So I guess Fox and Rasmussen conducted some goofy poll, as is their wont, in which they inquired whether or not You, America, would like to shoot a terrorist's balls off. Naturally the Plurgressive Blurghosphere is on the case, and as usual it is unintentionally making a killer argument for the failure of democratic government as a practice, practical philosophy, or ideal.
And since when does public approval for anything make it right? If the public still thought slavery was alright should we bring that back? How about women being allowed to vote? Inter-racial marriages--should we be taking some polls on what the public thinks about that topic?So there you have it. Popular opposition to a war makes it wrong, but popular opposition to homos getting married makes it . . . right? I understand that representative governments like ours use the power of the judiciary to constrain--sometimes--majoritarian rule and protect minorities, but you know, if you find yourself routinely questioning the wisdom of majority opinion to such degree as to make public approval a sort of counter-indicator of good policy and moral practice, then perhaps predicating an entire political system on the will of the enfranchised public is a bad idea.
40 comments:
You don't understand at all. Democracy is good when it produces good outcomes (i.e. outcomes we agree with). It is bad when it produces bad outcomes (i.e. outcomes we disagree with).
sadly, huxley's nightmare has come true to a great extent. popular sentiment is nothing but a variable quantity to be adjusted up and down at the whim of the governing class, and a true "public sphere" doesn't exist. the "people" have been thoroughly co-opted, and the idea of a "majority opinion" is an empty, meaningless conjuction of words.
Horse chips, Guest. The public holds a long series of opinions and desires that are simply decent ignored by the powers-that-be. Not least of these is a pretty firm majority who oppose escalation in Afghanistan. Take a look at Chomsky's _Failed States_ for much more evidence.
And imagine how civilized the majority might get if we had something better than the Dimbot Party in the way of "opposition" and "change."
It's especially funny when they use suffrage as an example of why voters should be ignored.
Why do you hate Jews?
Hey IOZ, did you see that David Brooks stole his column from you?
Tsk tsk: youre anthropomorphizing.
Flunking social studies.
Everytime you write like this, I wonder why you never delve more into Mencius Moldbug's writings. Surely, at the least, you'd find them more entertaining than the MSM bilge you normally transmogrify (and I mean transmogrify in a GOOD way) for us.
I just feel bad for you, 's all. Your writing is as good as ever, but the material... ahh, prévisible, non?
does this paragraph make any sense?
Hard-line sentiments were also reflected in the answers to questions about airport security -- 54% would like to see the United States take control of boarding procedures at foreign airports -- closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and probes of CIA torture during the Bush administration.
Our system is as close to perfect as can be, short of Christ or Calvin's return: the people choose between leisure-class philosopher-kings by majority vote.
Democracy is good when it produces good outcomes (i.e. outcomes we agree with). It is bad when it produces bad outcomes (i.e. outcomes we disagree with).
No, you don't understand (although half marks are awarded). Democracy is good, and produces good outcomes that we agree with when the people are voting selflessly in an enlightened manner. (We educate them carefully to be enlightened.) Democracy only fails when selfish, brutish, stupid voters who have not been properly educated vote. You know, Sarah Palin people. (That they are 60% of the electorate is not our fault. But we are working on it! Educación es la revolución!)
Ditto 3:30. You should attack Moldbug. The Man Who is Thursday. Someone who has yet contendethed with thine like and lived. Heckwitha talkative palace eunuchs on TV.
Spike: No mention of the other opinions and desires that make the supposedly "decent" ones irrelevant, the ones that the governing class is actually concerned with manipulating? Any asshole can have an opinion; its the belief that "majority opinion" is NOT an "empty, meaningless conjunction of words" that allows all this bullshit to go on.
We've already had a lot of "change" from centralized state power in the past few decades. A system designed to fuck people is not dysfunctional when it succeeds. You want civilization? Who do I vote for to abolish the presidency?
Welcome to the exact trend IOZ wrote about, Anon/Guest. The public holds some opinions you hate (and fail to explain or even mention), so you toss 'em all overboard, all while raving about "state power."
Private power is our main problem, FYI, meanwhile.
Welcome to the exact trend IOZ wrote about, Anon/Guest.
Thanks. IOZ was referring to a certain opportunistic, partisan inconsistency among progressive commentators with regards to the role of public opinion in our so-called republic. So... huh?
The public holds some opinions you hate (and fail to explain or even mention),
A lot of opinions, actually, insofar as "the public" has them.
so you toss 'em all overboard,
I'm tossing the assumption that "the public" needs or should desire centralized state governance on a 1 to 300 million ratio, and mistake it for political "representation," not the public itself (whatever that would mean). That you conflate the two speaks volumes about your own assumptions.
all while raving about "state power."
OK, I'm raving.
Private power is our main problem, FYI, meanwhile.
I think that's absurd. Consider me informed.
Wow, that Moldbug shit is fucking awful. It felt like picking up Klosterman by mistake; "People pay to read this shit?"
Which reminds me, throw "Life and Fate" on our reading list.
"predicating an entire political system on the will of the enfranchised public is a bad idea."
That's what I've been trying to tell you...
What is this democracy everyone is talking about? So is the point that, in one area at least, public opinion is being properly managed?
It's been established that our host has access to mind-altering drugs. That establishes quite an opportunity cost for trudging through one of Mencius' bloated posts.
