Democracy should be defined by its ability to peacefully remove unpopular policies and rulers, rather than focusing on who should rule.
Compromise often fails to achieve optimal outcomes and inhibits learning and progress in politics.
Deep dives
Reconceptualizing Democracy
The podcast explores the concept of democracy and challenges the traditional understanding of who should rule. It questions Plato's idea of democracy, where the focus is on identifying the rulers, and proposes an alternative perspective. According to this alternative view, democracy is not about who should rule, but rather about having a system that allows for the effective removal of policies and rulers without resorting to violence. The quality of a democratic system is measured by its ability to efficiently remove people or policies disliked by the majority. This redefinition of democracy emphasizes the importance of peaceful transitions and the ability to correct errors rather than searching for the perfect ruling method.
The Poverty of Compromise
The podcast also discusses the concept of compromise and its limitations. While compromise is seen as a virtue in resolving conflicts, it is argued that it may not lead to optimal solutions. Rather than finding a midpoint between conflicting ideas (x and y), the compromised idea (zed) often fails because it does not fully satisfy either party. This failure to achieve the best outcome inhibits learning and progress. This idea of compromise is also linked to science, where the goal is not to find the true theory, but to eliminate incorrect ideas. In politics, the poverty of compromise hinders real progress, as it maintains a cycle of returning to the original ideas (x and y) without learning from the failures of the compromised solution (zed).