Democracy has many problems, mainly that is only a Democracy for 1 day out of every 4 or 5 years but another is that every few years the Government changes and sets about undoing plenty of what the last lot did.
In the UK we have had The Conservatives and the Labour Party taking a wrecking ball to each others plans for decades but one thing which seems to have cross Party agreement is the UK's State Pension triple lock which is a policy to increase the State Pension by the highest of either average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%.
The Tories introduced it in 2011 and Labour have maintained it since so if we could have cross Party agreement on Pensions, why not other things which are agreed upon by all parties and out of reach of whichever ideological party gain control?
There are some things which fluctuate such as taxation and pay awards so we couldn't tie that down and but we could have something like an agreement on the NHS Budget Triple Lock and the same for benefits and defence as well as Environmental targets which we do have but they are movable so we could tie them down securely.
If our main parties could get together and set in concrete some things which can only be changed by further cross party agreements, then we would be faced with such upheaval every 4 or 5 years and take the sting out of budgets every year.
I am sure there would be still be ideological differences and agreements between a very right wing Conservatives and the left wing Labour Party would be difficult (think Brexit) but the only alternative is to make terms longer so when a leader gets in they get a decade or two to build the nation they envision but that way lies something like a couple of decades of Boris Johnson and nobody wants that.
Then again, Democracy means that if a leader is a duffer, we get to kick them out but that brings me back to my initial point that the opportunity only comes once every 4 or 5 years and they can do a lot of damage in that time as we found out with Tony Blair and Liz Truss and she was only in charge for 44 days.
Maybe the solution is to remove humans from the chain of command and just plug in a computer and let Ai make the calls because i do believe that that day will come, maybe not in our lifetime but certainly someone will try it out somewhere.
Saturday, 6 December 2025
A Solution To Democracies Failings
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
your post reveals a shocking lack of understanding about governing basics.
1.) democracy is the solution to autocracy. a byproduct of democracy is the stifling of significant/radical change. we see this as constant conflict and political angst (exacerbated by biased journalists, social media, and disinformation efforts by enemies) between groups with minority power that want to impose significant change. this is when democracy is working. so, pols make small changes here and there, then the next bunch comes along and makes small changes here and there...
2.) occasionally, a nation sets or resets its foundational views of existence. the political doing and undoing you mention is a result of pols trying to satisfy pressures coming from constantly changing forces like racism, sexism, crime, immigration, economics, disease, technology, commerce, war, etc. while not having the majority support needed to make foundational changes.
3.) resetting foundational views always comes from dire conditions. for the US, the great depression led to fdr's fair deal, US socialism, and the expansion of government into our daily lives. racial strife and the civil rights movement led to lbj's great society which institutionalized government welfare and increased socialism in the US (plus the beginning of the huge debt we now face).
democracy, like capitalism, sucks except when compared to all the other options...
your post exhibits even less understanding of AI than governing.
you may not know it, but the way you write about AI is similar to the way Christians talk about God. some non-physical entity that can do anything.
AI 101
1.) we record observations about life - data
2.) we represent data as numbers - math
3.) we use math to understand reality - statistics
4.) we use statistics to make predictions - models
3.) we created automated processing - computers
4.) we use computers to process models - AI
AI is an automated statistical model that makes predictions based on data. predictions are limited by the accuracy and completeness of the data in representing reality.
ergo, AI is constrained by its creator’s limitations...
1.) our observations are influenced by our experiences - bias
2.) our biases affect the data we record and how we record it - emotion
4.) our observations cannot always be represented accurately - chaos
3.) our emotions and chaos introduce errors - flawed predictions
4.) flawed predictions are built into our AI systems
there is no way for AI to deal with the billions of human views and be considered smart or fair by all. At its best, AI cannot be better than democracy.
oh yeah, then there are all the aspects of reality we cannot observe... light we cannot see, sounds we cannot hear, forces we cannot detect, etc.
A shocking lack of understanding about governing basics for wanting to expand on something which they are already doing? Well one of us has a shocking lack of understanding governing basics anyway or did you just not read it properly or not understand it?
As for the Ai thing, that was just a flippant throwaway line at the end of the post.
really, what did i articulate that is wrong?
I’m going with didn’t read it properly and did the usual Quentin Smith thing of launching into a long diatribe on what you thought you read. You do that a lot and you once said it was because you skimmed rather than read it thoroughly so explains why you are often so weirdly on a different page to the actual post subject which in this case was making concrete what at the moment are just movable agreements. God knows what you was ranting about.
i was pointing out how stupid you are. your post shows you don't understand governing or ai...
i do love reading your retorts.
