Thailand, Venezuala, Russia...All countries that would probably be better off if only people who owned property, say, or had a higher education degree could vote.
Obviously I'm cherry-picking examples to bolster a controversial point, but it's not clear to me that we should just assume that universal sufferage is the right approach for any new democracy.
Beyond the obvious benefit of having more educated/intelligent voters make better decisions -- the link between education and sound social-economic policies may be tenuous* but probably applies in the extreme cases, e.g. illiterate farmers' votes -- limited democracy can reduce the risk of ethnic tensions/splintering society. When amassing mass support is necessary, demagogues have a strong incentive to carve out ethnically-based voting blocks. This doesn't disappear in limited democracy, but seems like it would be more limited. In most cases, limited democracy would also be less of an exogenous shock on the traditional social systems, which (making a wild generalization here) tend to have a leaders checked by a limited network of other powerful figures in society (e.g., king/nobles, multiparty clans, etc.) rather than directly from the base of society. And, as long as suffrage were wide enough to avoid oligarchic rule or apartheid-like rule (a real risk if all of your educated landowners are a different ethnicity, as in some South American states), limited democracy should provide a more powerful check on corruption -- it's harder to bribe wealthier / more world-aware citizens.
That said, if the local populace were clamoring for voting rights, denying them would cause significant civil tension. But is the average Afghan goat-herder desperate to vote? I doubt it. Here in Ghana, the typical cocoa farmer answer has been "not very" when asked how important living in a democratic multiparty state is to him. Poor people have different priorities than Western constitution-drafting state department / international development bourgeoisie.
This raises the question of where/when should suffrage be restricted. No one-size-fits-all rule could work (after all, with a blanket rule we'd probably have missed out on the great Indian democratic success). But even if making judgments a-priori is difficult, it seems plausible that, in poor states without a history of democratic systems, we should explore more limited forms of democracy rather than blindly applying our messianic template.
*This argument assumes that there are certain policies that are "sound" (e.g., laws that limit human rights abuse, avoiding sliding into dictatorship, and adhere to some broad outlines of free market capitalism) and some that are not.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Amazing
"Kelly [a dolphin] has taken this task one step further. When people drop paper into the water she hides it under a rock at the bottom of the pool. The next time a trainer passes, she goes down to the rock and tears off a piece of paper to give to the trainer. After a fish reward, she goes back down, tears off another piece of paper, gets another fish, and so on. This behaviour is interesting because it shows that Kelly has a sense of the future and delays gratification. She has realised that a big piece of paper gets the same reward as a small piece and so delivers only small pieces to keep the extra food coming. She has, in effect, trained the humans.
Her cunning has not stopped there. One day, when a gull flew into her pool, she grabbed it, waited for the trainers and then gave it to them. It was a large bird and so the trainers gave her lots of fish. This seemed to give Kelly a new idea. The next time she was fed, instead of eating the last fish, she took it to the bottom of the pool and hid it under the rock where she had been hiding the paper. When no trainers were present, she brought the fish to the surface and used it to lure the gulls, which she would catch to get even more fish. After mastering this lucrative strategy, she taught her calf, who taught other calves, and so gull-baiting has become a hot game among the dolphins."
Damn. I'm usually skeptical about kind of anthropomorphizing, but how cool.
Her cunning has not stopped there. One day, when a gull flew into her pool, she grabbed it, waited for the trainers and then gave it to them. It was a large bird and so the trainers gave her lots of fish. This seemed to give Kelly a new idea. The next time she was fed, instead of eating the last fish, she took it to the bottom of the pool and hid it under the rock where she had been hiding the paper. When no trainers were present, she brought the fish to the surface and used it to lure the gulls, which she would catch to get even more fish. After mastering this lucrative strategy, she taught her calf, who taught other calves, and so gull-baiting has become a hot game among the dolphins."
Damn. I'm usually skeptical about kind of anthropomorphizing, but how cool.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Behold, I show you the last European
So, Klaus just signed the Lisbon treaty, and the EU juggernaut rolls on. European press commentary is interesting. Why isn’t there more outrage about how undemocratic the process has been? Major nation states have just given away huge swaths of sovereignty to an institution with effectively no democratic accountability, and have done so against the will of their people. Only three nations were brave enough to vote on it, and two of those voted no until they were told that that’s the wrong answer and they have to vote again. Why is it that the new federalist right wing party gets lambasted for having somewhat unsavory characters, while the centralist parties that have far more loony characters get a free pass?
I was recently asked why I am oppose the Lisbon Treaty, and I have a set of rational reasons (detailed below), but ultimately I think that it is also a visceral distaste for what the EU represents. At the core of the EU project is an insipid void; it is the heartless, passionless end-game of bureaucratic, Weberian rationalization.
