What does Holla Forums think about sortition/lottocracy?

Reposting my reply:
As a autocratic socialist I say that lottocracy is much better than democracy because fuck popularity and lynch mobs.

It's description is the reason why I advocate for autocracies by persons who least want and least enjoy power.

Good, fuck the interests of the majority and uphold the common interests of everyone, thus protecting minorities against the majority.

Make it a mix. Randomness always bring chaos and anarchy.

It would be good to have 50% of the legislative chosen at random, with equal proportion of men and women, with equal proportion of middle class, working class and porkies, and have the other 50% be elected.

Hmm, good point. But what if its a crazy person who wants to do irreversable damage to a group of people with no benefit?

...

Then it's fucked and this is why I don't fully support lottocracy (only as a preferable alternative to democracy). I support selecting the most unprejudiced, libertarian, compassionate and sensitive individuals to become autocrats.

What's wrong?

Go drink another beer with your faggot ass chav friends while you watch soccer

I too read Plato when I was 15

I don't drink alcohol and I don't watch sports.

Good for you, now go back to lynching minorities.

Are there any real life examples of lottocracy? I would be very interested in seeing an experiment of it.

Btw did you also read basic military organization? Surely you think armies would be more efficient and effective if they practiced democracy or else you would have a double standard and not truly believe democracy is the best form of government.

Military=/=society at large

also armies can be corrupt as fuck. Take for instance the Brazilian military, it's basically a fraternity and the cushy desk jobs that pay well are held by sons of aristocrats.
Utilitarianism can be useful for deciding placement for technology based jobs, but society is not that simple

and the notion of
Is something I have seen from a few technocrats recently. They never, however, discuss what to do in instances where the wrong person is in power, it's always "nope, it will just be right because reasons!" This system is pretty idealistic at best, and just dangerous and stupid at worst.

Democracy may not be a perfect system, but their is a reason so many people fight for it. And I'd rather live with the idiot I didn't vote for, then the one I can never appose.

Stupid idea. Consensus democracy is the best kind of democracy.

Italian renaissence republics according to the book

Autocracy contradicts socialism. You are basically arguing for state capitalism, because in what way do the people own and manage the means of production collectively without democracy, if it's just a system of randomized dictatorship, who I then presume would select his own bureaucracy/civil service from the top down, unless he's just a figurehead and you have a permanently unelected rest of the government and state apparatus, which is even less socialist yet again. If you think this is socialism you've been listening to too many conservatives say that socialism is when the state runs everything.

If the workers aren't involved in running that state, then guess who really controls the means of production? The new class you've created, who are actually just a new wave of bourgeoisie. You've just set the stage for the system to slowly turn back into capitalism proper as China and the USSR did.

Direct democracy is the only true democracy.

Bump

Wew lad, just because someone hold democratic decision making to useful or even necessary for general administration doesn't mean they have to elevate it to the level of fucking principal and apply it universally. Unironically read Bordgia.

This is idealistic as fuck and unworkable in practice. You have no real way of ensuring that the best candidates are selected and any attempt to do so will most likely result in a system very unrepresentative of the interests of the general population.

That aside, I am interested in sortition as an alternative to elections, which seem to reproduce ruling class interests everywhere they are used.

He's an idiot, don't take what he saying to be representative of what sortition is actually meant to be. It's meant to work by selecting a large enough sample size to be representative of the general population. Most advocates also want something akin to councils (or some form of direct democracy anyway) at the lowest levels that could override the decisions of those selected should those decisions prove to be against the interests of the general population. Also short terms/recallablity to prevent them from developing ruling class interests.

A lotto would certainly be better than the system the US uses now at least. I think proportional representation of political parties with score voting for elections should at least be tried before people dump the baby out with the bathwater though.

You either believe democracy is the best form of government or you don't, if it is then it should be applied to all facets of society.

All current militaries are corrupt because they are old capitalist institutions controlled by democratically-elected officials.

Surely you will explain what to do when the wrong majority is in power? In an autocracy you just have to try to convince one person and you just have to try to overthrow one person. Try doing that in a democracy.

