Dan & All
Great post Dan! As the ratio of drafts to sent keeps growing, Dan's
"Breakfast with Denny" illuminates a number of points better than any of
my JUNK drafts, so I'll butt in on the conversation with Denny.
*****FORMS OF DEMOCRACY*******
DAN
> I feel democracy here in the US and that form of government called democracy
> in other parts of the world are not at all the same.
3WD
The form of government in any particular place is so integrated with all other
values that it is difficult to separate their influence and
interdependency on each other. Another related issue is depth. Not only
are there , as Rick indicated earlier, three quasi independent branches
of government, but just like the MoQ there are four distinct levels;
national, state or provincial, local, and individual . In theory these
levels are ordered very much like the dominance hierarchy of the MoQ:
Intellectual Level- Individual
Social Level-Local
Biological Level-State
InOrganic Level-National
The highest level of rights and responsibilities, in theory, lie with
the individual. The ideas of an individual (the minority of one) have the
right, the moral authority, to try to change or dominant all the lower
levels as long as this is done peaceably and within the jointly agreed
upon rules.
*******THE RULES******
DAN
> "So you're saying government is all about following rules..."
DENNY
> "Oh no," ..."The rules ARE government. That is what I never realized
> until I became part of it."
DAN
> "Because people come and go but the rules stay."
3WD
Herein lies both the strength and weakness of democracy. They start out
with just a few broad, reasonably understandable, "rules" like "The
Constitution" and "The Bill of Rights" which set up how the "rules" can
be made, implemented, changed, and enforced. "Rule makers" are then
elected at the national, state, and local level to fill in all the day
to day details. Within a very short period of time, a few hundred years
at most,
the number and complexity of "rules" grow to a point that no individual
or group can "know" them all in any useful sense. By and large the
"people come and go" and "the rules stay" continually growing ,
changing, conflicting and confusing.
MARCO
> The ancient Greeks, inventors of democracy, told that after a certain period
> it degenerates to demagogy. Is it happening?
3WD
Yes. The key to understanding this is the premise of radical empiricism
that individual "interest" or "attention" is limited commodity.
DENNY
> "Oh no," Denny snorted, with a small cloud of eggs spraying spraying
> from his chin. "The rules ARE government. That is what I never realized
> until I became part of it." .. He dipped his toast in his egg yolk and took a bite. "Rules are
> rules only as long as we respect them and government is what it is only as long as we respect
> it."
3WD
Denny's "attention" flips between eggs and government. His "respect",
the moral authority, of eating breakfast over-"rules" his conversation.
Such is
life. Out of the overwhelming flux of everything the amount of
"attention" that any individual or group can give to the "rules" and the
"rule makers" is limited. It is easy to see within this reality why an
individual or group "who tries to stir people up by appeals to emotion,
prejudice, etc. in order to win them over quickly and so gain power", a
demagogue, is effective and inevitable.
MARCO
Is it possible to restore the rule of the dreamers?
3WD
The jury is still out. And even if we get a majority verdict, it may not
be a good one.
********THEORY & PRACTICE*********
DAN
> "You mean all the stuff you taught in high school..."
DENNY
> "Was crap. I simply did not know how government really worked until I
> became part of it, you see.
3WD
Democracy starts out with the "theory" on the left but over time evolves
towards the "practice" on the right.
Democratic Theory Democratic Practice
Intellectual Level- Individual Intellectual Level- National
Social Level-Local Social Level-State
Biological Level-State Biological Level-Local
InOrganic Level-National InOrganic Level-Individual
Within a pluralistic empirical reality "interests" or "attentions" guide
what is gleaned from experience. If individual "interests" give rise to
the idea of a "needed" change in society this individual must then find
and convince others this "experience" is real and that the change is
necessary. If "interest" is to grow the "attention" of a political
champion or "demagogue" needs to be attracted so the "there oughtta be
law" process can gain momentum. But at any given time literally tens or
hundreds of thousands of "interests" like this are emerging and gaining
momentum. Allies are needed.
