EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
On Sunday, Bulgarians will have the unique opportunity to choose who will not reform the healthcare, pension and education systems; who will redistribute part of their wealth; who will support one or another monopoly and who will worsen the state of the economy. In other words – tomorrow Bulgarians will vote to preserve the status quo.
And if they are lucky, the minimum wage may become 1,000 leva or they may receive the bill for another nuclear power plant.
This will be another election, after which the most significant economic and social problems will continue to exist, and are also likely to worsen. And yet there are those who argue that it is very important to vote. In fact, in every election cycle there are commentators who say that this vote is of crucial importance for achieving change. But this is not so, because as long as the majority of Bulgarians have a wrong idea about the role of the state, their vote will be a vote in support of our socialist past of great state control over the lives we live.
Then the logical question arises – if there is no party with a truly pro-market ideology, should one still vote? Many people believe that one should vote even if one does not like the views of any party (or at least not entirely). The theory is that those who do not vote do not have an opinion. But in fact, those who do not vote do have an opinion, and that is that they do not approve of what politics offers them. And their abstention sends exactly this message to politicians. This is a principled position with important strategic importance. In contrast, those who also do not like any party but vote preserve the current ideology in politics and make it more difficult for others to enter. Their vote discourages politicians from changing and prolongs the transition to a free society.
Another theory is that if you don't vote, someone else will decide for you. Obviously, fans of this theory don't approve of someone deciding for someone else. But at the same time, they don't realize that by voting, they are doing exactly that - imposing their will on others through the principle of majoritarianism.
There is also the theory that, although all parties are bad, they are not equally bad. Accordingly, one should vote for the lesser evil. First of all, this thesis is completely unprincipled and leads to the preservation of the status quo. But it is also an admission that the electoral process is not a process towards improving our lives, but a mechanism for choosing which (less?) evil person will govern us.
Ultimately, neither dictators nor politicians can afford to do evil without public support for their actions. This should tell us that politics does not exist in a vacuum, where some bad people make some decisions without considering the attitudes of society. On the contrary, politics reflects the ideology prevailing among the population. While in Bulgaria this is the ideology of the parent state and people vote for the lesser evil, we will see a change only in the nuances of evil.
Politics is not an end in itself, but supposedly exists to solve some problems that would otherwise remain unresolved. And in fact, the ultimate goal of politics should be to one day not need it. If you think that politics is currently not achieving its goals and you want real change, maybe you shouldn't go to the polls on Sunday.
Explain to me again how a politician will be affected by the fact that people do not vote? I just don't get the connection and it seems to me that everything is a dead end. Empirical example: during the protests last summer, the BSP conveniently stated that 10% may protest, but the remaining 90% do not and therefore support them.
Our politicians in particular can only rejoice when only the hard-line electorates vote, because the vote becomes predictable and the status quo remains.
I think the system will only change if people want to change it. That's why it seems to me that a libertarian party might give it a chance, but maybe libertarians themselves don't want one, and that might just make me see all the whining as whining, not as a vision for the world.
In my opinion, the article is taken out of any context, especially the context of Bulgaria, and seems absolutely naive to me. I have friends who support the same idea, but they do not realize that thanks to this idea, the MRF will now become the second largest party in Bulgaria, ahead of the BSP. They do not realize that the MRF is practically already ruling Bulgaria, and voting NO in both these and the next parliamentary elections automatically cements them for several more terms as the most stable party. Judging by the acceleration of their seizure of power, it will be for at least 20 years to come. So for me, the question comes down to not who will spend the money, but whether the MRF will decide the future of Bulgaria for the next 20 years. Because it has been doing quite well for the last 10.
Let's see what exactly people like me (with a libertarian bent) want.
Here I personally believe that the state should not interfere in any way in the economy. Its only legitimate reason for existence is to impose the conditions necessary for the existence of a free market, i.e. police, courts and possibly military. What does this mean, however:
This is a radical change to the existing order.
Politics becomes redundant because there is nothing to decide (that's what politicians are there for, to interfere in the economy, and if they can't do it, then there's no point in them). Democracy also becomes redundant because it is precisely through it that intervention in the economy is guaranteed (the interests of one group are promoted at the expense of others). The welfare state becomes impossible.
The above things, in my personal opinion, cannot be changed just like that. A change in people's views is required. I support the opinion of a guy named Le Bon that such changes happen with revolutions, not gradually. He claims, for example, that the French Revolution (transition from monarchy to republic) happened because there was a change in the views of the majority of people. And even with such a change, the transition did not happen peacefully. The existing system (monarchy) did not just happen. A revolution was necessary. And only after the revolution did the social order change.