You talking about democracy?

Autocracy may not be a perfect system, but there is a reason so few people fight for it since most people suck. And I'd rather live with the idiot I didn't vote for, then the one I can never oppose because the majority elected and supports him.

Socialism is an economic system not a form of government. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production so it's not contradictory to have an autocrat as the leader of a socialist society that shares the means of production, if the principle of "to each according to his contribution" is in practice then it's socialism. In a socialist democracy the majority are the ones that manage the means of production never the whole people, so I would rather have only one person that manages it.

It's not randomized (I'm not advocating for lottocracy), there are standards for who gets to be dictator, read my previous posts. And yes the autocrat nominates the entire government or else it wouldn't be a true autocracy but an oligarchy.

The people that run the state ARE workers, they are working by governing. And who ultimately controls the means of production is the autocrat who is a worker that works for the good of the people i.e. everyone, including minorities not just for the majority.

Nah I just recognize democracy is worst form of government.

It does if you truly believe in the superiority of the system and if you want to have universal standards.

You talking about democracy and lottocracy?

It's easy you just have to psychologically profile people, maybe not the best one will be selected but it's much more precise than a democracy that elects the most popular candidate and a lottocracy that randomly selects the candidate.

So at the core of it your system is one where psychologists are totally empowered to decide who can rule. Fan-fuckin'-tastic.

No, fuck sociopathic psychologists, anyone is able to profile people and figure out who's the most sensitive and empathic person. The autocrat would be the one to nominate his successor, although for this to work the first one would have to be the real deal, which is why I think revolutionary vanguards should prioritize finding the right person for the job. It's our duty as leftists to empower those we believe would be the best leaders and not dismiss individual personality as irrelevant.

I think this is a stupid idea.
With a lottery system sorting a random winner, it just means the people actually in charge controlling the nation in the background (CEOs of multinationals and their intermediaries) would have an even stronger grip and their role would be more important than ever before.

Every single president would become even more of a puppet in the hands of whever actually runs this shit behind the scenes.
They wouldn't have any clue what the fuck to do so they'd just ovey whatever "suggestions" "qualified" people would present to them.
Even if you somehow managed to place a set of laws that would absolutely ensure without the shadow of a doubt that the "random president" would have absolute free reign and outlaw external meddling…you couldn't, they'd find a way anyway, or find a loophole, or coerce/lure the president into changing the rules etc.

C'mon it's a stupid ass idea, if you think about it for 5 minutes you realize it's even worse than the system we have in place now.

You cannot separate political and economic interests from what shapes the thought of the 'best man for the job'. What a bunch of impoverished but improving farmers think is the best will not be the same as an upper middle class ideologue, which will not be anywhere near the opinions of an unemployed, angry industrial worker, for example.

Your vanguard is going to be made up of people who have lived through experiences like the above and have been shaped by them. How are you going to make an objective measure of 'the best' to subvert decades of life experiences?

No, you utter mongoloid, different types of administration are better suited to different circumstances, there is no "one size fits all" solution to social organisation. Certain situations, highly technical matters for example, would be better administered by appointed figures, while general decision making that doesn't require a specific skill set tends to benefit from collective decision making. Not to mention the necessity of preventing the administration from acting against the interests of the general population.

No, you retard I'm talking about the bullshit platonic nonsense you're spewing about selecting "compassionate" people. It literally sounds like something straight out of Plato's Republic, which was basically aristocratic apologetics.

I almost forgot to add how easily and often vanguards are subverted by people weaseling their way into positions of power. I'm not even going to go into the ML states. Look at what happened with the Ba'athists and Saddam.

