[a-french-anon]

> end of story.

Is it? Here's another version I like even more that unsettles democracy dogmatics: power attracts the corrupt.

[whatever1]

It is absolutely correct, hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies.

An ill intentioned participant in power will not have unlimited time to do that much damage. A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted.

The downside is that a good intentioned ruler, may not have enough time to accomplish their good vision. But my thesis is that is a reasonable price to pay to avoid the opposite. A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.

[AnthonyMouse]

> A good intentioned participant will not have too much time to become corrupted.

The operation of the revolving door would seem to imply otherwise. You set up a situation where politicians are not just expected but required to leave office and then need a job in the private sector. Are they then inclined to do things while in office that make it more or less likely that they get a lucrative gig as soon as their term is up?

> A malicious ruler with infinite time to complete their destructive plan.

The assumption is that the ruler is the elected official. What do you do if the malicious ruler is a corporation and the elected official is just a fungible subordinate?

[direwolf20]

A good intentioned participant will not have unlimited time to do good

[msh]

But will the elected representatives have the time needed to get good at their jobs? If not they might just be pushed around by bad actors.

[adolph]

  >> power attracts the corrupt
  >  hence why limited terms are a prerequisite for functioning democracies.

The practical effect of limited terms is a set of hapless electeds who depend on the kindness of lobbyists or other stakeholders to perform core duties, such as write effective legislation. In terms of the Gervais Principle [0], the sociopaths move from elected to lobby (which is a natural career progression already) and emplace more of the clueless as elected officials.

But if you want to take Vienna, take Vienna! Embrace limited power

Limited government power is often rightfully challenged as being unbalanced to the tremendous power of non-government entities such as corporations. However, this claim elides that the power and charter of any particular entity is downstream of what is granted and enabled by government functions. Less government power makes for less powerful corporations.

However, once everything is cut down a few notches, will the remaining power still attract the "corrupt?" Yes, power, status and other social markers will still exist and act like a bug lamp for sociopaths. But on the plus side they won't be as able, as you say, "to do that much damage."

0. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

[noosphr]

Sortition is the only system that ensures high quality universal education. If anyone can become president for a year then everyone needs to be able to be president for a year.

[derektank]

I would like to see sortition implemented in one house of a bicameral legislature. Executive office is not where I would want to see it tested first (and I think it’s ill suited even in theory).

[Der_Einzige]

This but unironically.

[atoav]

Well why not both? It is certainly true that power attracts those who seek to abuse it. But it is also true that a good fraction of those who are demonstrably corrupt started out way more idealistic.

[derektank]

Is it demonstrably true? Or do people just start out with zero record, making them appear more idealistic/allowing them to adopt more idealistic rhetoric without accusations of hypocrisy?

[actionfromafar]

Shouldn't it unsettle King dogmatics just as much?

[A_D_E_P_T]

Not really, because aristocrats and monarchs don't seek power in most systems; rather, they're simply born into it. Those modes of government don't actively select for the power-hungry.

(Granted, in e.g. the Ottoman Empire and Imperial China, it was frequently the case that there were dozens of princelings who were, de facto, pitted against each other in contests for the throne. That definitely selected for ambition, brutality, and a willingness to get one's hands dirty.)

[Der_Einzige]

In a world where the best ran country on earth is a "enlighten despotism" AKA Singapore, Nope.

They think we just need more LKYs, or really, AI systems controlling everything. A benevolent dictatorial AI running society is exactly what all the futurists think is coming. Go read Orions Arm.

[api]

Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks.

In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath.

In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests.

In socialist and communist systems you get an aristocracy of political pull where high ranking bureaucrats are basically identical to our billionaires and political elites.

I’m not aware of any system that durably protects against being taken over by deranged dark triad personalities. Democracy’s virtue is that it provides some way to clean house without destroying the stability of the whole system, at least when it works.

[thrance]

> Why is that only a problem for democracy?

Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet).

> I’m not aware of any system that [...]

Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.

[carlosjobim]

I see things the same way as you do. Human behaviour and conflict can never be solved, and especially not by any kind of "system", which is just thin air of imagination.

The closest we can get is striving to elevate our cultural and spiritual level as individuals, family, friends, neighbours and strangers.

The entire power of the psychopaths in charge all stem from corrupting normal people, and the more that can be avoided, the less power they have.

But it is difficult, because they corrupt our strongest feelings: fear, greed, pride, laziness, desire, community.

Millions of young men have died in senseless wars because they didn't want to be seen as "cowards", they thought of their "honour". Who remembers them now?

Who even thinks about the thousands of young soldiers dying in the battlefields in Ukraine? Why is Trump the only leader who talks about their deaths?

Billions of people are paying taxes to support their psychopath rulers, because of simple fear. If everybody stopped tomorrow, the world would be liberated. But people are held in fear.