Globally Rational

You are browsing the archives of Government.

Two hundred and thirty-two years ago today, Thomas Jefferson announced the Americans’ future right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  But people often forget the next part of the Declaration of Independence, where he states “that to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.

The term “consent of the governed,” unfortunately, was never defined.  Does it mean that everybody has to agree to the government?  Or that more than half of the people have to agree?  Or just that the people have the right to get rid of a government if we want?  Jefferson, of course, was insinuating a majority-rule democracy… but is that the only way to make it work?

As many of you already know, we don’t live in a truly democratic society.  In a true democracy, there would be no President or Congress… every decision would be made by majority rule.  There’s no way for us to make that work in such a big country, so we go for the closest thing we can: a representative democracy where we spend half of our time worrying about elections and the other half complaining about how our favorite candidate didn’t get elected.  So, I thought about it… is there any other way?

Well, I couldn’t think of anything good.  But I did think of an option that might work:

What if we just had official monthly approval ratings for our leaders?  Instead of doing the usual elections, we could require everybody to take an hour every six months to decide whether or not they approve of the current President or congressman or mayor or governor.  When the approval ratings drop below a given number (say, 40%), then it’s time for an election.  If the people are happy with their leader, then we don’t need to waste time replacing him.  That way, he won’t have to waste all of this time campaigning as long as he’s doing a good job.

Of course, it would have to be more complicated than that.  And it probably wouldn’t work… but why?

Popularity: 4% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 4% [?]

This is just a reminder that Globally Rational will be hosting the July 2 edition of Carnival of the Liberals, a fortnightly event which showcases the best recent articles by liberal bloggers.  The deadline for submitting an article is midnight CST on July 2, so get your submissions in ASAP!

Here are some relevant links:
Submission page
Carnival home
Previous editions of the carnival

Popularity: 29% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 29% [?]

“Democracy” is a popular buzzword here in the US.  Everybody assumes that if a country is “democratic”, they are also automatically “free”.  While I don’t oppose the idea of freedom and liberty, I don’t think that they should be naturally associated with the word “democracy”.

In America, democracy and freedom both showed up at the same time.  As far back as I can remember, I’ve been taught that we must agree with the Declaration of Independence’s suggestion that “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” just spur automatically from the fact that “to preserve these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed.”  But in fact, that’s not what Jefferson was saying… he didn’t say that democracy creates freedom, but rather that free societies should be democratic.

So why is it that the US pushes the world to create “democratic” societies instead of creating “free” societies?  That’s what we’ve been advocating in Pakistan, Iraq, Eritrea, and many other countries where the elected government is (or soon will be) unimaginably corrupt and self-serving.  Meanwhile, here in the US, everybody assumes that an elected government must have the interests of the people in mind… after all, they want to get re-elected, right?

Maybe not… case in point: Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  After rigging the first election to make it seem like he didn’t lose clearly, he intimidated the rest of the country to the point where his opponent was forced to withdraw from the run-off election.  Now, Mugabe is declaring victory despite the fact that he obviously distorted the results of the voting to a point where he seemed like a landslide winner when everybody knows that he is highly unpopular.

So why do we try to enforce democracy instead of freedom in countries like Iraq?  Well, I think the reason is obvious… Americans don’t really understand that there is a difference.  Democracy can be enforced by guns, while freedom can only be enforced by schools.  As long as you can convince the American population that you’re doing one or the other, they’ll be happy… so why not just put in a nominal government based on a superficial popular vote?  After all, it’s much easier to buy guns than it is to build schools.

Popularity: 64% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 64% [?]

I saw an article today in USA Today suggesting that the legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor, America’s first female Supreme Court justice, has been fading since she retired in January 2006 (after a tenure of over two decades).  The article mentions that the new Court has “undercut several of her most important rulings on issues such as abortion rights, campaign finance law and government policies intended to help racial minorities.”  Among other things, the article mentions the following changes in the Court’s policies since O’Connor retired and Chief Justice William Rehnquist died:

• Shifted course on abortion rights: The court upheld a federal ban on the abortion procedure opponents call “partial birth” and backed away from a 2000 O’Connor opinion that required an exception in such laws to protect the health of the mother.

• Retreated on integration: The court made it harder for public school districts to assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods to achieve racial diversity. In 2003, O’Connor had cast the swing vote to allow affirmative action in higher education and stressed the importance of racial diversity.

• Altered its approach to campaign-finance law: The court opened the door to corporate and union financing of broadcast ads right before an election. It moved away from a standard O’Connor had crafted to regulate campaign financing and made it harder for Congress to limit donations in elections. In doing so, the justices said campaign finance regulation could undermine free speech.