OK, so the entire future history of the world will be decided based on ~someone's~ totally subjective sense of what kind of, like, vibe the future dictator of the world has. You're not even suggesting we attempt to leverage some sort of expertise. Getting back to the ~someone~ part, whose job is it to actually pick the future dictator of the human race? Do we get lots of people to choose, in the hopes that their opinions about who is most sensitive and empathetic person will average out to a correct answer? Surely not, that would be a representative democracy, the thing everyone agrees is a total shithouse popularity contest. So we have to limit the selectorate - that is, the group of people that pick the Emperor of MankindGlorious Socialist Leader. How is the composition of this selectorate decided? And how will their decision not just be another popularity contest anyway, since their job is to pick the person they think is the best most nicest person in the universe. Speaking of sociopaths/psychopaths, what will stop them from nabbing the top job? When they're not being inhuman monsters they're notoriously capable when it comes to faking a personality. When faking it they're generally considered more consistently nice than actually nice people. What's to stop them from tricking the selection committee instituting murderdeathrapetopia? You say 'oh we can remove one person from power', but you also deliberately designed a system to make that as difficult as possible. There would be a lot of unnecessary blood shed trying to fix your shitty system.

We dismiss individual personality as irrelevant because we recognise that the logic of the mode of production overrides people's personal preferences, you idealist scrub. Do you also think corporations are only bad because their CEOs are mean? Starting from your ridiculous premise it would be a reasonable conclusion. Believing that everything wrong with the world is simply because we haven't found the perfect dictator is ridiculous.

Another person incapable of actually reading something before spewing nonsense.
Sortition doesn't mean randomly selecting a fucking president: there wouldn't be a goddamn president. It means randomly selecting from the general population enough people that they are statistically representative of their interests, and then having either form government or simply preside over some other public matter.
We already do it today with jury duty for christs sake, and that works well enough most of the time (I'd rather be judged by my peers than some lapdog of the state). Just think of it as expanding the jury system to deal with matters of public administration.

Why would you do this? Are you seriously saying that if you were selected to be part of administrative body that you would just forsake your interests and go along with what some hypothetical bureaucrat wants? Are you that spineless?

We're talking about using sortition to administer a socialist society. There wouldn't be any CEOs or capitalists because we'd have expropriated their property already (and shot them all).

Maybe you should spend five minutes reading and you would realize you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Are you actually fucking retarded?
People on jury duty will almost immediately cave in to groupthink and rush decisions because they want to go back home watching netflix.
90% of all humanity is like this.

You're being completely detached from the average mindset of the common citizen.
You're either pretending, or have lived an incredibly sheltered life and never actually had to interact with many people out there.

huh

so that's a real flag

[Citation Needed]

Then that 90% would just end up going along with the 10% that aren't scrubs, which according to you they do anyway so even in the worst case scenario sortition couldn't be any worse than electoral democracy, provided the sample size is large enough to be statistically representative.

No you don't, this is extremely disingenuous. Democracy is best for some situations, and technocracy for others. Your implying that I would want people to democratically decide asinine things, like military structure, when that was not what I was saying from the start. I simply mentioned the absurdity of equating civilian society to military structure and how they both face entirely different problems. The fact that you would paint such a ridiculous black and white scenario shows that you have no argument.

Democracy has nothing to do with their inefficiency. Such positions of muh privilege simply act as a lightning rod for corruption in a society like Brazil. I'm not trying to discredit the idea of the military as a whole, I'm just trying to point out the absurdity of trying to push this structure on something that is in no way similar to it.

Is it? If the vanguard isn't founded on and doesn't share consensus in this principle of personality I'm promoting then it's worthless and it's not "my" vanguard.

General decision making requires the specific skills of sensitivity and personal responsibility, traits that a collective doesn't have. If anything goes to shit who are we to blame? The majority. And how are we going to hold them accountable? We don't. At least in an autocracy we know full well who's to blame. Single decision making has been proven to be better than any collective decision making regardless of the individual person's decision making ability because it pressures the person to make a good decision since all responsibility falls on him while in a collective decision making there is no such pressure since there is no accountability.

How's that working out?

I'm obviously influenced by it. Aristocracy literally means rule by the best not rule by the muh privileged landlord class and in Plato's Republic the ruling elite would not be allowed to own land, trade, have wealth or have family connections, so don't see what's so bad about it.

That's what happens when you don't emphasize quality of personality from the very beginning and let in all the wrong kind of people into your ranks.

Contrary to someone else's totally subjective sense of what kind of, like, vibe the future leader has. But if he has many people supporting him then I guess it's valid somehow.