In this sense, I am of the opinion that the current political system cannot reform itself. Power, as the saying goes, "is not given, but taken by force." That is, the system has no incentive to change itself and will actively resist any attempt to change it. As one of the writers above correctly noted, nothing will follow from the fact that, for example, 90% will not vote. The remaining 10% will acquire legitimacy and they will decide. If they do not have this legitimacy, then the laws will be changed so that they acquire it.
When a system is crooked, there are often no right solutions to problems. They are all wrong, i.e. bad. And the question of whether to vote or not is exactly such a problem. Whether you vote or not - it's still bad. You can only choose bad or worse. Within the existing system, there is no other option. That's why I maintain that in the existing system, one should "choose the lesser evil."
Conditions for changing the system do not exist. People are convinced that the ideas they profess are correct (democracy, welfare state, etc.). They are so convinced that they would even kill for them. In such conditions, change cannot occur.
More specific comments:
"Then the logical question arises - if there is no party with a truly pro-market ideology, should one still vote?"
A party with a pro-market ideology could never prevail. It would not have enough supporters. Its views contradict current beliefs. Moreover, the party itself would not want to change the system, because at its very foundation, parties are tools for acquiring power. No one who has acquired power voluntarily deprives themselves of it. This is part of human nature (i.e., a natural law). The only option is not to give it power. In this particular case, if a party with pro-market views were somehow created, then the conservatives would gradually gain the upper hand in it and it would gradually change its views towards supporting the status quo with small cosmetic changes (after all, it is pro-market!).
"But it is also an acknowledgement that the electoral process is not a process towards improving our lives, but a mechanism for choosing which (less?) evil person will rule us."
I don't know why the author thinks politicians are evil. It's true that in the tooth-and-nail struggle for power, the aggressive and unscrupulous (and intelligent) survive, but there are also people who go there with the good will to do something for the people. And these people are sincerely well-intentioned. When they go there, they find that they are engaged in a task that is impossible. You try to do good (for example, give money to the poor), and they spit on you (including the poor themselves). Someone is always dissatisfied, everything is done with enemas and all kinds of dirty political games. Probably some of these people get disgusted and leave, telling themselves, for example, that the person is bad and what else to expect. And another part accepts the political game and adapts. Anyway: I'm saying that there are also idealistic people out there who, however, have not realized that the problems they are trying to solve cannot be solved in the way they are trying to. On the other hand, they understand the above very well and therefore only look out for their own interests.
I completely agree with the article.
Over the last 25 years, people have been voting less and less, and as a result, the economic and social upswing has become more than obvious. Not only has emigration stopped, but we now have to take care of the incoming immigrants. The problem of overpopulation in the UK is perhaps the most pressing problem of society.
Of course, our politicians have merit for all this. After seeing the declining number of voters, they radically reevaluated their political approaches and means. They are using more and more sociological surveys and meeting with their voters more and more often.
The most amazing transformation, however, can be seen behind the scenes of B-politics. Having learned from the genius of the B-people - political directors, puppeteers, oligarchs and the like realized that buying votes is a completely unnecessary activity, and naturally they stopped. This colossal shift in thinking has had correspondingly colossal consequences. Since puppeteers and oligarchs no longer need to spend millions on buying votes and manipulating elections, they also found themselves with huge savings, which also eliminated the need to steal.
Of course, the world did not remain indifferent and is determined to follow God's example.
It began with the removal from curricula and the burning of the works of
Plato, Solon, Aristotle, John Locke, William Penn, Rousseau, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and the thousands of others who fought and died for people to have the right to vote.
And all this thanks to the genius of the Bulgarian people.
@Patilan
So much irony, I can't even write it.
Do you think that if we Bulgarians vote 100%, we will solve our problems or that at least the situation will improve?
@EE
There is no society/state without problems. The difference between developed countries and us is that they solve their problems and thus move forward. While we are still wondering - in the East or in the West.
Unfortunately, I see that 80% of the people around me are still fighting capitalism and Western imperialism. In other words, the transition for them has not even begun.
The problem is at a societal level, and more precisely - the inability of society to leave old mantras/ideologies behind and move forward.... as most former socialist countries did.
Namely, this ossification, or to be precise - psychosclerosis (hardening of thinking), is the reason why the transition is what it is today.
The situation will improve when society decides whether we will be a European state or a Russian colony. Since society is divided according to this geopolitical principle, it also produces parties divided according to this same principle. This is one of the reasons for this dirty and insane struggle for power.
