement is going! ...
 How the F$$k are you making that kind of progress?!"
 - Dave Chappelle

Source.

Black voters are roughly 90% Democrat. So they DO back one party. But they do it wrong. They back it unconditionally. Blacks avoid criticizing Democrats, since Democrats are “on the black team”. Blacks do not organize outside the Dem party1 and instead trust Dems to do the organizing for them (which it never does, for that exact reason – trust = weakness). Although being Black in America, is indisputably disadvantageous, no politician can increase their vote count by solving Black problems.

 What do you have to lose, by trying something new, like
 Trump? ... you're living in poverty, your schools are
 no good... what the hell do you have to lose?
  - Donald Trump, 2016

Source.

Instead, Dem politicians pay lip service to Black issues. Republicans – despairing of ever getting a Black vote (and not really knowing how) – resort to tactics designed to lower Black voter-turnout.

Saying “I will vote Democrat every time, no matter what”, is like saying “I will buy Colgate every time, no matter what”. It’s irrational and counterproductive.

Instead, follow these steps:

  1. Organize. Form a special interest group (instead of a party). Gather supporters, make email lists, get contact info, hold larger and larger conventions. Assemble a large coalition of people, find points of agreement. Simplify these, publish them, and make them prominently known by everyone. Use conferences, speeches, websites etc to nail down your concrete goals: exactly what you want the government to do.
  2. Send envoys to both parties, and see what they will offer you. Make a list, of exactly what you want – and see which party offers you more items.
  3. Sometime in October, right before the election, announce your results to your members. Say “We went to both parties, and Dems offered us XYZ and Reps offered us QRS. We feel Dems are better for us this cycle.”
  4. Be prepared to back up your endorsement, with facts. And Q&A sessions, and articles, and Twitter Spaces. You need to build trust with your supporters – your endorsement needs to carry weight.
  5. Repeat this every election cycle, forever.

If the Libertarians followed this strategy, they would immediately start achieving their objectives. The 4% held by Libertarians, is enough to swing the Electoral College from blue to red, or vice-versa. Thus, both parties would have to offer the “Libertarian special interest group” almost everything on their list.

A notable site wtf happened in 1971, asserts that many systemic problems began that year. The intended culprit is the Nixon shock [the USA decision to print new fiat currency whenever it likes]. However – two other things went wrong in that year: [1] McGovern resigned from his commission (see Part 8), to run for president under the new primary system (Jan 18th); and [2] the Libertarian party was formed as a third party (Dec 11th).

Appendix 3. Legitimate Criticism of Government

A. Legitimacy and Criticism

In the Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises (2012), the police commissioner is “arrested”, by a violent criminal:

BANE's HENCHMAN: Commissioner Gordon, you're under arrest.
         GORDON: On whose authority?
BANE's HENCHMAN: The people of Gotham.

Sort of ridiculous. But hey – why not? Why can’t I arrest the police? After all, the “police” is just a “criminal gang”, with a uniform… right? What separates the police, from a criminal with a gun? Is the government the same as the mafia?

Sometimes, it is. In North Korea (for example), there is no realistic way to criticize the government. In other words, there is no government by the consent of the governed.

Democracy makes it easier to criticize the government (especially when compared to its predecessor: monarchy).

However…

B. The Criticism Paradox

…the government cannot be hyper-sensitive to each citizen’s criticism. At a certain point, the more responsive they are to each single critic, the less responsive they are to criticism overall. Let me explain.

First, criticism is expensive – it takes effort to measure and obtain. Today’s corporations try to get feedback via surveys, but the response rate is very low. (Even when small prizes, raffles, gift cards, etc are added.) People have more important things to do with their time, than contribute feedback. In politics, this idea is sometimes called the “silent majority” – those who agree with the government, but who are “silent”. This gives the illusion of a lack of support. The illusion is dispelled –once every few years on Election Day, in the privacy of the ballot box– when they make their approval known.