I already said that the autocrat chooses his successor, this doesn't mean he can't ask for other people's opinions, in fact he should be obligated to, in an autocracy there should be constant opinion polls on every subject so the autocrat can draw conclusions from them.

Niceness is politeness and politeness doesn't mean shit and in most cases it obstructs people from acting on their compassion. If you aren't able to discern fake 'nice' persons from actual caring persons then you're an autist that lacks sensitivity and therefore has no place talking about this subject.

And in a democracy it leads to an outright civil war in order to fix it.

Well capitalism is ultimately maintained by people. Engels was a capitalist, he worked in his father's business but he didn't like it because he cared about the workers and he did his utmost to change the system by being a revolutionary socialist activist. If enough capitalists were like Engels and radically fought for a better system then the revolution would come from the top down, like many early socialists thought it would naturally happen, but they aren't because like most people they suck, indeed they are some of the worst people because you have to be an uncaring selfish bastard in order to be successful in capitalism.

Yeah I am not a economic deterministic orthodox marxist but I'm also not a historical idealist either as I don't think only ideas change society (and they do change), I recognize that people's individual personalities are also a material fact of reality and different types of persons influence society in different ways if given power and one just needs to look at history and present-day to see that the people that could/can change society for the better were/are always powerless.

Believing that everything wrong with the world is simply because technology is not advanced enough is ridiculous.

You ignored my best argument: >Surely you will explain what to do when the wrong majority is in power? In an autocracy you just have to try to convince one person and you just have to try to overthrow one person. Try doing that in a democracy.

You're right, sorry. (Btw I support autocracy by the most caring person not technocracy, which is direct rule by experts).

It does because it's democratic politicians in charge that allow the corruption to exist and it's the majority of people that put these politicians in charge.

Still no argument on why though, I still stand by my point that militaries are the best example of how successful autocracy is. The fact that the military is an armed fighting force doesn't discredit it's governing structure being used for other types of organizations.

I would argue that if a large majority would prefer a guy to the job, then he is probably the right guy. I don't buy into the whole "stupid masses" bullshit, it seems more like a cynical excuse propagated by elitists and propped up by anecdotal evidence.
However, the flaws are more dependent on how you manage your democracy. I personally approach democracy through a mix of soviets for the social sphere and technates for larger projects (ie space flight).

also the
is a pretty contentious term. How do we know if their wrong? maybe its us that are full of shit? Ultimately I'd prefer a technate over this vapid concept of one "good guy" in power. At least those in the technate will be best suited for their job by means of merit, this concept of a "good guy" who is given his role by some former autocrat (or most likely his ministers since it is impossible for even a king to hold absolute rule) on call of some arbitrary measurement of his "niceness"(or most likely his relationship to the former rulers because they are only human), is a concept void of any sense, let alone checks and balances, and when you have tried to explain why he would be best suited for the role in this thread it only comes out as non-arguments like

or
#notmyvanguard

or the gem
This one is so good I'd actually like to pick it apart for a second.
So for starters you have said nothing to combat OPs point, also you just regurgitated what he said but implied that somehow a view being held by the majority over a minority means nothing. If we follow this logic to its conclusion than you are saying that a view held by the majority of humans like Gandhi's view of world peace, is no different from Charles Manson's view of nuclear Nazi masturbation fantasy held by his devoted followers though more people prefer the latter. I think we can admit this is a pretty lame argument dodge.

Anyway what would we do if the
came into power? Well in a democracy its quite simple! You campaign your message and promote your views, if they appeal to enough people then they get implemented. If not then you wait for the next election to try again.
Not great right? Now I would like to go over how we would convince someone of our ideas in an autocracy. Firstly your ideas would need to be big enough to be picked up by the party apparatchiks radar, so if you just want to bitch about poor quality of food, bad living conditions, or others of the sort, then too bad. But now ,for the sake of argument, your ideas are heard by the few in power and you get to tell a local representative of the non-king your strife. Sorry again! it turns out we cant move you into the new coastal apartments because they are being demolished to make way for a resort for exclusive party members.
So what now?????
Well you can enjoy the luxury of sitting on your balls and crying because what the big man says, goes!