DENNY
> "In order to wield power a man has to court favors from powerful allies.
> Any man, it doesn't matter who. Every great leader has been a great
> leader because of the powerful allies they had backing them. I'm no
> different. And when you have powerful allies they have to be placated in
> some fashion or they can turn on you in an instant."
3WD
So my "demagogue" sets up a meeting with your " demagogue" and the
democratic political process starts in earnest. This is where the dark
side of a representative democracy rears it's ugly head.
DENNY
> But when I became part of government I
> realized idealism does not work because everyone has their own personal
> ideal they are striving towards. The name of the game in government, in
> successful government, is to compromise your ideals in such a fashion
> that they are within reach and yet to embrace the ideals of your peers
> at the same time, which is to say you want to be everything to everyone.
3WD
Our experience and Denny tells us that as our "interest" progresses in
all likelihood it will be compromised. Not just its own substance, but
our champion, to gain allies for our "interest", must give his support
to many "other
interests" all primarily in secret and many of these "other interests"
we may not be in our best interest or the interest of society as a
whole. So in the end , if we are successful, we probably gain one
compromised "rule" which IS in our interest and several other "rules"
which PROBABLY ARE NOT.
DAN
> "And they were not the will of the majority, either."
DENNY
> "The will of the majority is a farce. Democracy has nothing to do with
> that. .... That is the biggest misconception I think Europeans and other foreigners have of
> American democracy. It is not now, nor has it ever been, concerned with the will of the
> majority. ..... Listen. When we discuss legislation in Congress, I have yet to hear a
> congressman say it is in the interest of the majority. No. It is the minorities that get
> preferential treatment, if anything."
3WD
James Madison, in Federalist No. 10, clarified the dilemma of the majority
as the greatest threat to its own political system. Later Tocqueville
observed and described the threat of majority tyranny outside of the
political system. The protections integrated into the American
Constitution have proved over time that these threats of the majority
can be mitigated. What was not adequately addressed and that which is
currently threatening all democracies, mature and new, is the "Tyranny of
the Minorities."
And the problem of minorities is not only or even primarily a racial
one. Any group of values around which people can conjoin; religion,
economics, environment, nationalism, globalism, business interests,
education, abortion, capital punishment, or barking dogs will do. The
role of politics in this environment becomes organizing fragile
coalitions of diverse, often irreconcilable, minority interests into a
pseudo-majority, a majority that can wrestle the power away from the
sitting government based on promises made to a number of narrowly
focused minorities. Then starts the "pay backs are hell" process. While
in power this pseudo-majority, if successful, enacts a series of
narrowly focused "rules" which appeal primarily, and often only, to one
of the minority blocks. Most often this in done with little or no
regard for the good of the whole. If this is not done the fragile
coalition falls apart, little or nothing is accomplished, and a rolling
series of governments are empowered as has been case most recently in
Israel and India.
DENNY
> ... But soon we begin to see the reason for the rules that are in place... and rules cannot be
> broken without the entire system crumbling.
3WD
But Denny. "Remember the rules being, the rules only as long as we
respect them and government is what it is only as long as we respect it
?"
"Would you not agree that the shear number and increasingly narrow,
minority focus of the rules might be pushing a majority to disrespect them?"
" If there is no way any individual could or can know, except in the
most nebulous of ways, all the "rules" that currently apply to one's
existence, let alone "attend" to them, Is this not at least a partial
cause for disbelief or despair ?
"And you know getting a 'rule' enacted is just the start. It must
implemented and enforced. Forced on the "attention" of the populace.
The amount of will, power, and money needed to enact a 'rule' is tiny
compared to what is needed to implement and enforce it."
"What does the ever wandering "attention" of governments in these areas
do for respect ?"
"Sorry Denny, I'd like to fill you in on all the answers but, nature calls."
"It's been virtual, stop back by when you need real food."
3WD
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST