Ideas wanted: democracy in an Em world

Stuart_Armstrong

One person, one vote - a fundamental principle of our democratic government. But what happens in a world where one person can be copied, again and again?

That is the world described by Robin Hanson's "Em economics". Ems, or uploads, are human minds instantiated inside software, and hence can be copied as needed. But what is the fate of democratic government in such a world of copies? Can it be preserved? Should it be preserved? How much of it should be preserved? Those are the questions we'll be analysing at the FHI, but we first wanted to turn to Less Wrong to see the ideas and comments you might have on this. Original thoughts especially welcome!

To start the conversation, here are some of the features of idealised democracy (the list isn't meant to be exhaustive or restrictive, or necessarily true about real world democracies). Which of these could exist in an Em world, and which should?

Democracy grants legitimacy to the government.
Democracy is fair and egalitarian - each person has a single vote.
Democracy aligns the interests of the rulers with that of the ruled.
Democracy is stable - powerful groups can generally seize power within the structure, rather than overthrowing it.
Democracy allows the competition of governing ideas.
Democracy often leads to market economies, which generate large wealth.
Democracy often lead to welfare states, which increase happiness.
Democracy doesn't need to use certain coercive methods, such as restrictions on free speech, that other systems require to remain stable.
Democracy stops a particular group from hanging on to power indefinitely, which can reduce corruption, inefficiency and excessive use of state power for private purposes.

EDIT: For clarification purposes, I am not claiming that democracies achieve these goals, or that these are all desirable. They are just ideas to start thinking about.

One person, one vote - a fundamental principle of our democratic government. But what happens in a world where one person can be copied, again and again?

Democracy grants legitimacy to the government.
Democracy is fair and egalitarian - each person has a single vote.
Democracy aligns the interests of the rulers with that of the ruled.
Democracy is stable - powerful groups can generally seize power within the structure, rather than overthrowing it.
Democracy allows the competition of governing ideas.
Democracy often leads to market economies, which generate large wealth.
Democracy often lead to welfare states, which increase happiness.
Democracy doesn't need to use certain coercive methods, such as restrictions on free speech, that other systems require to remain stable.
Democracy stops a particular group from hanging on to power indefinitely, which can reduce corruption, inefficiency and excessive use of state power for private purposes.

EDIT: For clarification purposes, I am not claiming that democracies achieve these goals, or that these are all desirable. They are just ideas to start thinking about.

Democracy grants legitimacy to the government.

What? "legitimacy" is a memetic power-device (ie. weapon) to coerce people to psychologically accept the status quo, not a real desirable thing. Democracy only grants legitimacy to government if the relevant powers have been convinced (by use of other memetic tools) that it does.

Democracy is fair and egalitarian - each person has a single vote.

Why is this a good thing? Why do we need to raise power to a sacred status? I have no power over the actions of google, and yet I don't find myself the least bit inconvenienced by it. Further, I actually appreciate google not being a democracy, because it means other idiots can't interfere. Why should government be different? Why in the domain of government do I have to trust the 99% of the population that is less intelligent than me to govern my life?

(note that having equal votes is orthogonal to more directly valuable forms on egalitarianism, like having equal opportunity)

Democracy aligns the interests of the rulers with that of the ruled.

Not really. People often don't know their own interests, and aren't really capable of steering government coherently (see strategic voting, and the game theory (note that it's game theory, not human interest) behind most of the outcomes in democracy)

Further, democracy creates incentive by the powerful (ie media, education system) to "align the interests of the ruled with their own interests" ie manufacture consent. Hence psychological mechanisms like "legitimacy", "rights", and so on.

Democracy allows the competition of governing ideas.

Yup. Though "allows" is a bit weak. It encourages particular forms of disagreement and factionalism.

Democracy often leads to market economies, which generate large wealth.

Selection effects, correlation, causation, etc. Most rich countries are democracies, but most democracies are third world hellholes. Maybe democracy only works in already wealthy civilized countries and elsewhere leads to political violence? (see africa).

Democracy often lead to welfare states, which increase happiness.

I don't know much about this, but again, may be good to examine the exact causal linkage.

Democracy doesn't need to use certain coercive methods, such as restrictions on free speech, that other systems require to remain stable.

Democracy encourages ruling powers to tweak the beliefs of the ruled. Further, only certain forms of free speech are really allowed. You can't say certain things publicly without losing friends or even having internet vigilantes bring the hammer down on you. There are no explicit laws (except in europe), but the coercion is still there.

Democracy stops a particular group from hanging on to power indefinitely, which can reduce corruption, inefficiency and excessive use of state power for private purposes.

Maybe. This could be seen in other lights. Also, the civil service is more or less permanent.

I don't strongly believe these criticisms of democracy, but please don't just take the religion you were raised with and run with it. I little bit of skepticism is appropriate when dealing with such choices (the entire future!). There are other systems that may be easier and more effective, especially with ems thrown in.

The success of democracy is not really based on design, but more luck in that it turned out to work as well as it does in the conditions under which it works. Em's change enough that it may not be effective at all anymore, and not worth fixing.

Democracy is at best a form of theocracy that prevents violent political conflict (when installed correctly, causes it otherwise). "Theocracy" is not necessarily bad, but let's be realistic about how it works (everyone more-or-less religiously agrees on it). Once you see it like this, there are other possible theocracies, possibly better ones.

Corporations are held in check by the government so they don't actually hurt you. The only thing holding the government in check is democracy. It's far from perfect, but what other options do we have to keep the government from becoming arbitrarily corrupt?

8Stuart_Armstrong13y

I am not advocating democracy, I'm listing some of the features claimed for it, in order to start people thinking. For the record, I think most of these claims are somewhat true, but only to a weak extent, but that's not relevant to this discussion.