This is a shift to argument (a), that our democracy is too broken to bother with. If true, (a) really does overthrow my argument. But really? There's no point in running for city council? For county recorder? For the state senate? I don't believe it and I don't think [Shawn] Gude believes it either. I bet he voted in November, and I bet he's prepared to do it again.It's either a telling trick or a willful blindness that causes Will to use voting and running for office interchangeably in his general praise of democracy; it's like asking the wrongfully imprisoned man if he wouldn't have liked to be the judge in his own case. But really, between this little excerpt and elsewhere, where Will accuses "the people"--whomever on earth they are--of passing local statutes and ordinances, what this reveals is a mind that would benefit immensely from spending a couple years on the city hall and zoning board beat. One of the precious libertarian myths that I abandoned when personal experience disabused me of its philosophical attraction is the idea that democracy, if sufficiently local, is somehow better or purer or at least more practical and efficacious than the morass of Washington. This is decidedly not true, as anyone who's ever tried to get a special exemption for the setback requirements for new construction abutting an existing structure on a light commercial zoned property in which the new construction is in a separate zoning district . . . ahem, knows. It suggests a certain, um, abstract understanding of the nature of government, which is often even more spectacularly corrupt locally than in the halls of the congrefs. The idea that the Occupy protesters are undermining some sort of echt popular will by violating city code chapter 470: public places and permitting is so totally unhinged from the actual nature and process of municipal governance that it represents either shameful ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. The popularity of Occupy as measured by opinion polls may rise or fall, but it has precious little to do with its legality.
-Will Wilkinson
Meanwhile the persistent invocation of a healthy civic sphere, even with the ironical quotation marks, implies a literalism about the body politic that leaves me slightly aghast.
40 comments:
Democracy is the rule of committees. If you have any experience of committees, then you understand that smaller ones are not necessarily better than larger ones. (If you don't have experience of committees, well, I sort of envy you, but I really hope you don't vote.)
Smaller committees are often more manipulable by the individual: that is true. On average I think they work better. But they also can be far worse; there's higher variance with fewer members. Sometimes an energetic asshole takes charge and then you're screwed.
I think OWS and the critics go right past each other, and the critics don't know it. The critics are all huffy and tut-tutty about the failure of OWS to seek redress through existing channels when OWS is making the point that the channels are broken. I don't think that's a point which is too difficult to understand, and the fact they don't or profess not to makes me wonder what they get out of the existing game.
I may be one of those who, taking my cue from Albert Jay Nock, who in turn took his cue from Thomas Jefferson's "ward republic" system, have fallen prey to the myth that democracy if sufficiently local is A-OK. I have zero confidence in the integrity of my own local government. But here's the idea that needs to go along with such localism for it to be A-OK: the idea, rejecting the legitimacy of majority rule, that government derives its just powers, not from the "consent of the governed," but from the "consensus of the self-governing." Such consensus is only possible in small groups. And I suppose Jefferson's idea was that, even if such small groups retain the fatally flawed idea that the majority rules, if the town hall meeting is small enough there is at least the opportunity for everyone affected by the vote to be heard before the vote is taken.
Houses are built with hammers. If you have any experience of hammers, then you understand that smaller ones are not necessarily better than larger ones. (If you don't have experience of hammers, well, I sort of envy you, but I really hope you don't build.)
Smaller hammers are often more manipulable by the individual: that is true. On average I think they work better. But they also can be far worse; there's higher variance with fewer members. Sometimes an energetic asshole takes charge and then you're screwed.
If you can buy and control a monstrosity the size of the federal government, I'm not sure why a township board would present a challenge.
Gas, I also do not wish to be ruled by hammers.
Can't touch this.
My clementines are full of goddamn seeds and you fuckers can't stop talking about the fucking city council?! WTF!
Ya, OK, that's annoying and stupid. But we're back at that "if only it were thus thing."
What do you propose is the best mechanism for dealing with your asshole neighbor who puts a giant wall at the edge of his property without consulting you and now every time you look out your window the only thing you see is bricks and mortar?
You take such care in mocking Democracy, but, fuck, that's like entertaining my cat. Not the world's hardest trick. I think it'd be interesting to hear more about your alternative vision. A things-we-like that isn't Mozart or some complicated recipe using neglected cuts of the moose.
"His property."
Lulz. HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH NON-PARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IN AN ANARCHY, HUH MISTER SMARTGUY?
2 legit 2 quit!
Use overwhelming force to invade and colonise his property, and call it a state?
"What do you propose is the best mechanism for dealing with your asshole neighbor who puts a giant wall at the edge of his property without consulting you and now every time you look out your window the only thing you see is bricks and mortar?"
you burn his fucking house down. make total destroy, as they say.
I'm not trying to just be confrontational. I'm legitimately curious as to what you think it should be like. I'll admit I'm skeptical your plan makes any more sense than the next one, but I've listened to WAY stupider people than offer their solutions so...
All I get from what you said is some kind of implication about there maybe being no ownership... so where do you build things? I put up a building to live in and a neighbor knocks it down to preserve his view is the natural result of that so doesn't make sense.