What interests me the most about this article is the fact that the Supreme Court’s political leanings have obviously changed thanks to the justices appointed by President Bush II.  While Rehnquist and O’Connor were known to make apolitical decisions on a case-by-case basis, their replacements (John Roberts and Samuel Alito, respectively) are generally considered as members of the Court’s “conservative wing”.  Since when is a legal system, particularly the Supreme Court, allowed to have a “conservative wing?”

It’s about time that we start appointing justices based upon their accomplishments rather than their political leanings.  Aside from the Presidents Bush, all US Presidents have appointed justices who make highly rational, apolitical decisions.  Why do we let it fly when an active member of either political party is allowed to join the Court?  Alito, Roberts, and Clarence Thomas (who was appointed by Bush Sr.) are the only current justices who weren’t approved by at least 85% of Senators (Alto had 58%, Roberts had 78%, and Thomas had a mere 52%).  The other six justices made it in almost unanimously… why is it that the Bushes couldn’t do the same thing that Ford, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton were able to do?

The purpose of the Judicial Branch of the US government is to interpret and enforce the laws.  As long as the members of the highest court are affiliated with a political party, how can we possibly guarantee neutrality?

Popularity: 61% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 61% [?]

Sunday Rewind is a new feature where I re-publish an old post that I first put up back when nobody was actually reading.  Hopefully, there will be some actual readership this time.

I came across an interesting article today. In short, it is about a study proving that the world’s most incompetent people are typically unaware of their incompetence. On the contrary, they are usually pretty overconfident.

This is the eternal problem with most democratic societies. We have a series of ignorant people who strongly believe that their opinion is the best one. The more competent voters are usually willing to recognize that their knowledge is limited and they may change their opinion based on new facts or changes in the context. The less competent ones, however, are the ones who are hard-set in their opinions and believe that they are always right.

This issue is what leads to many major policy mistakes. Often, the people vote based on their past allegiances and their restricted worldview rather than the real issues of the day. This is what causes Pakistan, for example, to repeatedly elect not only incompetent leaders, but also known criminals (see here and here). So what is the solution?

I think we can all agree that better education will help everybody, especially in countries like Pakistan where the literacy rate is painfully low. A more educated populace will, by default, be more competent when the time comes to make a political decision. The problem is that the policymakers know that improved education will only cause them to lose their supporters. Also, increased taxes, even for the purpose of improving society by education, will never be popular.

What is the solution? Well, I will continue to do my part by disseminating these views through the blogosphere. You can do your part by spreading the word to more people. If you tell 10 people and they tell 10 people, then by the time that happens 10 times, the entire world will have heard it.

Socrates once said that “the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing.”

Popularity: 52% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 52% [?]

This is the first post in the “Nominal Breakthroughs” series, which will talk about news that is farcically touted as groundbreaking.

The fight against political corruption is one of the most important tasks confronting many of today’s developing countries; for instance, many leaders have stolen billions of dollars (which is worth a lot more in Africa/Asia than it is worth here) from their starving population. For this reason, the UN has spent a lot of resources in the past five years to establish the Convention Against Corruption, which establishes a set worldwide anti-corruption regulations. These regulations will allow a country to prevent this theft, criminalize the thieves, and recover lost assets.

Let’s let go of the fact that it took them five years to say that “theft is illegal, thieves are criminals, and stolen money should be recovered.” It’s more interesting to focus on this: they are expecting the leaders of a corrupt government to persecute corrupt leaders. If you were stealing money, would you really want to bring attention to the fact that money is being stolen? I do see potential benefits from such legislation… but why did it take them so much time and energy to pass such a simple regulation with no real means of enforcement? I know that it will be completely ineffective in my home country of Pakistan, but they tried to mask this by publicizing the Zambian government’s recent recovery of a measly $60 million. I wonder how much money they spent trying to make this convention a reality… will they even recover what they spent?

Since I usually get angry comments when I challenge the status quo, I decided to do a Google search for scholarly articles about the subject (which are written by people who know what they’re talking about). Click here to see the response study by the Anti-Corruption Resource Centre.

Where is the incentive for corrupt governments to follow these new regulations?

Popularity: 47% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 47% [?]

You can count on the Japanese to top the British GPS-based radio show that I wrote about in the first installment of “Digital Dogtags” (click here to see it).

