From: Nathan Lund (nathan_lund@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Oct 08 2002 - 00:16:13 BST
For all those wary of this topic, know that this is my last (though probably inept) post on it.
> 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.
NATE:
First you're giving apathy the thumbs up because it allows more power and influence for minorities with conviction. Now you're saying our current state of democracy works because when minorities with conviction get this power, the majority has a change of heart and suppresses the minority. I
don't know how to reply to this.
> PACO:
> 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.
NATE:
Apathy and conviction are not on opposite sides of a coin. They are on opposite ends of a "interest continuum" with a whole lot inbetween.
> 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 ...
NATE:
I think we're operating on different definitions of the word conviction. I have a moderately informed opinion, but I would not go as far as to say I have conviction.
> PACO:
> If your assumptions are correct, you and Erin can benefit from
> all the apathy in the next election.
NATE:
I don't want to benefit. Why should Erin and I and those like myself (I don't know why you keep lumping Erin into this, by the way) have that much power?
> PACO:
> 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.
NATE:
Mmm, no, not really. I was merely illustrating what happens when I say anything against popular opinion around those who hold it. By "idea of their own" I meant that I have an opinion which strays sharply from what Fox News tells them is happening in the world.
> 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.....
NATE:
Where on earth are you getting this idea from? I think the general population needs to be less apathetic, but no so far as to become zealots. That's my point.
> PACO:
> 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).
NATE:
Kevin's point, that power lies in the hands of the people if they'd only grab ahold and start to care just a little, I think is quite valid. And it seems to me that Politicians being forced out by election would back up Kevins point that there is power with the masses. It also indirectly backs up
the idea that when voting based on poorly informed opinions (in my opinion, resulting from apathy), that a dolt like Bush as a result is not surprising.
> PACO:
> 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.
NATE:
Check again. I stated that nobody deserves Bush. My view is that apathy is a problem. His view is that the people who vote are also a problem. They don't contradict eachother entirely. My view is that apathy leads to poor voter turnout, and poor voting decisions on the portion who do actually
vote.
If people are going to make better voting decisions and if people are going to actually start voting, we're going to need to cange ourselves from the inside out (ie, loss of apathy, but not too damn much conviction).
> 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.
NATE:
Haha, no, his quote doesn't support personal conviction in any way whatsoever. It does not say, "go forth and have very strong opinions!", it says be smarter than that. A person picking a fight with authority is obviously a person with convictions. A person who acts lovingly and peacefully is
merely loving and peaceful. If this quote has to be reduced to one pro-whatever, I'd say it sounds pro-karma and/or pro-self-improvement more than it sounds pro-conviction.
I used it because it supports personal change, something I think the country needs (as I've said several times before: less apathy, more concern, no conviction).
You wear me out Paco. I don't see how you can keep comming up with all these "controdictoins" in my arguements. My points simple: minorities should not hold too much sway over the masses, apathy is an injury on this country's ability to function, and conviction is blinding.
I'm done arguing my way through your misinterpretations.
Goodbye for now, see you on a later topic.
--Nate
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 - 10:37:54 GMT