I thought the major problem folks were concerned with around here was bombs being dropped on people. If Michael Dawson has some sort of Copenhagen Consensus-esque list of things that should be higher priority, he might as well air it.
TeePee, for those of us that mentally pronounce when we read, have you any idea how difficult it is form the sound "Consensus-esque?"
I think Mencius is IOZ with a CompEng background and fatherhood thrown in the mix. IOZ just comes out more bite-sized, and leaves a slightly pwoggy aftertaste at times.
Let me tell ya something, IOZ - I dig your work. Playing one side against the other, in bed with everybody - just fabulous stuff.
I agree with MD.
Centralized power in private hands is the problem. Given though centralized power can only be in private hands (Mark Twain's solution of a feline autocrat being alas not feasible) then the solution is simple:
Get Rid of Centralized Power.
Amen
The Christians
Just stay away from my fucking lady friend, Jethro.
I think Mencius is IOZ with a CompEng background and fatherhood thrown in the mix.
And a botched lobotomy. Unless the stupidity, and the evident sexual thrill from cheering on statist force as long as it's right-wing, are congenital. But yeah, other than that, they're practically twins. [INSERT EYE-ROLL EMOTICON HERE]
Meanwhile, Monsieur, yet again you ravish our sacred cows, forcing us to re-examine our assumptions and arguments ... or at least splutter indignantly a lot. Shine on in 2010, you magnificent bastard.
The real question (which you didn't ask) was "why is popular will enforced by the elites in some cases but not in others".
So, as you say, the people were against the war in Iraq. The elites decided to go anyway.
And, as you also say, the people are against gay marriage. In this case, the elites decided to enforce the peoples' will.
Were the people actually against the war in Iraq? I'm pretty sure I saw polls suggesting otherwise. They certainly turned against the war later, but that's typical for all wars.
I'm pretty sure Mark Twain just stole my idea, except it involved making my dog dictator because I hate cats.
I'm pretty sure sacred cows are supposed to be slaughtered (as long as it's not your ox being gored), ravishing is taking it a bit too far. I know Rick Santorum says bestiality is just a hop-skip-and-jump away from plain ol' faggotry, but hopefully we here are more mature than the former senator from Pennsylvania.
what's the alternative smartguy?
As to what the alternative might be, in the book The Second Force, Gary and Pat Emery quote an African proverb, as follows:
Follow the customs, or flee the country.
Were the people actually against the war in Iraq? I'm pretty sure I saw polls suggesting otherwise.
I'm taking "IOZ" at his word.
He says
Popular opposition to a war makes it wrong, but popular opposition to homos getting married makes it . . . right?
If what he really means is that "progressives mistakenly assumed the American people were against the war in Iraq" he should say so.
But it still wouldn't make the case against "democracy" you think it makes beause the United States is an artificial construction based on class privilage. Even a working class schlub in America is well off compared to a working class schlub in Bolivia.
And what you're seeing now is that the rich countries (USA, Canada, Europe) are putting right wing leaders into power and the poorer countries (Bolivia, Venezuala, Ecuador) are putting socialists in power.
So GO DEMOCRACY!!!
Hey, I'm not messing with your special lady.
(as long as it's not your ox being gored), ravishing is taking it a bit too far.
Make up your mind, will you?
I know Rick Santorum says bestiality is just a hop-skip-and-jump away from plain ol' faggotry, but hopefully we here are more mature than the former senator from Pennsylvania.
Let's wait and see if the Monsieur finds himself saddled* with Senator Toomey a year from now before jumping to conclusions.
*Just as with the sacred cows bit, I mean this figuratively. Though Toomey is a rabid conservative Republican, so who knows what kinks he has that he seeks to deny to others?
Not to be pedantic but I believe it's FORMERLY (Santorum).
Can't we all have the decency to say that democracy is of course bad when it doesn't go the way we want it to and, when it does, it becomes bad, but useful?
I mean, the damn thing is essentially arbitrary, but it's not like it's O NO HYPOCRISY to say that, like all government, it ought to be rigged to slide in one's direction. That's just common sense.
Anon 9:03,
"Get rid of centralized power"--in other words, get rid of the state.
Anon 2:49,
Yeah, the U.S. is an artificial construction based on class privilege, with the govt being the main defender of that class privilege. I don't know if I'd attribute the working class schlub's well-offedness to his ability to vote for the slightly more socialist wing of the ruling party.
Well, if power is the problem, then the biggest power is the biggest problem.
And now atomic weapons give the power to challenge centralized power (in actuality, the more centralized, the more vulnerable) to the individual...
... your clan better be supremely tightly knit.
The Christians
@TGGP
" from plain ol' faggotry, but hopefully we here are more mature than the former senator from Pennsylvania."
But not mature enough to know better than use the word "faggotry"
But not mature enough to know better than use the word "faggotry"
You're new here, aren't you?
If you know what "ablaut" is in the context of Indo-European historical linguistics, you will also know why "cerebrotonic" is such a great word.
"Woof
woof
woof"
barked the dog simultaneously.
[u][b][url=http://turbobits.net]бирн пивен скачать фильм [/url][/b][/u] - Скачать на турбо скорости можно у нас!
http://turbobits.net/1924-skachat-film-storozh-2008-dvdrip.html
Post a Comment