The Tokyo-based Fujitaka Company is seeking approval for a new system which will determine a person’s age from a digital photograph.  The system approximates your age (at the moment, it’s 90% accurate; they’re working on getting it up to 100%) by comparing your face to a database of 100,000 other faces.  At this point, their plan is to use the system as an age validation tool for cigarette vending machines.  But is it unrealistic to believe that their database will eventually grow to include everybody’s face?  Here’s how I see events progressing over time:

1. Cameras on cigarette vending machines use face recognition software to determine your age.
2. Face recognition software gets cheaper over time, and it is eventually implemented at bars, casinos, nightclubs, and other venues that have age requirements.
3. A feature is added to the software that allows it to match a specific person’s face to a face in their database.
4. The software is used as an identity verification tool by testing centers, authorized-personnel-only areas, and other exclusive locations.
5. The software gets even cheaper and it becomes widespread as a keyless-entry tool (similar to fingerprint readers, but more convenient).
6. People start to buy the face-recognition keyless-entry system for their houses, their cars, their offices, their safe deposit boxes, and any other place that needs a key.
7. Face recognition is now everywhere.  Soon, governments start to assemble databases containing the faces of every legal resident of their country.
8. The face recognition cameras on everybody’s houses/cars are linked to the government database, making it impossible for a criminal to go anywhere unnoticed.
9. The system is used to identify you wherever you go (just like they do in the book/movie Minority Report).

Like I said in the first installment of “Digital Dogtags”, I actually like the idea… I have nothing to hide and I’d love to use this system to catch criminals.  What do you think of it?  Is it a valuable tool or an infringement of privacy (or both)?

Popularity: 44% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 44% [?]

Not Bush or McCain (not by a longshot), but Rush Limbaugh.

Recently, 235 right-leaning bloggers voted on the 25 most influential conservatives in US politics. The rankings are interesting:

#25) Mark Levin: 6 votes
#21) Hugh Hewitt: 7
#21) George Will: 7
#21) John Roberts: 7
#21) Ronald Reagan: 7
#20) Victor David Hanson: 8
#19) Antonin Scalia: 9
#18) John McCain: 10
#14) Glenn Beck: 11
#14) George W. Bush: 11
#14) Glenn Reynolds: 11
#14) Matt Drudge: 11
#13) Bill Kristol: 12
#10) Charles Krauthammer: 13
#10) Thomas Sowell: 13
#10) Laura Ingraham: 13
#9) Karl Rove: 14
#8) Jonah Goldberg: 15
#7) Bill O’Reilly: 17
#5) Newt Gingrich: 21
#5) Ann Coulter: 21
#3) Mark Steyn: 23
#3) Sean Hannity: 23
#2) Michelle Malkin: 24
#1) Rush Limbaugh: 49

A few interesting things stand out; I thought you might be interested too:

• President Bush is #14 and Republican Presidential frontrunner John McCain is #18. So, the supposed “most powerful man in the world” is the 14th-most influential person in his own party.
• Rush Limbaugh, who is widely considered to be a hardline right-winger whose opinions are often dismissed by policymakers, is considered by most right-leaning bloggers to be the most influential of their party.
• There are no well-known politicians in the top 4.
• Karl Rove, despite all of the controversy surrounding him, still comes in at #14.
• Ronald Reagan had only 4 less votes than President Bush… did people forget that he’s dead?

I think that the most striking fact is that the President has less influence over these bloggers than 13 other conservatives. What does that say about the status of the Executive Branch today? Do we really place so much value on the opinions of a former President who hasn’t been mentally healthy since the Cold War (before the information age)? And is there any respect left for the Presidency today?

I think this might tell us something about where the US is headed in the future… what do you think?

Popularity: 46% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 46% [?]

Anybody who has seen futuristic movies such as Minority Report has wondered if - or, rather, when - we will actually start to see those personal identification systems. We always get ideas about a time when every person’s identity will be known by a global computer system, so that the authorities can know when you go to a place where you’re not supposed to be. Also, they can deliver personalized information when and where you need it; for instance, a computerized voice can guide you to your favorite stores every time you walk into a mall.

Of course, this would be a severe infringement on privacy. I don’t mind it personally (because I don’t have anything to hide), but plenty of people feel violated by this sort of idea. Luckily, we won’t have to worry about the issue in our lifetimes… or will we?

Well, I think we’re closer to that time than you think. And the idea came not from the Japanese or the Germans (surprisingly), but from the British.

The M6, the busiest highway in England, is now broadcasting a customized comedy program to your GPS. It will beam different jokes to your car based upon where you are on the 230-mile stretch. It sounds like a great idea with a lot of potential applications regarding traffic updates and local information. While this information is being broadcast from the local station to the GPS receiver, the station also has the ability to find out the ID of the receiver that it’s transmitting to. Is it inconceivable that we’re not far from the day when somebody takes advantage of that ability?