Second, criticism is often insincere. After all, every president will be constantly criticized – every leader is. So the mere presence of criticism can never de-legitimize anyone. Often, critics are wrong. Or, the “critics” are foreign saboteurs(!), aiming to ruin the country! Sometimes, “critics” are just venting their feelings, or looking for a scapegoat (to draw attention away from themselves and their own shortcomings). Sometimes, they are just virtue-signaling, or engaging in some performance (and their underlying critique is just B-S). On top of that, some “critics” are “chaos-climbers” – people shaking things up, to get ahead. They want to keep rolling the dice, from a safe distance, knowing that it may create [1] new opportunities, or [2] misfortune for the top dog [ie president] – either way, turning the chaos to their own advantage.

In all these cases, the criticism is just noise (at best). Leaders cannot afford to be distracted by this barrage of fake criticism – they have real work to do. They cannot justify every decision, all day every day. One man’s coercion is another man’s breach-of-contract. People always complain!

Third, every criticism is meaningless, unless it is paired with a viable alternative. For example, during a pivotal chapter in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2000):

     "How this situation arose, we do not know," said Dumbledore,
 speaking to everyone gathered in the room. "It seems to me, how-
 ever, that we have no choice but to accept it. Both Cedric and
 Harry have been chosen to compete in the Tournament. This,
 therefore, they will do. . . ."
     "Ah, but Dumbly-dorr —"
     "My dear Madame Maxime, if you have an alternative, I would
 be delighted to hear it."
     Dumbledore waited, but Madame Maxime did not speak, she
 merely glared.

Maxime has no alternative. So her protest of the situation is pointless. It was a fake criticism.

In contrast, a real criticism to Brexit (ie, a particular alternative) is given here at 32:45:

as soon as they lost the referendum, they should have
transformed themselves into a "rejoin" movement, not
a movement to de-legitimize the national vote

For governments, “real criticism” takes the form of an Election Day defeat. And the “viable alternative” is the rival party. Only a party can be criticized in this way, because only a party really knows what it is like [to rule the country]. A famous Cherokee saying goes: “never criticize someone until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes”. Voters cannot walk in the shoes of a party (or a government) – but we can say: “never criticize Crest, for something that Colgate is unable to do”. This is why our criticism of the Ruling Party, necessarily implies a corresponding endorsement of the Opposition Party. It must.

People will always complain – that’s normal. Politicians should be sensitive to this criticism – but they should also keep in mind: if they skated past the election without losing, then that is a good sign. It is evidence that they are doing a good job. They are doing better than anyone else available could have done. Of all the eligible ideas, theirs were the best. Thus, the election is indeed a source of their legitimacy.

C. Jan Helfeld

Back in 2008, journalist Jan Helfeld put out some rather amusing videos, interviewing politicians to dispute the legitimacy of various government activities (such as taxation).

The politicians usually end up frustrated and tongue-tied – they often swear at him, steal his equipment, and/or commit themselves to bizarre premises. Clearly, they do not know why the government has legitimacy. They are skilled at winning elections, but not at understanding the function of elections.

Bernie Sanders was no exception – he eventually walks off the interview, demanding to know: “who you are, and who pays for this show – leave your card”, (which is somewhat ominous). Nonetheless, while on camera, he managed to scrape together this answer:

"...in a civilized society, people come together, they elect
their officials, the officials try to do well...in this
country, if people do not like what their towns are doing,
they un-elect people"

If what I have suggested in this Appendix is true, then Sanders was basically right. (He likely did not know, exactly why he was right, nor how to phrase it – but he was right nonetheless.) Winning an election, does cross the barrier separating consent and coercion. As I explain here, consent is difficult to measure – we always measure it imperfectly. We can (and should) improve our elections (as I argue here and elsewhere), so that our measurements of consent also improve.

D. Conclusion of Appendix 3

At the end of the day, “the free market” and “elections” are two types of cooperation. The former, is private (local), atomic, rapid, and unjustified; and the latter is public (communal), bundled, slow, and populist.

In other words, when you buy coffee: [1] the transaction only affects you and the seller, [2] it doesn’t affect other people’s actions or transactions, [3] it will be completed in a few seconds (after which point, both of you can walk away), and [4] you do not need to explain yourself to the coffeemaker (nor does he, to you)2. In contrast, when decisions affect a large number of people, and when many decisions must be bundled together (ie, you can’t be anti-immigrant without also funding a border patrol – in RPS you can’t throw half-rock, half-scissors; you have to go all in), then the cooperation must take the form of “populism” – ideas which are popular and endorsed (in some way) by most people. This will necessarily be slow (hence the four year election cycle), so we will not get many chances. Hence: two-party democracy.

