[EM] language/framing quibble

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Sat, 31/1/09, Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net> wrote:

> Good Morning, Juho
> 
> re: "People are not always good at reason based free
> discussions."
> 
> How could they be?  What, in our political systems,
> encourages "reason based" discussions?  The method
> I've outlined cultivates such discussion among the
> electorate.  Not the pseudo-discussion of campaign-based
> politics, but real discussion among real humans; the
> 'people' you malign.

In theory many systems are supposed to
support sincere discussions and wise
decision making (e.g. single-party
systems). In practice they easily get
corrupted, or people find ways around
the good principles. Continuous effort
is needed to 1) think if the principles
of the current system could be improved,
2) monitor the current system to keep it
on the planned track, 3) develop new
ideas that could then be carefully
considered and tested and adopted,
4) react to changes in the environment
and in the society itself.

> 
> The value of an open, discussion-based system that embraces
> the entire electorate can be seen in the political
> philosophy of Alasdair MacIntyre of Notre Dame University,
> as cited in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Dr.
> Edward Clayton of Central Michigan University.
> 
> (Available at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/p-macint.htm)
> 
> To convey a tiny hint of the significance of
> MacIntyre's work, here are a few passages from
> Clayton's essay:
> 
>    When everyone is allowed access to the political
> decision-
>    making process, "The matters to be discussed and
> decided on
>    will not be limited as they are now;

Sounds a bit pessimistic concerning the
current state and a bit optimistic
concerning the planned future state.
Good principle though.

> they will extend to
>    questions about what the good life is for the community
> and
>    those who make it up."
> 
>   "The benefits of a practice would then flow to those
> who
>    participated in politics -- in fact, certain important
>    benefits could only be achieved by political
> participation
>    -- and politics would make people more virtuous rather
> than
>    less virtuous as it now does."
> 
>   "When we have made the changes MacIntyre wants to
> see, politics
>    will no longer be civil war by other means: 'the
> politics of
>    such communities is not a politics of competing
> interests in
>    the way in which the politics of the modern state
> is'. It is
>    instead a shared project, and one that is shared by all
>    adults, rather than being limited to a few elites who
> have
>    gained power through manipulation and use that power to
> gain
>    the goods of effectiveness for themselves."

I'd be happier to hear opinions like
"the current system (Democracy and all
the related details) has the correct
principles but it does not work well
enough in some places and on some
topics". One can not eliminate
"competing interests" but one can
build systems that can handle them
better than today. The project should
be a "shared project" already now
(democracy ~= "we decide").

> 
>   "Politics will be understood and lived as a
> practice, and it
>    will be about the pursuit of internal goods/goods of
>    excellence rather than external goods/goods of
> effectiveness."
> 
>   "It is only because and when a certain range of
> moral
>    commitments is shared, as it must be within a community
>    structured by networks of giving and receiving, that not
> only
>    shared deliberation, but shared critical enquiry
> concerning
>    that deliberation and the way of life of which it is a
> part,
>    becomes possible"
> 
> Would that I had the wit and wisdom to enthuse others to
> make our political infrastructures more democratic ... and
> more amenable to the dynamics MacIntyre describes.  We would
> all benefit.
> 
> 
> re: "I think all political debates easily become
> confrontational,
>      both free discussion based and fixed position (e.g.
> party)
>      based."
> 
> That is certainly true of party-based discussions.  It need
> not be true of free discussion, though.  Free discussion can
> concern itself with problem-solving rather than ideological
> posturing, and, as MacIntyre suggests, will tend to do so,
> naturally.

I think it is possible to establish
"discussion fora" that are relatively
conflict free and have open discussions.
The problems tend to come when the
system is involved with real decision
making, when it offers people parts to
climb the ladders of hierarchy in the
society etc. In that situation we just
need to be clever and plan the system so
that it will work in the intended way
despite of all the varying altruistic
and selfish interests.

> 
> 
> re: "I don't think parties are necessary."
> 
> You could have fooled me.

I may defend parties when you refer to
them as no-good entities. That doesn't
mean that I would have a black or white
approach to them. There are various
shades of gray as well as colours (that
are more positive by nature :-).

> 
> 
> re: "Few species kill each others as eagerly and as
> intentionally
>      ... as we do."
> 
> As long as our political systems are based on ideological
> confrontation, such results are inevitable.

Yes, strong confrontations are dangerous.
We must learn to control them.

Juho


> 
> Fred Gohlke
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info