If and when society decides in which direction it will integrate, this will bring the relevant politicians, and political infighting will decrease. The number of parties will also decrease.
p.p. I think things have improved in many ways in the last 25 years. It may sound shocking, but I like most of the politicians of the transition. I guess the question is whether you see the glass full or empty.
@patilan
I agree with a lot of what you say, but from a slightly different angle.
"The difference between developed countries and us is that they solve their problems and that's how they move forward."
I would add "... they solve their problems A LITTLE BETTER THAN US and that's how they move forward."
"The problem is at a societal level, and more precisely – the inability of society to leave old mantras/ideologies behind and move forward..."
Yes, the problem is at the ideological level, at the level of beliefs.
"The situation will improve when society decides whether we will be a European state or a Russian colony."
Here I would comment: "The situation will improve A LITTLE when......."
"Because society is divided along this geopolitical principle, it also produces parties divided along this same principle. This is one of the reasons for this dirty and insane struggle for power."
It's probably one of the reasons, as you say. However, it's one of the less important ones.
At its very core, democracy is a struggle for power. And the struggle will be just as dirty and insane as society is willing to accept. Don't think that in Germany or the United States, for example, the struggle is going differently.
And let me ask you: How do you explain that for a position with a salary of, say, 100,000 leva per year (prime minister), many millions are given? And the situation is like this not only in Bulgaria, but in all democratic countries. Are the parties (and their sponsors) doing it out of love for humanity?
"pp I think things have improved in many ways in the last 25 years."
Yes, in many ways we are better off than before. However, this does not apply to everyone and always. For example, a gypsy is worse off now. Pensioners too (that's why they vote for the BSP and there is a fondness for the "good old days" among them).
@EE
"How do you explain that for a position with a salary of, say, 100,000 leva per year (prime minister) many millions are given? And the situation is like this not only in Bulgaria, but in all democratic countries. Are the parties (and their sponsors) doing it out of philanthropy?"
Politics is done with money (like most things), so I don't see what the problem is.
In the West, at least this is public, and everyone can keep track of who pays for what.
Here ..... I have no idea how parties are financed here, but I see from time to time people jumping to Moscow to get their medal ...
"For example, a gypsy is worse off now. Pensioners too (that's why they vote for the BSP and there is a fondness for the "good old days" among them)."
This is a finding, but it doesn't mean anything in itself. Both social groups are free to live as they want. In fact, when you think about it, both groups are the most resistant to change/evolution. This also explains very well why they live worse.
But why are they worse?
Gypsies are culturally burdened and prefer to live as semi-nomads and engage in dubious activities. However, I don't think they define themselves (which is more important) as bad. They live day to day, don't think about tomorrow, and are happy no matter that they live in misery.
Pensioners are ideologically burdened, and live with the expectation that the state should solve all their problems. However, this is not impossible for purely economic reasons.
But think about it, what are the facts?
Bulgarian pensioners, like most pensioners around the world, are the richest social class. Are you shocked? The facts are facts, and they are that most real estate is owned by pensioners....
What prevents the Bulgarian pensioner from being like the English one? From selling his apartment in the city, buying a round-the-world trip for a month to see the world, and moving to the countryside where it is cheaper and quieter? The only thing stopping him is the software of his mind, and the attitude that the state should take care of everything.
Come to think of it, both groups live with expectations from society, but this model of existence is doomed, which results in their miserable existence.
Anyway, the topic is to be a leader or not.
The next time we get together for a beer, we'll play a game to demonstrate why we should vote.
p.p.
@EE
Things don't change because people have economic expectations of the state. Of course, they don't realize that it is the people who create wealth, and politicians simply seize and redistribute it.
So, we have people waiting for the state to fix them, and on the other hand, politicians waiting for people to make a few leva so they can take it from them. This is a stalemate and the only solution is for the people to develop.
Secondly, I don't think there are any problems with our politicians. They are the best that society can produce, so again the problem is not with the politicians but with the people.
The idea of voting is for people to take a more active public position, and God willing, a united one. And to realize that problems are not solved by standing in one place and waiting for a fairy tale hero to fix us.
Otherwise, with this course, our children will have to learn Turkish or Romani to find a job.
The stakes are much higher than some people being miserable (or getting rich)
@Patilan
We agree with you on the issue of people's expectations of the state and that the problem is in their heads. I'm more interested in what you expect to happen by saying things like:
"The idea of voting is for people to take a more active public position, and God willing, a united one. And to realize that problems are not solved by standing in one place and waiting for a fairy tale hero to fix us."
I don't agree that the above would change anything at all. But for the purposes of the discussion, let's assume that people take a "more active public position" and vote, say, 95% (100% only under communism 🙂 ). How do you think that would change anything? That would make politicians do what?