Appendix 4. Sun Tzu’s Army

The Chinese general Sun Tzu lived from 544-496 BC, and is famous for writing “THE ART OF WAR”.

Here I present an excerpt from “Biography of Sun Tzu”, by Sima Qian, written c. 94 BC.

(Note: I, Paul Sztorc, slightly modernized the English in this translation.)

Sun Tzu was living in the Ch`i State, when his book (THE ART OF WAR),
earned him the attention of the king. The king said to him: "I have
carefully perused your 13 chapters. May we submit your theory of man-
aging soldiers to a small test?"

Sun Tzu replied: "You may."
The King asked: "May we use women for the test?"

The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made to
bring 180 ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into two
companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at the head
of each. He bid them all take spears in their hands, and addressed them
thus: "I presume you know the difference between front and back, right
and left?"

The girls replied: Yes.

Sun Tzu went on: "When I say 'Eyes front,' you must look straight ahead.
When I say 'Left turn,' you must face towards your left hand. When I say
'Right turn,' you must face towards your right hand. When I say 'About
face,' you must face right around towards your back."

Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained,
he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then,
to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only
burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and
distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to
blame."

So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn,"
whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words
of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood,
the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers never-
theless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be beheaded.

Now, the King was watching this scene from atop a raised pavilion; and when
he saw that his favorite concubines were about to be executed, he was great-
ly alarmed and hurriedly sent down the following message: "We are now quite
satisfied with our general's ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of
these two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is our
wish that they shall not be beheaded."

Sun Tzu replied: "As the commanding officer of the King's forces, there are
certain commands of His Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable
to accept."

Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded. Straightaway, he installed
the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When this had been done,
the drum was sounded for the drill once more; and the girls went through
all the evolutions, turning to the right or to the left, marching ahead or
wheeling back, kneeling or standing, with perfect accuracy and precision,
not venturing to utter a sound. Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King
saying: "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined,
and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can be put to any use their
sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and water, and they will
not disobey."

But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return to camp.
As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the troops."
Sun Tzu remarked: "The King is fond only of words, and cannot translate
them into deeds."

Thus, the king saw Sun Tzu's skill in handling an army, and finally app-
ointed him general. In the west, he defeated the Ch`u State and forced
his way into Ying, the capital; to the north he put fear into the States
of Ch`i and Chin, and spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes.
And Sun Tzu shared in the might of the King.

Now – did this story really happen? Who knows.

Certainly, I feel awful for the two beheaded women. Thankfully, in our modern world, we can fire people [instead of decapitate them].

Also, I feel a sense of injustice – the women risked their lives (for this silly demonstration), whilst Sun Tzu and the King were safe and comfortable.

But that is precisely what Democracy should fix. It should make our leaders accountable – to us. The people. Our leaders should toil for us, nervously, while we relax and judge them. They should be the ones who are “axed”, if they don’t perform.

Further Reading

I read many other books, in the course of writing this essay – but they were mostly useless.

Thanks for reading!

Footnotes

  1. Only around 300k, or 1% of Black Americans, are members of NAACP. In contrast, HRC had 25k / 500k / 3 million members in 1989/2004/2024 respectively. It therefore has 10x members, despite gays being 3% of the population (and blacks 13.5%). The NAACP website lists “increase the federal minimum wage” as a “top 3” priority – which should indicate how wayward they are. The HRC budget in 2014 was $56 M, which is 2x that of the NAACP budget today ($25 M). For Black Lives Matter, I could not find any membership info at all. ↩

  2. Even if you did explain yourself, it would have no bearing. In fact, even if you went to court and tried to explain “I didn’t really want to buy this coffee!”, they would ask simple, commonsense questions, such as: then why did you pay for it? Why didn’t you just walk away? Your actions speak louder than your words. ↩

comments powered by Disqus