You make some good points, Michael. The purpose of my post was to remind the participants on this list that "pure" democracy is ultimately very dangerous. I'm sure most of them know that, but an occasional reminder does no harm.<br>
<br>Without a strong guarantee of individual rights, the best form of "democracy" based on the best election methods will only end in tyranny by the majority. If the majority is allowed to silence a minority or arbitrarily take away some of their wealth and give it away to others in the interest of "fairness," we are in trouble. (And of course I mean minority in a general sense, not just racial minorities.)<br>
<br>That's precisely why democracy in the Middle East is not likely to result in more freedom, for example. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.<br><br>--Russ P.<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Michael Allan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@zelea.com">mike@zelea.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Russ Paielli wrote:<br>
> The main problem with our political system today is that far too few<br>
> people understand what freedom and individual rights mean. The Bill<br>
> of Rights is just the start of it. Property rights are essential to<br>
> any real notion of freedom, and they are also essential to<br>
> prosperity. When half the population thinks the gov't should take<br>
> from those who have "too much" and give to others who "don't have<br>
> enough," we are in trouble. Yet that's exactly where we are. The<br>
> greatest election methods in the world cannot save us from those<br>
> kind of voters.<br>
<br>
In support of your argument, Kant says there is only one essential<br>
right: [1]<br>
<br>
_Freedom_ (independence from being constrained by another's choice),<br>
insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in<br>
accordance with a universal law, is the only original right<br>
belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity.<br>
<br>
This is the right to enjoy one's property in private, to speak freely<br>
in public, and to pursue other non-rival freedoms. Yet this right<br>
which each of us has in principle can only be safeguarded in practice<br>
by our participation in politics. The 18th century economy gave<br>
wealth to the middle classes, while its technology (printing press,<br>
letter post) gave them information of public affairs and the ability<br>
to communicate widely. Modern democracy was born of the efforts of<br>
shop owners, professionals and other bourgeoisie to secure and<br>
exercise these new freedoms. [2]<br>
<br>
Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:<br>
> If people want redistribution, then giving them more democracy will<br>
> lead to more redistribution. If that is a problem with the people,<br>
> then it is a problem with democracy, and as such, a more accurate<br>
> democracy would have a greater problem with it.<br>
<br>
We must trust people to make sensible decisions, as Juho puts it. If<br>
the voters in one state manage to alienate their entrepreneurs and<br>
derail their economy, then hopefully the voters (and entrepreneurs)<br>
elsewhere will heed the lesson and work together to avoid a similar<br>
fate.<br>
<br>
Juho Laatu wrote:<br>
> If we go back to the EM topics, good methods need good and simple<br>
> and credible models and philosophies to allow regular people<br>
> (voters) to make sensible decisions on which routes to take. One<br>
> does not work well without the other.<br>
<br>
The two topics might be related. If individual freedoms are as<br>
important as Russ says (and Kant), then would it make sense to<br>
evaluate our voting methods in terms of which affords the greatest<br>
freedom to the voter? Or might the voter be systematically<br>
constrained by the voting method, and yet still show a deference to<br>
the freedom of others in his/her decisions?<br>
<br>
<br>
[1] Immanuel Kant. 1797. The Metaphysics of Morals. Edited by Mary<br>
Gregor. Cambridge Universtity Press. 1996.<br>
<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=MJcrTG6tJsAC&pg=PA30#f=true" target="_blank">http://books.google.com/books?id=MJcrTG6tJsAC&pg=PA30#f=true</a><br>
<br>
[2] Habermas, Jürgen. 1962. The structural transformation of the<br>
public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society.<br>
Translated by Thomas Burger, 1989. MIT Press, Cambridge,<br>
Massachusetts. <a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=e799caakIWoC" target="_blank">http://books.google.ca/books?id=e799caakIWoC</a><br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Michael Allan<br>
<br>
Toronto, <a href="tel:%2B1%20416-699-9528" value="+14166999528">+1 416-699-9528</a><br>
<a href="http://zelea.com/" target="_blank">http://zelea.com/</a><br>
----<br>
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a href="http://electorama.com/em" target="_blank">http://electorama.com/em</a> for list info<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://RussP.us">http://RussP.us</a><br>