My argument is that economic problems are solved with less politics (i.e., foreign intervention in the economy), not more. And that attempts to interfere in the economy (which is the purpose of politics) are counterproductive.
And this "waiting for a fairy tale hero to fix us" thing has two sides.
The first one, which you and I agree with, is that people wait for the state to "fix them". This is a legacy from socialism and follows from the ideas that are preached in school. There (in school) the state is presented as a protective mother who will always take care of you, no matter what you do. In short: even if you shit yourself, it will wipe your ass.
The second side is this: The possibilities to "get better" are severely limited by the state, i.e. you are not given the opportunity to develop. You want to open a business? Thousands and millions of obstacles that have nothing to do with the free market (i.e. money, money and more money). Taxes, permits, etc. Not to mention the corruption of regulators (and their existence in general). And only after you pass these huge obstacles do you start fighting with your competitors.
Another problem is unemployment: it exists, and this means that as long as it exists, there will always be people dependent on the state, whether they want it or not. That is, because of unemployment, a part of people cannot do anything for themselves. The claim that the unemployed are to blame for this is wrong. The very concept of unemployment should not exist. And my view is that unemployment would not exist if the state did not interfere in the market (with the best, sincere and philanthropic intentions of course). And this would happen if the concept of politician disappeared.
By the way, people somehow expect politicians to be "honest", "honest" and when politicians are not like that, they shift the blame onto them, saying that you can see they were bad. Has it ever occurred to you for a moment that politicians cannot be "honest" and "honest" simply because the system does not allow it? An "honest" and "honest" politician would be thrown out not by his competitors, but by his own voters. The voters themselves do not know exactly what they want (and cannot know), but they always have an opinion and are willing to impose it if they can. For example, "Do you want more money?" - "We want"; "Do you want low taxes?" - "We want!". Okay, but the money for pensioners comes from taxes, so you can't want both at the same time! In order to pay more, you have to collect more! However, the people are not qualified to understand this! And the interesting thing is that whoever promises him both (i.e. promises the impossible) will be supported and elected! That is, a politician who lies will be the most beloved of the people. If you are honest - you leave immediately.
In short: people are lying to themselves; they are not clear about what their interests really are (and they cannot be clear), but you expect politicians to follow their will? And you expect that if a mass that does not understand anything (and cannot understand) is more active politically, then this will solve the problems? You are wrong!
@EE
Yes, I see that we have increasingly similar opinions.
"Has it ever occurred to you for a moment that politicians cannot be "honest" and "respectable" simply because the system does not allow it? An "honest" and "respectable" politician would be thrown out not by his competitors, but by his own voters."
I've realized this too. Self-censorship is a serious societal (and individual) disease. This is also one of the reasons why a normal politician cannot be broadcast.
However, there is more....
However, there is talk of the masses (people) and politicians. This is not only a simplified presentation, but also erroneous and creates misunderstanding and even opposition between the people and politicians.
This is extremely harmful to .... SOCIETY (Bulgarian).
The lack of understanding of what this society is, at least on the part of the intelligentsia and the ruling class, in my opinion, is a colossal mistake. The lack of understanding of society what SOCIETY is is a catastrophe.
We are all part of Bulgarian society - young, old, white, black, gypsies, Turks, Bulgarians, Armenians, Jews..., but most of all politicians.
I say politicians mostly, because every society elevates its best members, those who can best represent it, to lead them.
Let me repeat... politicians are a representative sample of Bulgarian society, and the best part of them. This applies to all societies!
So what you refer to as a state is simply the best and most educated part of society.
Once we know how society works, it is easy to see that a society that believes that the state should fix it produces leaders and statesmen who believe that the state should fix them. Unfortunately, however, the salary of a bureaucrat rarely exceeds 1000 leva. So, we have bureaucrats with high expectations and a small salary. This naturally leads to corruption, and what you find here
"The second side is this: The possibilities to "get better" are severely limited by the state, i.e. you are not given the opportunity to develop. You want to open a business? Thousands and millions of obstacles that have nothing to do with the free market (i.e. money, money and more money). Taxes, permits, etc. Not to mention the corruption of regulators (and their existence in general). And only after you overcome these huge obstacles do you start fighting your competitors."
What I mean by all this is that the problems are primarily in society. One way to solve these problems is to create alternative mini-societies (for example, a libertarian one), and gradually change public attitudes. However, change certainly comes slowly and only with action.
"And you expect that if a mass that doesn't understand anything (and can't understand) is more active politically, that this will solve the problems? You're wrong!"
