Thought experiment

[rong]

So what you're saying is, if not stopped from doing so, some dick always comes along and ruins it for everyone. That doesn't mean democracy doesn't work or is inherently broken, it means people can be idiots, most of us, fortunately, only for a small portion of out lives.

Why would we allow our most useless that much influence?

[wufwugy]

So what you're saying is, if not stopped from doing so, some dick always comes along and ruins it for everyone. That doesn't mean democracy doesn't work or is inherently broken, it means people can be idiots, most of us, fortunately, only for a small portion of out lives.

I don't think there is any difference between one dick and 51% dicks. Even if you extract the trolls from this experiment, I think the billboard still devolves into trivialities based on all the non-troll grievances people would have.

Why would we allow our most useless that much influence?

Well, this is already how our democracies work. Our governmental policies do not come from experts or any position of credibility. On any sort of issue that government makes policy, the vast majority of voters are these "most useless idiots" whose influence enacts terrible policy.

Also you described anarchy not democracy.

I think this is a common misconception. Anarchy, as a political system, has nothing to do with lack of rules, but with lack of a taxing rule-giver. Democracy is where the decider of rules are citizens of the system. You are on point if you say that in a democracy, the students would develop bodies to set rules on this billboard, but my point is that this is an inherent contradiction in democracy since the philosophical foundation of democracy is the will of the voter. The principles engaged by the desires of one voter or by a collection of 51% of voters are still the same.

[rong]

I don't think there is any difference between one dick and 51% dicks. Even if you extract the trolls from this experiment, I think the billboard still devolves into trivialities based on all the non-troll grievances people would have.



Well, this is already how our democracies work. Our governmental policies do not come from experts or any position of credibility. On any sort of issue that government makes policy, the vast majority of voters are these "most useless idiots" whose influence enacts terrible policy.



I think this is a common misconception. Anarchy, as a political system, has nothing to do with lack of rules, but with lack of a taxing rule-giver. Democracy is where the decider of rules are citizens of the system. You are on point if you say that in a democracy, the students would develop bodies to set rules on this billboard, but my point is that this is an inherent contradiction in democracy since the philosophical foundation of democracy is the will of the voter. The principles engaged by the desires of one voter or by a collection of 51% of voters are still the same.

OK, poor understanding of anarchy. But this isn't democracy. Democracy would be saying to everyone, let's all put ideas forward for what we should do with the board, the most popular few ideas can be put to a vote, and the winner gets to manage what happens to the board for the next 5 years at which point we can reassess. Only problem being that within that 5 years they would have sold a chunk of theh board, changed the voting system to favour the incumbent and brought in a bunch of media hounds to promote them prior to the election.

[wufwugy]

OK, poor understanding of anarchy. But this isn't democracy. Democracy would be saying to everyone, let's all put ideas forward for what we should do with the board, the most popular few ideas can be put to a vote, and the winner gets to manage what happens to the board for the next 5 years at which point we can reassess. Only problem being that within that 5 years they would have sold a chunk of theh board, changed the voting system to favour the incumbent and brought in a bunch of media hounds to promote them prior to the election.

This is true. I mean, it has to be since it is seen in literal democracies.

I'm coming at this from a philosophical perspective. I think my main point is here:

If this is true, and if we relegate regulation of public space to delegates, it means we're banking on the ineffectiveness of democracy in order to keep some set of rules on billboard postings. I think this necessarily undermines democracy and the philosophy of public ownership.

I think my point is subtle and might have gone under the radar. I'm saying that the vote's utility is in how effective it is at extinguishing its own utility. A vote that works purely as votes do with regards to this billboard, is like a free-for-all, where whatever the voters decided is the flavor of the month. The establishment of delegates to regulate by voters is a diminishing of the vote's role in policy directly, which I think is an untenable contradiction in the philosophy of democracy.


Inherent to the philosophy of democracy is public property. Or at least that's inherent to the left-wing view of government. This thought experiment is an attempt to make property as public as it can be. And I think the analogy holds up because I do not think there is difference in principle of one voter vs 51% of voters.

A counter could be that the logical extension of private ownership is that one person or one group owns everything, but I don't think that's accurate. Private ownership doesn't realistically extend like that. Inherent to a system of private ownership as it scales up is that it fragments and competition arises. In the example you give about how democracy works, the vote centralizes control and stymies progress and diversity.