The EU represents an element of Europe, and European-ness that I deeply dislike. It’s the desire to swaddle life in rules and restrictions, the Precautionary Principle, as if by measuring and adhering to the right rules and procedures we eliminate any chance of error (and as if that that’s the most important thing). This is what produces such loose and baggy monsters like the Lisbon Treaty (384 pages "reader friendly" version vs. the Constitution's elegant 4 pages) and self-parodies like the ICC court. Without God they’ve turned to constitutional proceduralism as the source of meaning. How horrible. And, of course, this is combined with a haughty, tone of moral superiority that disdains the (for lack of a better word) American approach.
This is reflected in everything from Europe's self-righteous yet passive and gutless foreign policy – proclaiming the importance of human rights and UN rules but not even taking a serious stand against genocide in their own backyard – to enforced equality and mediocrity (cf: tax codes; education system). The risk-averse regulatory policy is a reflection of a spiritual malaise; Burning Man (for all its flaws) could never take place in Europe.
In Nietzsche's words:
“The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."
Of course, this is an exaggeration and generalization. And the "American Cowboy" approach has serious problems -- as its Bush-era connotations reflect -- but at least it is not life-denying. The US is far more dangerous on the world stage than senescent Europe, but those are the same qualities that make the US capable of greatness/inspiration.
As for my rational reasons:
A) EU is deeply undemocratic; no one votes for EU Parliamentary elections, and therefore concentrating power in EU hands is generally a bad unless there is a clear, strong benefit (e.g., maybe with trade policy).
The democracy problem goes beyond apathy: Even if people did vote, there are structural issues with the EU Parliament that dilute democratic accountability.
1) it's unclear what any European-wide coalition stands for (all amalgamations off diffuse parties) therefore you can't really express meaningful democratic voice;
2) the EU is so damned complicated it's unclear clear "who is to blame" if you want to change something;
3) Many important powers are still reserved to heads of state, creating a weirdly antidemocratic space (because voters election heads of state on national issues, and don't tend to scrutinize their EU dealings as much)
This anti-democracy is inherently bad (democracy being probably a good thing), but also has bad policymaking effects:
-Enables grubby backroom dealings and corrupt lobbying (no sunlight disinfectant); MEPs have gotten away with shocking corruption and obscene salaries/expenses. People out of sight given a big pot of money and not held accountable for any outcome are unlikely to behave properly
-Reduces accountability for bad policies; democracy doesn't punish bad policies very effectively (because its hard to see cause / effect on complex systems over time) but it's better than nothing
B) Even apart from the democracy issue, I think that the EU tends to pass regulation-oriented, statist laws. It's not that they are pursing left-wing goals; it is that they are pursing them typically through the most pedantic, bureaucratic approachs. Can't help but see the end result as an ossified super-state.
Part of this is its "pro-bureaucracy" institutional mentality. EU self-selects for more intervention-minded, pro-regulation and anti-liberty (personal and economic) people simply because that is its dominant culture and outsiders tend to either get sucked in or frustrated. I mean, every document is translated into 26 languages and there are two fucking parliaments. Only a bureaucrat can flourish in that kind of environment.
C) In general, I like the idea of Europe as having a great deal of diversity, and the EU reduces this over time. The federalist / laboratories of democracy argument is very strong when people have such strongly different cultural histories and yet can move around with relative ease.
There are also reasons to dislike Lisbon specifically
D) Lisbon is explicitly setup to enable a "slippery slope" toward EU statehood, by creating a head of state, allowing it to annex addt'l powers without requiring a new treaty, etc. See anti-democracy issues above.
E) Distaste for the way it has been forced through; only two referendums across 26 states -- none in the UK despite Labour's manifesto promise -- and a "stupid Irish, you voted the wrong way, try again" attitude. From the start, the EU has been an elite project imposed upon the people, and it shows.
Note (in response to a comment): As I was writing it, I realized that "insipid void" was Friedman-esq as a nonsensical description, but decided that both words convey part of what my meaning, so damn logic.
I was recently asked why I am oppose the Lisbon Treaty, and I have a set of rational reasons (detailed below), but ultimately I think that it is also a visceral distaste for what the EU represents. At the core of the EU project is an insipid void; it is the heartless, passionless end-game of bureaucratic, Weberian rationalization.
The EU represents an element of Europe, and European-ness that I deeply dislike. It’s the desire to swaddle life in rules and restrictions, the Precautionary Principle, as if by measuring and adhering to the right rules and procedures we eliminate any chance of error (and as if that that’s the most important thing). This is what produces such loose and baggy monsters like the Lisbon Treaty (384 pages "reader friendly" version vs. the Constitution's elegant 4 pages) and self-parodies like the ICC court. Without God they’ve turned to constitutional proceduralism as the source of meaning. How horrible. And, of course, this is combined with a haughty, tone of moral superiority that disdains the (for lack of a better word) American approach.