- you label every explanation of how things really work a "rant"
- you attack the author instead of the data and logic
- i recognized long ago you don't know much, you just reword what others write (you usually think if they have a phd it makes them smart), hence you cannot respond to data or logic
oh yeah, you are a stupid head
Says the guy desperately trying to hide his grammatical shortcomings with ‘Its my style of writing’. Yeah right, and Trump is slimmer of the year. Isn’t there a class or something you could take?
you think im trying to hide my "grammar" errors? really? does it seem i give a shit about grammar? i get why you always bring it up, it may be the only thing you understand.
i followed all those bullshit grammar rules for over 60 years in grades 1 - 12, then in my bba, then mba, then ms da, then ms national intelligence, in my professional certifications, and in all written documents at work from 1978 until 2022. don't have to do that anymore... suck it
People sometimes write all in capitals to try and hide it also, just saying another option for you.
I will use proper grammar for this comment out of respect for you. I'm sorry that your mind is so inflexible that you can only understand writing that conforms to your view of proper format. One would expect you to abhor texting.
I do not care about proper grammar; however, I understand that when you point out my grammatical errors, it is simply another diversion to avoid your further revealing the lack of knowledge you command in topics related to economics, commerce, governing, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, climate, psychology, civilization, nations, computers, artificial intelligence, mathematics, geopolitics, good god the list is too long to continue...
It is obvious you don't care about correct grammar. It shows which is embarrassing for a mature adult.
Why do i need to command knowledge in all those things? I have experts to ask and check with so I have all their knowledge to call upon. You should try it, might save yourself some embarrassment in the comments.
i have expert knowledge and experience in many topics. you should try it...
- machine learning
- strategy
- foresight and futures
- competitive intelligence
- scenario analysis
- business models
- war gaming
- economics
- process engineering
- program and project management
- IT including operating systems, networks, data storage management, application development, performance and tuning
- innovation
- patenting
- facilitation
- adult education
- public speaking
- business communications
like i noted above, you should try being an expert in something, because then you might know when experts are wrong. perhaps you recall that einstein thought planck was wrong and vice-versa; friedman, greenspan, and hayek rightly thought keynes was wrong; almost all economists think marx was wrong; and most climate scientists were wrong about numerous predictions related to global warming... being an expert doesn't mean you are always correct. but you may not know that since you opt for ignorance... ouch
I opt for experts and professionals with decades of experience. If I was arrogant enough to know if they were wrong then why would I ask them? Maybe you could get away with it in a career not so important but we can’t and if we try to then we won’t be in that career very long.
It also leads to the question if you are such a self declared expert in so many things, why are you so poorly informed and get so much plain wrong? You have a very different opinion on expert obviously or maybe the standards are just lower over there.
disagreeing with you doesn't make me wrong...
i never said i don't get information from experts. i learned a lot from experts at MIT, Harvard, Stanford, U Texas. also learned a lot from retired generals, admirals, and astronauts. plus what i learned from working with industry experts and economists.
what i said is that i'm an expert at many things, which i achieved during a 45 year career of steady advancement, 4 college educations, 12 professional certifications, working in numerous industry groups, and participating in numerous joint ventures with the likes of ibm, cisco, microsoft, oracle, and others.
you seemingly beam at being ignorant because you can "ask experts what they think". you also seem to think that because you are an alleged "journalist" you have superior inquiry skills. so, basically, you find experts that think like you then copy and paste what they tell you to say... which helps explain why your modus operandi is to make personal attacks or nit pick trivia when presented with data or logic (which you cannot understand).
i getcha
having worked with many experts, i'm very aware that they have biases, make errors, and typically have a very narrow "expertise". they also tend to be in love with their research and often miss their errors...
one group of my favorite experts is/was ip lawyers. they knew how to litigate a patent, but weren't inventors on anything... they would often challenge ideas i suggested we patent"
- they say, "...this invention cannot be patented because it is obvious". i say, "if it is obvious, where is it in the marketplace?"
- they say, "...how does this advance the technology?" i say, "it corrects this list of inefficiencies..."
- they say, "...how does this provide value to our company?" i say, "it is directly connected to this part of our strategy..."l or i say, "this denies our competitor use of ability xyz".
i'm very accustomed to dealing with experts, and idiots...
Post a Comment