Finding the probable best candidate?

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Blake said:

So the existence of candidates that are best for specific individuals
proves that there are no absolute best candidates? I claim that toads
don't exist. After all, you admit that frogs do exist. What more proof
do you need?

I reply:

I must admit that I don't understand the connection between your
frogs and toads and your claim that there's a single absolute best
candidate when various people consider different candidates to be
the obvious genuine absolute best. What can "best" mean under those
conditions, unless it is with reference to a particular voter or
group of voters? Is it that you're depending on an oracle?

You gave an example about a candidate who claimed the earth was
flat. That's a factual issue. Our elections have important issues
that are not factual issues, and whose answers aren't provable
even in principle.

How much should we help the homeless? Is the price in lives and
billions of dollars justified in order to win some war for which
certain benefits are claimed if we win? Should general tax revenue
be used to pay for the automotive infrastructure such as highways,
roads, streets, parking space, highway patrol, etc.?

These issues have relevant sub-issues that are factual, of course.
How many homeless are there? What will the war cost? But the issues
themselves are not factual issues. It's a matter of "Is this benefit
worth that cost?" "Is that undesirable result worse than this
undesirable result?"

As I said, the answers aren't provable even in principle.

Blake continued:

But why do we prefer democratic voting systems? I like democracy
because I think that it provides better government than the
alternatives.

I reply:

We all like it for that reason. Suppose that Mike says, "At least
democracy is our insurance against a rule by someone like
Blake.", and Blake says "At least Democracy is our insurance against
a rule by someone like Mike."

We agree that democracy is our best bet, even though I believe that
the policies that you consider best are the worst, and you believe
the policies that I consider best are the worst.

Agreement that democracy is the best idea certainly doesn't imply
any absolute "best".

Blake continues:

But you think that better government is meaningless.

I reply:

We can all agree that democracy is better than the risk of worse
governments, even though we have no agreement on which is worse than
which. What's meaningless is that in some absolute verifiable-in-principle 
sense, one government is better than another, or
one particular candidate is the absolute best.

Blake continues:

So
democracy, like any standard, can't really be defended, but must be
accepted dogmatically.

I reply:

We don't defend standards dogmatically (though I shouldn't
speak for you). We describe standards, and if someone likes them they
do, and otherwise they don't. That's it. We can point to the popularity
of a standard, and suggest that a less poplular standard won't win
popularity.

Blake continued:

We like democracy because it is more democratic.

I reply:

Are you saying that, or quoting me as saying it? I didn't say it.
I told you in my previous message, and again, above, in this one,
why we like democracy.

Blake continues:

Your whole argument sounds like postmodernism.

I reply:

Then maybe there's something to postmodernism. But it's a funny
word. What would they call what comes after postmodernism?

Mike Ossipoff









_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com