I say again that I do not expect the problems to be solved. I expect society and people to act and develop. Even if they take wrong steps, society will learn and sooner or later will come to the right solution.
Let's first see what is achieved by not voting?
1. In this way, non-voters are stating that they are satisfied with the status quo.
2. However, their votes do not disappear, but are transferred to the voters - pensioners and ethnic minorities.
This is why politicians serve these two groups, simply because they are politically significant.
This is a fact and a completely normal process!
Pensioners receive increases (albeit meager ones) at the expense of other budgets such as healthcare and education.
Gypsies receive seemingly insane preferences such as free electricity, benefits, and who knows what else. However, this is a completely legitimate political and democratic process.
The irony is that the gypsies play by the rules and win, while most of the b-s fold, curse the gypsies and wonder why the politicians tolerate them.
Let me emphasize that the Gypsies are a more developed, united and democratically adapted society compared to the Greeks and naturally receive more preferences.
These are the "little" distortions that occur solely due to apathy and inaction.
Notice that I'm not talking about solving problems or "fixing" the country.
I'm talking about the consequences that non-voters cause, as well as national security.
And another thing, change happens slowly and in small steps. There was a speaker last fall, at one of the few libertarian gatherings I attended. He gave a very good example of how change happens in life. The example was about the Catalans and the Basques in Spain.
The Catalans play by the rules (understand democracy), they are united and over the years they have won small and at first glance insignificant privileges and rights. In the end, however, it turns out that with the many small privileges and victories, they are de facto largely autonomous. Formal independence is actually ... a pure formality.
The Basques, on the other hand, as the lecturer explained, are still walking around with knives, extremist and militarized, and in the past have even supported and led terrorist activities.
As a result, their chance of independence is very small.
The idea was that the bigger our dreams are, the less likely we are to achieve them. I know this goes against the clichés of big dreams and goals, but in life we don't (or rarely) see that big goals have very small steps. However, people focus on the goals, but not on the steps.
So people have big and wonderful ideas about how the state should function, and everyone expects, like in a fairy tale, for the hero to come and make their wishes come true. However, in life, wishes are fulfilled with work and action.
p.p. Have you ever thought, if voting had no meaning, why do so many oligarchs, puppeteers and who knows what else invest so much money and organize certain circles of people to vote? Do you imagine that they are stupid?
p.p.p. Now I remember that I have written on the topic before
http://patilan.blog.bg/drugi/2013/07/11/kakvo-se-sluchva-v-bylgariia-i-zashto.1128863
Unfortunately, however, I am not proud of my gift of speech.
@Patilan
"Self-censorship is a serious societal (and individual) disease."
A disease is a condition in which a person does not function as they should, but for objective reasons worse (for example, they feel sick, have a fever, etc.). Your so-called "self-censorship" (strange name) is not this case. And the reason is that society CANNOT function in any other way. There is no way for people to somehow become smarter, more educated, etc. They will always and without exception react in the same way. There are certain cultural differences between different nations, but if you haven't noticed, politicians everywhere are more or less the same. And the reason is that people are the same. So don't talk to me about a "disease". This is a NORMAL and NATURAL state of affairs and there is no way to avoid it.
"I say politicians above all, because every society raises its best members, those who can best represent it, to lead them."
Let me repeat... politicians are a representative sample of Bulgarian society, and the best part of them. This applies to all societies!"
Could you tell me where the above comes from? In my opinion, you just want to believe in it. The reality for me is different. Society produces people who suit it the most. And this means: saying the things it wants to hear, being understandable and generally going their way. For this purpose, you are required to be hypocritical, to have theatrical talent, to be able to feel which way the wind is blowing and to be intelligent. There are loads of people who are very good professionals, but they don't like to be hypocritical and that's why they are out of politics. And if they don't hypocrite, they won't elect them. And the reason is that their voters themselves are hypocritical and inconsistent and accordingly expect such behavior from those they elect. They wouldn't tolerate consistent behavior. So don't tell me that politicians are the cream of society: that's simply not true. They are the ones most adaptable to the given (crappy) conditions. Pure Darwinian competition (nothing to do with market competition). The fittest survive, in this case: crappy people. In one of Hayek's books there is a chapter "Why the worst come on top".
"I expect society and people to act and develop. Even if they take wrong steps, society will learn and sooner or later come to the right decision."
