ComradeWho
Member
+50|6924|Southern California
beyond Rousseau's idea of freedom, which is dramatically different from what we tend to think of freedom being and not worth discussing here, is Rousseau's focus on political psychology.

Rousseau asks us how can democracy succeed when most social institutions (the family, the workplace, etc) that we participate in aren't democratic - but totalitarian.  we know that interacting with systems frequently and over long periods of time modifies the way we think and the way we act. when we vote every couple of years (participate in democracy) but spend the vast majority of the time in our day to day lives participating in systems which are anti-democratic - which type of institution are we likely to reflect in our personal behavior? when confronted with choices in your life which behaviors are we likely to replicate - those which we practice symbolically every few years or those which we practice daily and which the sustenance of our life is dependent on?

we must ask the question "how can we truly value or meaningfully participate in democracy when everything we encounter reinforces authoritarian hierarchies and our place in them."

it is incumbent upon people in any position of power to do whatever they can to build consensus based and discussion oriented communities which build the critical thinking skills of participants by encouraging a free flow of ideas. it is neither cute or valid to behave as if "this is not a democracy" unless one philosophically agrees at their core that authoritarian systems are preferable. it is totally irresponsible to exersize power in such a way unless encouraging a democratic community is not feasible. people with power must move beyond their perceived rights to exersize their power and think about the responsibility they have to setting rules which encourage the best possible effect on those that participate.

it is only when our social institutions reflect our values that we will attain the ends our values seek to bring about.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6779|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth
Interesting but it also asks the question, is there such a thing a a true democratic Government.  We call the British system democratic but the only event that subscribes to that is the day we vote them in (and if they have a referendum which they never do).  Once they're in power they make 99% of of decisions by themselves and the people don't get a say.  Of course, they would argue that parliament still have to vote on policies and these politicians 'represent' the people, but in reality they represent their parties and usually vote on whether it is party policy rather than personal opinion.  For example, we would not have been in the war if Blair had of asked the people.

A true democracy would be no parliament, no politicians, no head of state/pm/president but the people all agreeing on every policy their country needs.  Obviously this would take up too much of most people's time which is why we have politcians but in truth there is no such thing as complete democracy in existence as the moment, just totalitarianism with a pinch of democracy thrown in...
ComradeWho
Member
+50|6924|Southern California
whether or not a country lives up to the greek model of direct democracy is beside my point.
=OBS= EstebanRey
Member
+256|6779|Oxford, England, UK, EU, Earth

ComradeWho wrote:

whether or not a country lives up to the greek model of direct democracy is beside my point.
So what's you point? Is it that all the influences you mentioned, family/work, should be more democratic?  Although the comparison is interesting, it's also obvious why they are the way they are.  If you had a single mother with two kids and they go out and steal, are you saying she shouldn't punish them or exert authority because democratically she is outnumbered?  That is crazy is anyone's books and it is quite obvious why there are hierarchies in families. 

As for work, I have a degree in Business Management and I could really bore you with the ethics and consequences of different business structures and how flat vs tall works but I wouldn't want to bore you...
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA
I broadly agree with you, except for here:

ComradeWho wrote:

it is incumbent upon people in any position of power to do whatever they can to build consensus based and discussion oriented communities which build the critical thinking skills of participants by encouraging a free flow of ideas. it is neither cute or valid to behave as if "this is not a democracy" unless one philosophically agrees at their core that authoritarian systems are preferable. it is totally irresponsible to exersize power in such a way unless encouraging a democratic community is not feasible. people with power must move beyond their perceived rights to exersize their power and think about the responsibility they have to setting rules which encourage the best possible effect on those that participate.

it is only when our social institutions reflect our values that we will attain the ends our values seek to bring about.
The problem with 'consensus based' government is that of the 'tyranny of the majority.'

Alexander Tytler wrote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.
Sovereignty should lie with the individual, who should treat others as sovereign entities as well.  Sovereignty of the individual is the only way to ensure that it will not be abused with respect to those over whom one is sovereign.

Furthermore, your proposed solution does not solve the issue you brought up about authoritarian systems in daily life (not that I think it is a problem that necessarily requires solving).

Personally, I think the biggest problem is the worldwide acceptance that Governments should hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.  The ONLY legitimate use of force is in reaction to force; Governments have exempted themselves from this principle, and we tolerate it.  We should not.  Wherever sovereignty lay, it is not a license for the use of force against others.

=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:

Interesting but it also asks the question, is there such a thing a a true democratic Government.  We call the British system democratic but the only event that subscribes to that is the day we vote them in (and if they have a referendum which they never do).  Once they're in power they make 99% of of decisions by themselves and the people don't get a say.  Of course, they would argue that parliament still have to vote on policies and these politicians 'represent' the people, but in reality they represent their parties and usually vote on whether it is party policy rather than personal opinion.
A 'Democratic' system need not be a 'Democracy.'  Democracy is rule by the people (directly).  A Democratic system only requires that the people have a voice.  The former is definative, the latter is descriptive.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-06-09 08:06:10)

ComradeWho
Member
+50|6924|Southern California
no there's no problem with consensus based leadership and a tyranny of the majority
those are problems that are the result of legal systems not of concepts
yerded
Bertinator
+255|6865|Westminster, California
I think we long for theocracy if the King reflects our ideals, and long for Democracy  ( mob rule ) if he doesn't.
Nice post.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6943|US
Concensus based leadership is fine in some circumstances.
Tyranny of the majority is usually a very bad thing for the minority.

Unfortunately, the best interests of the majority will not always be acted on.  For example, most people agree that we should use alternative energy.  However, few people currently buy products that use them (hybrid cars for example).  I believe that this is part of the reason that power is given to a select few.  We give them the authority to act, so that the long term interests of the majority will be served.
whittsend
PV1 Joe Snuffy
+78|6987|MA, USA

ComradeWho wrote:

no there's no problem with consensus based leadership and a tyranny of the majority
those are problems that are the result of legal systems not of concepts
Are you suggesting that consensus based system can be employed without a legal system?  If you are, I'd be interested in the details; it sounds Anarchic.  That doesn't make the idea valueless, but it isn't one that I believe in myself.

If you are saying that one can have a legal system which embodies the concept of consensus based leadership without any danger of tyranny from the majority, I will have to disagree.  That has been a problem, to a lesser or greater degree, in every consensus based system which has ever existed.

Unfortunately, it is human nature to accrue benefits to oneself.  If one can do so as part of a larger group, it becomes easier to do, and easier to justify ('...everyone else said/did/wants the same thing...')

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard