From: pacodegallo@attbi.com
Date: Sat Oct 05 2002 - 20:23:21 BST
Hi Erin, Nate and Kevin
You guys really need to help me out here. I can make no
sense out of what you are espousing.
PACO:
> 1) people are apathetic, and
> 2) this gives Democracy the ability to weigh not just
> the numbers but the WEIGHT OF CONVICTION. This isn't
> always a good thing, nor always a bad thing (but I
> suggest good overall
NATE:
Most people with high conviction, in my opinion, are
often zealots. Not a
minority I want running things.
PACO:
That is one of the reasons why the US is a
REPRESENTATIVE democracy with divided powers, multiple
levels of power, varying degrees of democratic
influence and even varying terms of service. As
minorities overextend their influence, apathy is
reduced and the majority can step in to counter. There
are also frequently oppositional or
offsetting "zealots," such as extreme hawks and extreme
doves. Without these elements (representation,
offsetting beliefs, separation of influence and weight
of conviction), majority (mob) rule could suppress any
minority position, regardless of how minor the benefit
is to the majority and how significant the benefit to
the minority.
I could also add that conviction and apathy are are two
sides of the same coin. I can't see how you can be
against apathy AND conviction.
PACO:
> Do you have any evidence either that:
> 1) Democracy (or representative Democracy) works
better
> at full rates of participation? or
> 2) What the ideal rate is?
Nate:
I think, personally, it works best not with apathy, not
with burning conviction,
but with interest and concern of the masses.
PACO:
You were the one that redefined conviction to "burning
conviction" and zealotry. But let's not go there...
OK, to test this we can then go to places or times that
meet our ideals, and see what the results were. Do you
have any examples? (My example is of course most of the
current versions of moderate-participation Western
Democracy.) Assuming we can find examples of your ideal
(a reasonable but by no means trivial assumption), we
can compare the results of our hypotheses and see which
one delivers the better results.
>PACO:
... according to your Democracy feelings, you must
>see Bush as a heck of leader, as he is approved of by
>the majority of apathetic and unapathetic Americans.
>For your sake, I hope your view of either Democracy or
>Bush is wrong.
>
> ERIN:
... I would like to suggest one of the reasons that his
> approval is so high because since Sept 11 if you say
> any criticism of Bush you get frowned upon.
> Frowns upon criticism of the government make me very
> nervous.
PACO:
So, criticism of your criticism makes you nervous? I
would suggest that REPRESSION of criticism is wrong,
but "criticism of criticism" is inherent in the right
of free speech. Erin's position seems disturbingly
close to "I can disagree with you, but you can't
disagree with me." Please "clean me up" if I am
misrepresenting it though. If the majority position is
peaceful and private criticism of criticism, you are
seeing democracy work, not fail (and they aren't
frowning out of apathy).
NATE:
Is it coincidence
that the majority of Americans are apathetic and that
the
majority of Americans approve of G.W.? There's some
concomitancy there.
PACO:
Possibly. Do you have any evidence that those more
apathetic are strongly correlated to support Bush? And
if they are so apathetic, why are they so firm in
their condemnation of your views (as below)? How does
this compare to the opinions of the apathetic to other
presidents? You may be right, but without some
empirical support, I wouldn't recommend just assuming
this. My guess is actually the opposite, but it is just
a guess.
NATE:
As for Erin's point, I'd have to agree. Before Sept.
11, Bush had a
fairly low approval rate, and when suddenly there was a
war to fight, yee-haw!,
the masses quickly approve and condemn anyone with
ideas of their own. The momen
I open my mouth with any criticism of the current war,
there are many quick to reduce me to some kind of
immoral monster, "But what
about the people who DIED in those towers?!"
PACO:
Strange! Here you are declaring yourself as a minority
with conviction (I assume a non-zealot) and hence
someone with the most to gain from the assumed apathy
of the majority that disagrees with you. If your
assumptions are correct, you and Erin can benefit from
all the apathy in the next election. However, you
already made the assumption that "interested" majority
rule leads to best outcomes, so either your view of the
president is suboptimal, or you need to be right that
apathy is correlated with liking Bush, or some of your
assumptions are probably wrong (or my logic is
confused -- a real possibility I might add).
Note also how you dismiss huge numbers of people's
opinions that disagree with you as not having "ideas of
their own." Here you manage to discard any possibility
that people can have ideas or values that are different
than yours or the same as Bush's. Please let me know if
I have misrepresented you though.
KEVIN:
> Regardless of your opinion of Bush & Co., the
ultimate responsibility
> for the government's actions rest with the people.
> If politicians are scumbags, it's because people
allow them to be. If
> citizens do not participate in the democratic process
to hold them
> accountable, why should we be surprised when power is
abused for
> selfish
> gain?
... When is
> the last time the US population was united in outrage
over a political
> scandal to such an extent that it resulted in actual
punishment of
> those
> in authority? ...
> The answers to these questions are their own
indictment of the state of
> democracy in America. If Bush is a stupid, evil ass
monkey, then
> perhaps
> he's exactly the leader we deserve.
NATE:
This parallels my point that apathy is a problem. I
would agree almost entirely.
If this country wants to see any positive change, they
need to change themselves from the inside out. Though I
must say, apathetic or not, NOBODY deserves Bush
as a leader; that's just cruel.
PACO:
Sounds like you assume both the apathetic and
unapothetic people of the US that disagree with you are
fools or masochists. When your assumptions lead to an
utter dismissal of over a hundred million people's
views, I suggest you may first want to VERY CAREFULLY
inspect your own too. (and yes, those that voted for
and those that voted against can both be right assuming
their values aren't fully aligned, which they obviously
aren't) Again, please correct me if I mistated your
position though.
Furthermore, I already responded to Kevin's post with a
list of off-the-top-of-my-head contradictions to his
assumption. I gave examples where those in power were
punished or forced out, and I didn't even include the
obvious cases of those that are forced out by election
(which is the conventional mechanism of holding elected
representatives accountable).
Kevin's entire premise makes almost no sense, and what
sense it does make seems to CONTRADICT your view. Your
view is that low voter participation is a sign of
apathy. His implies that we get the leaders we
deserve. However, it is those that VOTE that determine
who gets elected. Is the problem with those that vote
(the non-apathetic) or those that don't vote? You seem
to jump back and forth willy-nilly to whichever view
supports your particular take on the matter.
NATE (quoting Tom Robbins)
"...But neither have I gone out and picked fights with
authority.
That's stupid. They're waiting for that; they invite
it; it helps keep them
powerful. Authority is to be ridiculed, outwitted, and
avoided. And
it's fairly easy to do all three. If you believe in
peace, act peacefully,
if you believe in love, act lovingly, if you believe
every which way, then act
every which way, that's perfectly valid - but don't go
out trying to sell your
beliefs to the System. You end up contradicting what
you profess to believe in,
and you set a bum example. If you want to change the
world,
change yourself."
PACO:
Here you do it again. Your end-quote on the perils of
political apathy is a Tom Robbins quote in support of
personal conviction YET PUBLIC APATHY (don't try to
sell your beliefs to the system, and surely VOTING is
one of the preferred mechanisms to push your belief in
a democracy). I am fine with Robbins' quote, and am a
HUGE fan of the guy, but I can't see that it helps
your case.
Do you want them politically involved or not? Are
voters "getting what they deserve" or are non-voters?
Are you touting political involvement or personal
conviction? (if both, you picked an odd quote). Are
you for criticism and free speech or against it? Is
your minority opinion wrong, or can strict majority
rule lead to problems?
I could go on and on, but to be honest, I am absolutely
lost in all of the pretzel logic that those of you
subscribing to BUSH IS AN STUPID EVIL ASS MONKEY are
using to arrive at your various positions. Please help
me to either correct all my foolish misunderstandings,
and/or take advantage of this dialogue to root out some
serious absurdities from your views. I will keep an
open mind if you all will too.
Paco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:53 GMT