This is reflected in everything from Europe's self-righteous yet passive and gutless foreign policy – proclaiming the importance of human rights and UN rules but not even taking a serious stand against genocide in their own backyard – to enforced equality and mediocrity (cf: tax codes; education system). The risk-averse regulatory policy is a reflection of a spiritual malaise; Burning Man (for all its flaws) could never take place in Europe.
In Nietzsche's words:
“The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth. One still loves one's neighbor and rubs against him, for one needs warmth...
One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
'Formerly, all the world was mad,' say the most refined, and they blink...
One has one's little pleasure for the day and one's little pleasure for the night: but one has a regard for health.
'We have invented happiness,' say the last men, and they blink."
Of course, this is an exaggeration and generalization. And the "American Cowboy" approach has serious problems -- as its Bush-era connotations reflect -- but at least it is not life-denying. The US is far more dangerous on the world stage than senescent Europe, but those are the same qualities that make the US capable of greatness/inspiration.
As for my rational reasons:
A) EU is deeply undemocratic; no one votes for EU Parliamentary elections, and therefore concentrating power in EU hands is generally a bad unless there is a clear, strong benefit (e.g., maybe with trade policy).
The democracy problem goes beyond apathy: Even if people did vote, there are structural issues with the EU Parliament that dilute democratic accountability.
1) it's unclear what any European-wide coalition stands for (all amalgamations off diffuse parties) therefore you can't really express meaningful democratic voice;
2) the EU is so damned complicated it's unclear clear "who is to blame" if you want to change something;
3) Many important powers are still reserved to heads of state, creating a weirdly antidemocratic space (because voters election heads of state on national issues, and don't tend to scrutinize their EU dealings as much)
This anti-democracy is inherently bad (democracy being probably a good thing), but also has bad policymaking effects:
-Enables grubby backroom dealings and corrupt lobbying (no sunlight disinfectant); MEPs have gotten away with shocking corruption and obscene salaries/expenses. People out of sight given a big pot of money and not held accountable for any outcome are unlikely to behave properly
-Reduces accountability for bad policies; democracy doesn't punish bad policies very effectively (because its hard to see cause / effect on complex systems over time) but it's better than nothing
B) Even apart from the democracy issue, I think that the EU tends to pass regulation-oriented, statist laws. It's not that they are pursing left-wing goals; it is that they are pursing them typically through the most pedantic, bureaucratic approachs. Can't help but see the end result as an ossified super-state.
Part of this is its "pro-bureaucracy" institutional mentality. EU self-selects for more intervention-minded, pro-regulation and anti-liberty (personal and economic) people simply because that is its dominant culture and outsiders tend to either get sucked in or frustrated. I mean, every document is translated into 26 languages and there are two fucking parliaments. Only a bureaucrat can flourish in that kind of environment.
C) In general, I like the idea of Europe as having a great deal of diversity, and the EU reduces this over time. The federalist / laboratories of democracy argument is very strong when people have such strongly different cultural histories and yet can move around with relative ease.
There are also reasons to dislike Lisbon specifically
D) Lisbon is explicitly setup to enable a "slippery slope" toward EU statehood, by creating a head of state, allowing it to annex addt'l powers without requiring a new treaty, etc. See anti-democracy issues above.
E) Distaste for the way it has been forced through; only two referendums across 26 states -- none in the UK despite Labour's manifesto promise -- and a "stupid Irish, you voted the wrong way, try again" attitude. From the start, the EU has been an elite project imposed upon the people, and it shows.
Note (in response to a comment): As I was writing it, I realized that "insipid void" was Friedman-esq as a nonsensical description, but decided that both words convey part of what my meaning, so damn logic.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Important discovery
Fluid dynamicists have worked out how to stop teapots from dribbling
"The problem with teapots is their annoying habit of dribbling, particularly at low rates of flow. The phenomenon has achieved such notoriety that it has been imaginatively dubbed the 'teapot effect'."
I'll try to write something about life in Ghana soon.
"The problem with teapots is their annoying habit of dribbling, particularly at low rates of flow. The phenomenon has achieved such notoriety that it has been imaginatively dubbed the 'teapot effect'."
I'll try to write something about life in Ghana soon.
Monday, October 26, 2009
quick note of the day
On Italy: "After a century in which its ancient civilization has been hollowed out, Italy is nothing but a republic without virtue, living under the heel of a clapped-out Casanova."