Society learns most often by trial and error. And if you notice, the whole history so far is a change in social attitudes. And people have always thought that their social attitudes (beliefs) are absolutely correct and not even a word can be considered a mistake. And try to explain to a peasant from the Middle Ages that you can live without a king. You will be happy if you get away alive for such sacrilege. So: today's society does not make any exceptions regarding its conviction in the correctness of its ideas. And when it sees that something is not working as it should, it usually blames human nature for it, i.e. that man was bad. I.e. our ideas are correct, but you see man ruins them.
"And another thing, changes happen slowly and in small steps."
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I already gave you the example of the French Revolution, I think. That's an example of rapid, sudden change. So, as Nassim Taleb says (was it him?): History doesn't crawl, it makes leaps.
"So people have big and wonderful ideas about how the state should function, and everyone expects, as in a fairy tale, for the hero to come and make wishes come true. In life, however, wishes are fulfilled with work and action."
And try "with hard work and actions" to make a truck out of bicycle parts! When the ideas are wrong, no matter how hard you try, nothing good will come of it. If you haven't noticed, there are problems that have been looking for a solution for decades and still haven't found it. The reason is that they are looking for it only and exclusively within the framework of acceptable and established ideas. This reminds me of a joke:
A drunkard is wandering around a street lamp at night looking for something. Another man passes by and asks him: "What are you looking for?" The man replies: "I lost my keys!", "Where exactly did you lose them?", "Over there in those bushes in the dark.", "Then why are you looking for them by the lamp and not there?", "Because it's brighter here!".
@patilan
"pp Have you ever thought, if voting had no meaning, why do so many oligarchs, puppeteers and the like invest so much money and organize certain circles of people to vote? Do you imagine they are stupid?"
I don't think they are stupid at all. They are very intelligent, in fact. People have seen that there is no more profitable business than politics. Where else can you make profits of 200-300, or even 1000%? The free market does not give such a return. How can you not be tempted to reach into the honey pot?
That's why politics shouldn't exist. If it doesn't exist, then these "oligarchs" (then they can't be such) will have to be content with market profits and earn them by the sweat of their brow. Right now, that's not necessary.
And I just decided that we understand each other.... but unfortunately I see that your desire to argue outweighs your desire to know and understand.... as a result, you start to contradict yourself a lot.
You say "society CANNOT function any other way. There is no way that people can somehow become smarter, more educated, etc. They will always and without exception react in the same way. There are certain cultural differences between different peoples, but if you haven't noticed, politicians everywhere are more or less the same. And the reason is that people are the same."
then you say
"Society learns most often through trial and error. And if you notice the whole story so far, it's a change in public attitudes."
What you fail to see is that you are referring to people, not society. Societies develop, but not within a few months or a year, but over decades and centuries. That is why it seems to many people that nothing is developing, and the people around them remain the same. This is because societies develop slowly. And sometimes it is too slowly and life in a peculiar way forces them to catch up with the delay - whether through war or some kind of cataclysm. However, I do not want to consider this as an option as a solution to the current problems of the country... not that it would surprise me.
I also didn't understand the example of the French Revolution.... this revolution is an example that revolutions (I mean internal violent revolutions, not liberation revolutions) lead only to destruction, and lead tyrants and dictators in their wake. And after tyrants and dictators comes even more destruction. The French Revolution is aptly named for an UNSUCCESSFUL revolution. Ruin, debts, death and a crippled people. These are the consequences of the French Revolution and France cannot get back on its feet for decades.
This is why scientists (sociologists, anthropologists, historians) say - "Evolution, not revolution"
Not only that, but on the other hand you say "politics should not exist"! Let's leave aside the fact that you don't give an alternative....
Don't you realize that you're contradicting yourself with "There's no way people can somehow become smarter, more educated, etc..."?
Politics did not fall from the sky. Namely, people who think that people cannot become smarter and more educated, think that politicians should rule, have more power and responsibility.
I don't want to offend you, but you think like a politician!
You refuse to understand that politicians are a function and a mirror of society. The more society does not want to take responsibility, the more society delegates these responsibilities to the authorities. Just as day cannot exist without night, just as good cannot exist without evil, so irresponsible, weak-willed and inert people cannot exist without leaders to correct them. As long as you believe that "There is no way that people can somehow become smarter, more educated, etc.", you will look for better and better politicians. But even you know that "politicians everywhere are more or less the same."
About this...
"Could you tell me where the above comes from?"
It follows from the way societies function.
The society of journalists chooses the most experienced and successful journalist to represent them.
The builders' society elects the most experienced and successful builder to represent them.
The Libertarian Society elects the most experienced and successful Libertarian to represent them.
The society of artists chooses the most experienced and successful artist to represent them.
The criminal community (mafia or any organized crime) chooses the most experienced and successful criminal to represent them.
