democratic reforms: direct election

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


Don't buy that. Every society needs some form of consensus between its members (at least between the majority of them) or it would break down sooner or later. The law/constitution is the expression of that basic consensus. You cannot have effective law when nobody agrees about it - then you rather get civil war or tyranny.

I said "liberal" democracy. You can have a democracy in which minorities are denigraded and kept in a second class status. That is not "liberal", and I doubt a "free society" as Az says.

BUt on top of that, the "social contract" need not be democratic at all. After all, Feudal systems had a working social contract in which a rich and armed aristocracy protected a weak and poor peasentry in exchange for upkeep.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
Media is already a crucial political instrument. If it is manipulation you're talking about, this will actually have positive effect, as well, because you can't spin lies all the time. It has to be done in measured quantities.

Since when is "spin" "lies"?

The two are different things. And you can spin forever my friend, forever.

[Az]

I define a "free society" as a society in which there is a free market of ideas - not only free in range, but also free from "cartelization" such as youth indoctrination, and outside influence, such as money, on exposure of ideas, and their proliferation. Even if it remains an utopia, it's still something worth striving towards.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Az
I define a "free society" as a society in which there is a free market of ideas - not only free in range, but also free from "cartelization" such as youth indoctrination, and outside influence, such as money, on exposure of ideas, and their proliferation. Even if it remains an utopia, it's still something worth striving towards.

How can you separate "money" from the market of ideas? After all, how would the use of space in whatever medium you wish be rationed out? Under what form would the time given to each idea be decided? In a free market of ideas, money would invariably rule.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


I said "liberal" democracy. You can have a democracy in which minorities are denigraded and kept in a second class status. That is not "liberal", and I doubt a "free society" as Az says.

BUt on top of that, the "social contract" need not be democratic at all. After all, Feudal systems had a working social contract in which a rich and armed aristocracy protected a weak and poor peasentry in exchange for upkeep.

Yup, but this does not contradict my main point that not only the law itself keeps a society intact, but also a general understanding in this society about the legitimacy of the form of rule.

Sure, the social contract does not need to be (liberal) democratic and it wasn't always, but that in itself does not mean that only the law keeps a modern society from becoming non-democratic. If the majority would quickly change society into that direction without the current law, then why does it not simply vote in masses for non-democratic forces which would do those changes? There are extremist groups and parties en masse in our countries, but they do hardly get real big influence and IMO this cannot be explained purely due to the law.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


Yup, but this does not contradict my main point that not only the law itself keeps a society intact, but also a general understanding in this society about the legitimacy of the form of rule.

Sure, the social contract does not need to be (liberal) democratic and it wasn't always, but that in itself does not mean that only the law keeps a modern society from becoming non-democratic. If the majority would quickly change society into that direction without the current law, then why does it not simply vote in masses for non-democratic forces which would do those changes? There are extremist groups and parties en masse in our countries, but they do hardly get real big influence and IMO this cannot be explained purely due to the law.

I think that we are using different terminology here.

when I speak of "The Law", I am not talking simply about specific codes and regulations. I am speaking of the legitimacy of those codes and regulations, a legitimacy granted to them by the underlying legitimacy of the governing body.

In a democracy, soverignty and therefore legitimacy is supposed to lie with the people. In a liberal democracy this is modified slightly because The Law is given the power to limit the soverign and its legislative powers in order to secure individual rights.

That impulse of liberal democracy, the limiting of sovereignty by Law, is a teneous one, specially when it is assumed that the masses themselves are Sovereign-after all, why should there be ANY limiation on the soverign powers of the masses? Its not the same as rule by an oligarchy, monarchy, or tyrant. If 80% of the people think you should not have any rights, why should you have rights? What is greater than the Soverignty of the masses? What should be greater?

Direct rule by the masses tests this basic question, and in my mind, would kill it, because the masses are not that keen on limits on their sovereignty.