Saturday, October 24, 2009
signs of sclerotic state institutions/laws
6 separate taxes paid to receive personal mail if sent to a Ghana Post PO Box:
20.0% - Import duty
12.5% - VAT
02.5% - "Health Insurance Levy"
02.0% - "Social levy"
01.5% - Processing fee
00.5% - ECOWAS tax
=39% tax
+ 3 cedies post office handling fee (this may have been a bribe, not sure)
20.0% - Import duty
12.5% - VAT
02.5% - "Health Insurance Levy"
02.0% - "Social levy"
01.5% - Processing fee
00.5% - ECOWAS tax
=39% tax
+ 3 cedies post office handling fee (this may have been a bribe, not sure)
Thursday, October 22, 2009
minor revelation
Despite a decade of imitation (ever more tired), the Libertines still sound fresh. No one has combined the modern guitar jangle of the Strokes -- who also aged surprisingly well, at least "is this it" and "room on fire" -- and the raw energy of the clash/sex pistols. And moments of quite beautiful poetic lyricism. Seriously, listen to them again.
Also, Mick Jones's production, what a godsend. Doesn't sacrifice their visceral sound (again, reaching for the adjective "raw") for the sake of smooth radio friendliness.
Edited: I'm an idiot, Mick Jones not Jagger.
Also, Mick Jones's production, what a godsend. Doesn't sacrifice their visceral sound (again, reaching for the adjective "raw") for the sake of smooth radio friendliness.
Edited: I'm an idiot, Mick Jones not Jagger.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
At least someone important agrees with me
Finally Mervin King says what I've been thinking for a while: Proposed regulatory reforms will not prevent another financial crisis. Why aren't more people concerned about this?
The whole "better regulation" fallacy is enormously frustrating. The political commentary class always seems to think that we can solve a problem by having better/smarter regulatory oversight (implying that previously either people weren't given such responsibility, or that they were incompetent/negligent). But most of the time crises are caused by an "unknown unknown" (or black swan or whatever you wish). Regulators are not omniscient and they focus on preventing the causes of the last crisis, which is completely natural, but leads them to be blindsided by the future problem.
Does anyone really think that if we had had better regulation someone would have foreseen the mortgage crisis and stepped in? If thousands of people with huge financial incentives to do so failed, I doubt a regulator would. It's simply too difficult to divine the potential cause of problems in the future with complex systems. After all, central planning would work better if such regulation were possible (cf hayek / information asymmetry). And even if they had magically identified the problem, there would be enormous political obstacles to intervention, which would require causing clear short-term harm to avoid hypothetical long-term damage (accusations of crying wolf etc.).
So, what can / should we do? Instead of focusing on setting up more magic regulators, we need to have laws that structure the 'rules of the game' in a way that minimizes the potential for crises (e.g., reinstate the glass-steagal act). This is not to say that regulators have no useful role; it's just that "better regulatory oversight" is not going to avert a future financial crisis.
edit: And Volcker agrees with me too
The whole "better regulation" fallacy is enormously frustrating. The political commentary class always seems to think that we can solve a problem by having better/smarter regulatory oversight (implying that previously either people weren't given such responsibility, or that they were incompetent/negligent). But most of the time crises are caused by an "unknown unknown" (or black swan or whatever you wish). Regulators are not omniscient and they focus on preventing the causes of the last crisis, which is completely natural, but leads them to be blindsided by the future problem.
Does anyone really think that if we had had better regulation someone would have foreseen the mortgage crisis and stepped in? If thousands of people with huge financial incentives to do so failed, I doubt a regulator would. It's simply too difficult to divine the potential cause of problems in the future with complex systems. After all, central planning would work better if such regulation were possible (cf hayek / information asymmetry). And even if they had magically identified the problem, there would be enormous political obstacles to intervention, which would require causing clear short-term harm to avoid hypothetical long-term damage (accusations of crying wolf etc.).
So, what can / should we do? Instead of focusing on setting up more magic regulators, we need to have laws that structure the 'rules of the game' in a way that minimizes the potential for crises (e.g., reinstate the glass-steagal act). This is not to say that regulators have no useful role; it's just that "better regulatory oversight" is not going to avert a future financial crisis.
edit: And Volcker agrees with me too
Monday, October 19, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Détente
After weeks of back-and-forth negotiations, I’ve finally secured an apparent stalemate in my battle with the apartment cleaning service. For weeks I’ve been trying – requesting, cajoling and begging – the service staff to reduce the level of service to no avail. I find it disconcerting to return to the apartment and have everything put away / cleaned up. I’d rather that they just change the towels and sheets every few days, and do nothing more. Maybe mop every couple of weeks. But, really, this is impossible. All I can manage to do is have the windows not opened (a pain when you want to just come back and turn the AC on) and to occasionally have staff refrain from putting away my things.
On the plus side, apparently the door for the freezer is coming soon. This is very important because the freezer is a unit within the refrigerator, so without a door the entire refrigerator is really a freezer, even at the lowest setting. My milk hasn’t melted in a week.
On the plus side, apparently the door for the freezer is coming soon. This is very important because the freezer is a unit within the refrigerator, so without a door the entire refrigerator is really a freezer, even at the lowest setting. My milk hasn’t melted in a week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)