Five years ago when I first bought a mobile phone, AT&T offered a feature (on one of their premium plans) that could find your friends and tell you exactly where they are (assuming they’re also on the AT&T network). They quickly removed that feature and I can see why… but that means that they’re able to get that information from your cellphone. Here is how I expect events to progress:

1. A radio show is broadcast to GPS systems on the M6.
2. The broadcasters of that radio show get information about their listeners for marketing purposes.
3. A company offers personalized information where your GPS (which, by this time, is contained in your mobile phone) can hold customized preferences for what you want to see and listen to.
4. More companies start to compete with that first company that offers customized preferences.
5. After a series of mergers and buyouts, these companies end up forming one large database of customer information.
6. These services become a part of everyday life, just like the Internet and mobile phones.
7. Soon, I get a welcome message at every mall saying “Welcome Shan… the book you’ve been waiting for is now available at Border’s, in Wing C on your right. Also, EXPRESS will be starting their annual winter clearance in 2 weeks; don’t forget about it this year like you did last year!”
8. The federal government starts to use this information to keep tabs on what we’re doing, especially with Muslims like me (come to think of it, they may already be doing this).

I’m not saying that this will definitely happen… but is it really that outrageous?

Popularity: 50% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 50% [?]

I recently read (in The Economist) about a study showing that over the course of the last 30 years, conservatives have consistently claimed to be “very happy” more often than liberals. Many people try to use this data to say that conservatism directly causes happiness… but before arriving at a conclusion like that, we need to examine the causality.

So, like I always do, I decided to parse the data about the demographics of liberals vs. conservatives. I found a study included 9 overall groups; there were three major groups for liberals, conservatives, and moderates and each had three subgroups for different socioeconomic backgrounds. They surveyed the different groups and published the data, which seems to be very telling.

I think there are a few interesting explanations for why conservatives are happier:

1. Graduate degrees
   Among the 9 political groups in the study, the most liberal people were the most likely to be highly educated (postgraduate degree); as everybody seems to agree, “ignorance is bliss”… so a more educated person is less likely to be satisfied with the world.
2. Bachelor’s degrees
   Among people of a lower socioeconomic status, conservatives were more likely to be moderately educated (undergraduate degree) than liberals; this suggests that less advantaged conservatives are more likely to be successful than less advantaged liberals, which would probably make the conservatives happier.
3. Wealth
   Conservatives are more likely to be wealthy (income over $75,000/year) than moderates or liberals. Liberals are more likely to disagree with the statement “paying the bills is not generally a problem” and to agree with the statement “I often can’t make ends meet.” Without the added stress of working overtime and falling behind on bills, I think it’s obvious that a group would be happier on average. Money may not buy happiness, but lack of money does lead to unhappiness.
4. Family
   Conservatives are more likely than moderates/liberals to be married and have children; companionship tends to make a person more content with their life.
5. Optimism
   Among people with a relatively disadvantaged socioeconomic background, conservatives are far more optimistic than liberals. This group of people was told that “people can get ahead with hard work”; conservatives agreed in 76% of cases, while liberals agreed in only 14% of cases. A similar trend was clear with less disadvantaged liberals/conservatives, but it was less drastic.
6. Religion
   Conservatives are the most religious of the three groups and liberals are the least religious, suggesting that conservatives are more likely to believe that God will solve all of their problems.
7. Future
   Conservatives are more likely to be stock traders or small business owners, suggesting that they perceive themselves to be in control of their own future.
8. Pride
   As one would expect, conservatives tend to display the American flag more often than liberals. This leads me to believe that conservatives are more proud and more satisfied with their country.

I think these 8 factors explain why a typical conservative is happier than a typical liberal. Now we can look at the causality: is the political viewpoint causing the happiness or vice versa? In other words, would you be happier if you became more conservative?

Based on the data, I don’t think so. It seems like the causality follows an indirect trend; certain variables lead to both conservatism and happiness, and neither the political viewpoint nor the happiness can predict one another. Optimism and pride seem to cause life satisfaction and conservatism; higher education and pessimism, meanwhile, seem to cause dissatisfaction and liberalism.

Personally, I think it’s better to have more people who are unsatisfied with the status quo… this will lead to change and, eventually, improvement. Of course, we also need plenty of satisfied people to balance them out, so that we’re not constantly changing everything. Overall, it seems that this two-party system (which, as many Americans don’t realize, most countries don’t have) is keeping the US in a delicate balance that has probably contributed greatly to the nation’s success.

Popularity: 67% [?]If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Popularity: 67% [?]