On the World
Fanaticism: Democracy versus Market
NEVATHIR
April 17, 2017
Like many post-dictatorship regimes, Taiwan naturally acquired deep faith in democracy. Following the tradition and conventional wisdom of Star Wars, Taiwanese or Westerner, conservatives believed that these transitions proved the superiority of capitalist democracy, while liberals applauded democratization with a caution against market fundamentalism.
Yet the eternal unreliability of politicians suggests what politicians gladly endorse, in this case democracy and capitalism, is often highly suspicious.
Aside from the symbiotic embrace between democratic government and money-manager capitalism that fools people for the benefit of politicians' and bankers' pockets, the obvious fact is that democracy may fail and there are tons of problems even the best democracy can not solve. Yet people believe the opposite just as Taiwan murdered innocent as rapist with assistance from former President Chen Shui-bian, then Taipei City Mayor, and popular buttress while President Chen went on to succeed as the highest profile corruption and international money laundering criminal in Taiwan history, vindicated with interpretation of Taiwanese law, and again, popular buttress. Once a false belief is popular, truth becomes taboo and ends up crucified. Democracy of fools yields sound judgement and admiration for Napoleon, paving the way for 19th century British superiority.
People aren't accustomed to criticizing democracy, one of people's most cherished institutions. Thus we start with a well-known yet mild critique, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which proved that democracy may fail at social choices that only a dictator may succeed, not that dictatorship guarantees success, but success requires dictatorship. Fortunately, these unpleasant consequences are of limited applicability to real-world democracy due to very narrow premises the theorem employs. The theorem is a caution, not a serious defect of democracy.
Serious flaws are exposed, as most cases in politics and economics, if we consider opinions held by extreme wings at various stages. Market fundamentalists endorse whatever markets have to offer. Are democracy fundamentalists any different? Unless they declare deregulation propelled by USA government undemocratic, democracy fundamentalists must defend the inevitable 2008 global crisis as a consequence of democratic decision making. I wonder what if they discover there is communist democracy.
Democracy isn't a sound decision making system, but a popularly acceptable institution, like music concerts, ranging from masterpiece to dissonance. A successful democracy requires much deeper and more coherent orchestration together with moral values, culture, economics, sciences, etc. Common sense and experience tell that not that many politicians are good musicians, and usually not that many voters are tasteful and discerning enough to elect them.
Eurozone was established under unprecedented democratization that liberated almost entire Europe from dictatorship at all fronts. By now, it should be natural enough to recognize, without surprise, consequences of democracy. We need to make democracy better!
It's amusing there are so many daring liberals and conservatives expounding why globalisation, nations, dictatorship, markets, etc. fail while democracy seldom makes appearance. Undeniably, Chomsky is actually the dominant political philosopher for respectable liberals and conservatives. Market fanaticism is bad! Democracy fanaticism is good!
The irony is that the exposition here isn't revolutionary but merely a extension of what Socrates and Plato already knew that's despised and ridiculed by moderns.
The love for Greek government system goes. The hate for Greek government system goes. Nonetheless, Eurozone augments Greece as of 2017.