There is no way the most experienced and successful builder can become the leader of a society of journalists, or the most experienced and successful artist can become the leader of a criminal group.
This is how societies function. It's a social law!
And the most absurd thing is that you yourself have already noted this.
"Society produces people who suit it the most. And this means: saying the things it wants to hear, being understandable, and generally making sense to them. For this purpose, you are required to be hypocritical, have theatrical talent, be able to feel which way the wind is blowing, and be intelligent. There are loads of people who are very good professionals, but they don't like being hypocritical and that's why they stay out of politics. And if they don't hypocrite, they won't elect them. And the reason is that their voters themselves are hypocritical and inconsistent, and accordingly expect such behavior from those they elect."
So, a society of hypocrites and inconsistent people elects hypocrites and inconsistent politicians.
I see that you understand the processes in society very well, but I don't know if you lack perspective. Maybe it's just that something has burned you - you can't believe that societies choose the best of themselves. Do you consider yourself to be something separate from Bulgarian society? Something more than Uncle Ivan from Gorno Nanadolnishte or Mango from Fakultetea? However, you need to understand that it's not you who defines what is good, but society. It's just that in our society you have to be hypocritical and inconsistent, simply because people are like that.
The worst thing is that you've read Hayek, but it seems like something is preventing you from even seeing what he wrote.
"There are three main reasons why such a numerous group, with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of your moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards.
So, educated and intelligent people have different opinions and views... no wonder you oppose me so much. People with different views have a hard time uniting into a party or an idea. They are loners... unlike people with low standards, who have no differences.
However, this has no meaning for society or democracy, because as it says on a building, "Unity is strength" - understand unity.
The only way things will progress is for educated, intelligent, and normal people to unite and act. Because no matter what you do, people with low standards will always unite and act.
And what I miss in your writings is an alternative!!!!
This is a sign of garden criticism.
I will allow myself to quote Georgi Ganev:
.....So in the space of human actions in its two dimensions: consequences for the actor and consequences for others, there are four quadrants. The first is the quadrant of those actions and those people whose actions lead to a net benefit for both the actor and others. These actions are smart. These people are smart.
The second is the quadrant of those actions and those people whose actions result in net harm to the actor but benefit to others. These actions (depending on whether the consequences are consciously sought or not) are either self-sacrificing or naive. These people are self-denying or naive.
The third quadrant is of those actions and those people whose actions result in a net benefit to the actor but a net harm to others. Depending on whether the consequences are conscious or not, these actions are bandit or parasitic. These people are bandits or parasites.
The fourth quadrant is of those actions and those people whose actions result in net harm to both the actor and those around them. These actions are stupid. These people are idiots.
Not voting (I'm talking about the normal situation where a person is normally at home on election day and voting would take between 15 minutes and half an hour without any other expense) falls unconditionally, without a shred of doubt, into the fourth quadrant. Not voting is stupidity/stupidity. Those who don't vote are fools/idiots.
More - on Mr. Ganev's profile - https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1017205278
@Toto5
"Not voting (I'm talking about the normal situation where a person is normally at home on election day and voting would take between 15 minutes and half an hour without any other expense) falls unconditionally, without any doubt, into the fourth quadrant. Not voting is stupidity/stupidity. Those who don't vote are fools/idiots."
You just explained to me that I (and at least some of the people writing and maintaining this site) are idiots.
Come on now, explain to me why I'm stupid. Because in the above I see only a bare statement without any grounds. By the way, I didn't vote because of the difficulty of doing it (it takes a lot of time), and also because I don't have a specific opinion on who to choose. Note that I also support the opinion that the lesser evil should be chosen, but I'm not trying to explain that others (non-voters) have no right to a different opinion. The difference between voting and not voting for me is very small and almost insignificant (on average).
@EE
My entire previous post was a quote from Mr. Ganev. I posted it here because I agree with his voting/non-voting thesis, although I don't accept his harsh tone (calling those who didn't vote fools/idiots).
You can see Mr. Ganev's detailed arguments as to why a vote should be held in his comments under the post on his Facebook page.
@Patilan
".... as a result, you start to contradict yourself a lot." "What you fail to realize is that you are referring to people, not society."
I didn't understand where I contradicted myself. I claim that human nature is the same and whoever tries to change it (socialists, etc.) will not succeed. What can be changed (and has changed throughout history) are the ideas and beliefs of people. When people are convinced that society should be democratic, they must come to terms with their existing politicians. And these politicians will be lousy. Bad consequences come from wrong organization. I don't know if this answers your question (you haven't clarified what exactly you mean).
"I didn't understand the example of the French Revolution either..."