I want to link this in to your prior #notmyvanguard """"argument""""". You say you wont support a party that does not uphold your views, well, that's kind of rich because you don't live in a democracy and there for don't have the right to push for your views. You sound like you don't want an autocracy, you just want your own personal king, or, better yet to be him. There is not much I can say about this except, if you want to be the worlds next authoritarian then you need to get in line with the other 10000 fuhrer LARPers from Holla Forums

militaries aren't in control of other peoples lives. When a soldier takes off his uniform, that's it for the autocracy. The military doesn't tell us where we can shop, the military doesn't tell me who's at the rains of my state and what laws I will be harassed for not respecting a shitty representative democracy does =^>. Who would want to live in that society? Seems like the vast majority of humans don't so far? but is their freedom less important then your feeling though one is clearly more preferable? Militaries are good for one role (as we have already gone over), It is not an argument for its structure in other situations where it is not meant to be (ie. everything other than combat). And when they are in a position of government,

this normally happens
theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/brazil-president-weeps-report-military-dictatorship-abuses

See pic.

See pic.

Just because someone is good in their field of knowledge doesn't mean he is a good person. Good to know that you would prefer autistic """experts""" over a deeply compassionate person to be in charge.

Good to know that you, like the majority of people, want to waste tons of resources on infecting other planets with disease of life and consider this to be an important issue such as poverty, violence, war and exploitation.

If the head of government doesn't even have the power to dismiss and replace his ministers then he isn't even close to being a absolute leader, he is just a figurehead like most old monarchs and dictators.

It's not niceness/politeness, it's sensitivity and empathy which can be easily measured by meeting, interacting and knowing people.

The sense is that highly compassionate people who dislike having power over others would be good rulers. And the 'checks and balances' would be the fundamental laws, which the society would be founded upon, that guarantee people's personal freedoms and whom it's the leader's job to protect them, so any transgression on those freedoms on his part would be clear immediate evidence of his failure.

Yes because why the fuck would I support a political group I fundamentally disagree with on issues I consider highly important like leadership standards and form of government? You wouldn't support a autocratic leftist party so it's hypocritical of you to mock me because of this.

That's because there is nothing for me to combat, I unashamedly recognize that it's subjective, different people have different views and no matter how hard you try to convince them you can't change them. There is no such thing as objectivity in regards to what's the best type of personality or morality.

I already said here (You) that "in an autocracy there should be constant opinion polls on every subject so the autocrat can draw conclusions from them" and I further add that it's the duty of the autocrat to personally communicate directly with the people as much as it's possible (through public Q&A for example).

If that happened then it would mean that #myvanguard was not the one to seize power or the regime became corrupt over time because the bad people took over. Another aspect of my worldview is anti-consumerism/anti-luxury so that would prevent the "fully automated luxury gay space communism" hedonists from joining in #myvanguard i.e. the people who would be willing to make such acts for their pleasure. Moreover the same could happen in a representative democracy and in a pure democracy minorities would be excluded from luxury.

Lmao. In a pure democracy the only 'rights' you have are the 'rights' the majority allows you to have. Every 'right' we currently have are all thanks to undemocratic laws like the laws that protect minorities against the will of the majority. Again I don't support absolutist autocracy, I support constitutional autocracy in which the leader is bound by duties and laws but not by other individuals. Not to mention that there are plenty of dictatorships that allowed and allows peaceful political opposition.

What Holla Forums really wants is direct democracy so they can lynch minorities in order to preserve the white majorities in their countries. Also democracy/majority-rule is also 'authoritarian'.

The fundamental reason why I support my type of autocracy is not because of efficiency and effectiveness but in order to safeguard the freedom of individuals and minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

>And when they are in a position of government, this normally happens theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/10/brazil-president-weeps-report-military-dictatorship-abuses
Agreed, I never advocated for military rule over society, I despise the way current militaries are because of the competitive and desensitizing training and disrespect and harassment between soldiers.

...