I'm just giving it as an example of a change in the organization of society. And a drastic one at that. I'm not commenting on how successful the change was or whether there was a better option.
"About this...
"Would you tell me where the above comes from?"
It follows from the way societies function.
The society of journalists chooses the most experienced and successful journalist to represent them."
And where does the above follow from? I do not argue that market systems (when they work on a market principle) have a TENDENCY to choose quality people as leaders, but this is just a tendency, not a guarantee. And politics DOES NOT WORK ON A MARKET PRINCIPLE. There, people are chosen based on qualities that have nothing to do with their ability to solve economic or social issues. For example, based on how they look on television and whether their suit fits them well (for example, Georgi Parvanov).
Let me note that very often in an organization (even a market one) people are elected as leaders who are GREY, i.e. they do not have a clearly expressed position and for this reason no one can say anything against them. And that is why they are elected. In politics this is almost a principle. "Yes, I am for A's rights to increase, OF COURSE if B, C, D......."
So regarding:
"This is how societies function. It's a social law!"
I claim that you are mistaken.
"However, you must understand that it is not you who determines what is good, but society."
I'm not arguing about the issue at all. That's right. I'm arguing that society's definition of good is not correct (just as it was not correct in Egypt during the time of the pharaohs with the use of slaves).
"People with different views have a hard time uniting into a party or an idea. They are loners... unlike people with low standards, who have no differences."
However, this has no bearing on society or democracy, because as it says on a building, "Unity is strength" - understand unity as well."
You noticed correctly. However, the consequence of the above is that a person, even with more correct ideas than those of the majority, cannot realize them because society hinders him. And this hinders progress, i.e. the very people who hinder it.
"The only way things can progress is for educated, intelligent, and normal people to unite and act."
Lenin, Stalin and others like that were very intelligent people. And they united with others like that and ACTED. They took power and you know where they took it. In short: It doesn't matter how old you are and how active you are when you are moving in the wrong direction.
"And what I miss in your writings is an alternative!!!!
This is a sign of garden criticism."
It is missing from my writings because we have not settled on the topic. In short: I argue that a society CAN exist without politicians and it will function better. If you want, let's drop the other topics and concentrate on this one. And I am not like Hayek (a democrat). In fact, as far as I have read, I do not see how his ideas about non-intervention in the economy are feasible in the presence of democracy.
Very well, I don't like endless arguments...
Well, I really like what you ended up with.
"I argue that a society CAN exist without politicians and it will function better...."
I completely agree with that, but it depends on which society.
In my opinion, this is the ultimate goal of every society, and it is solely a matter of evolution.
I even wrote on my blog about the issue of the pointed and flat social pyramid:
"The sovereign, the sole ruler, was high up, and far from interested in the needs of the common man. Not only that, but people had no rights, and even their lives were worth absolutely nothing. The execution of random passers-by by those in power (kings and nobles) was common in the Middle Ages. In this case, the state is not identified with the people, but with those in power. This social structure is naturally unstable, and the pyramid (the state) can easily be toppled by slight external pressure. In the following few centuries of social evolution, the pyramid becomes flatter and flatter...
This is expressed in the rapprochement of those in power and the people, as well as in the elimination of one-person governments and the evolution of societies and political systems into increasingly multi-person governments – frequent change of kings, rather than lifelong rule. This is followed by multi-person government (oligarchy), one-party (authoritarian) and subsequently multi-party (democratic) government. This process is not only slow, but can only be started from below – by the people themselves. Namely, this is the goal of social evolution – for normal people to take on more and more responsibility for activities that are believed to be done only by the state. This is a much more stable social structure, because decisions are made from the bottom up, and whatever happens to those in power – the state remains stable. In this case, the state is not identified with those in power, but with the people."
So, the goal is for the pyramid to become flatter and flatter until the top (leaders/politicians) disappears.
Of course, this depends solely on the people and their attitude towards the government.
And the attitude of the left towards the government can be summarized like this
"Bulgaria scores high on this dimension (score of 70) which means that people accept a hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further justification. Hierarchy in an organization is seen as reflecting inherent inequalities, centralization is popular, subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat"
http://geert-hofstede.com/bulgaria.html
This partly explains the president's fondness for Todor Zhivkov.
@Toto5
I'm interested in your opinion, not Mr. Ganev's. It's none of my business.
to guess how much you agree/disagree with his opinion. You are very
intelligent person and you can certainly express a personal opinion (even a complete
(agree with Mr. Ganev), but I want to hear it from you, not from Ganev. The option: "If you want
to understand what I mean, please read that thick tome" I never liked it.