Fuck, at least give me a link if you're too bored with the endeavor to type the idea out yourself.
What are you a fucking park ranger?
Well, you could crush your enemies, drive them before you, and listen to the lamentations of their women. Or you could apply for a variance from the Board of Revision of Taxes.
In the grim darkness of the far future, by which we mean the imaginary past, there is only war.
LA Confidential Pantload just outed himself as being from Philadelphia.
I'm calmer than you are.
I'm really confused here, though. Do you think I'm lying or something, or are you seriously too lazy to link to a single thing outlining your ideas that don't involve talking about how stupid the status quo is?
The point of this blog isn't to make sense. The point is to feel superior. There's nothing behind the mockery but more mockery.
Nutella:
Here you go:
http://www2.volstate.edu/socialscience/FinalDocs/Progressivism/singletax1.htm
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=987829
If there is one thing this blog stands firmly in opposition to, then it is ideas.
My favorite line from this movie is when Rodney says to an attractive young fellow student, "Oh, you're an English major? Maybe you can help me with my Longfellow."
A Psalm of Life
Tell me not in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each tomorrow
Find us farther than today.
Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.
In the world's broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!
Trust no Future, howe'er pleasant!
Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act, - act in the living Present!
Heart within, and God o'erhead!
Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sand of time;
Footprints, that perhaps another,
Sailing o'er life's solenm main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.
Let us then be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.”
― Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Occupiers and their allies now ought to pull up stakes, give up their whimsically undemocratic semi-privatization of public spaces, and endeavor to reform public policy through the democratic institutions established to make the collective determination of binding public rules legitimate.
...
And I've got an anti-authoritarian streak a mile wide.-WW
LOL
I'm still confused. Every now and then, I wish conversation was allowed here.
And I thought being a nihilist was exhausting.
Also, Kindley, I'm pretty sure your links do NOT represent IOZ's views. That little, I have gleaned.
All I was doing was providing a couple links to what I "think it should be like."
I realize that, based on the maxim "right in one thing, right in all things" you were really interested in what IOZ thinks. But you really thought you'd get a straight answer out of the Zen master?
But I wouldn't be quite so sure my links don't represent IOZ's views. See here (The New Idol): http://praxeology.net/zara.htm
That link pretty much says what my first two links said.
"And I suppose Jefferson's idea was that, even if such small groups retain the fatally flawed idea that the majority rules, if the town hall meeting is small enough there is at least the opportunity for everyone affected by the vote to be heard before the vote is taken."
Well, Ohio was a white man's paradise
No, Jon, I do not think that highly of IOZ. I criticize him often. I merely find him interesting. You, well, I've no opinion of.
As for not being sure, well, that we can agree on.
Corruption is also a metaphor.
Comrades, what all of you are failing to do is ask the correct question, which is, of course, "What about the workers?"
It would all be so much better under a dictatorship of the proletariat. Also, the insignia on the uniforms would be way cooler.
I certainly can't speak for IOZ (and christ knows I don't want to), but it can be fairly exhausting trying to explain to someone your "vision" of society when that vision is that power be properly asserted by the proverbial people, and all you get in response is "Yeah, but how will you make the trains run on time?" I won't make the trains run on time, that's kind of the whole fucking point. And your desire for expediency and efficiency doesn't trump my desire to not see people forced, coerced, and exploited.
I put up a building to live in and a neighbor knocks it down to preserve his view is the natural result of that so doesn't make sense.
...
I'm still confused. Every now and then, I wish conversation was allowed here.
When you stop masquerading irrelevent nonsense as questions, I think you might get better answers and discussion.
gnutella,
if you're here to find out how to build a better tomorrow, you need to get back to work.
Jesus, fuck, Justin. All I'm asking is what system for addressing material, interpersonal conflict is wished for in this pie in the sky anarchy.
And the proper fucking way to accuse me of irrelevance is to point out the lack of connection to Vietnam.
I don't get why you anarchists who are so well thought out and intellectually and morally superior get so pissy when someone just asks you to clarify a bit.
I'll admit I am not the brightest person, and I am saying that matter of factly, no intonations of a crisis of confidence or affectation of modesty to cover a smug arrogance. I am not morally superior to anyone, I can say that in the same tone too.
Having said that, your question is a silly one. You are asking what one should do if they build a house and a neighbor knocks it down for the view, and that this a 'natural' consequence of any vague alternative in your view is patently ridiculous. Its not a real question, the framing of your sentence has so much question begging and many assumptions that its hard to answer. Where should we start, unanswerable philosophical questions about what comes natural between neighbors, whether your characterization of it as a fundamentally violent and aggressive arrangement is right or wrong, and how the natural state, if there is such a thing, and whatever it is, deviates because of legal guidelines? Practical questions about how one neigbor is going to dismantle your house by himself with you looking on and not stopping him? Personal questions, maybe you just have a bad neighbor right now?
I live in a row of townhouses. I have neighbors through the wall on each side, and consequently windows only in the front and back.
Purchasing a house here involves agreeing to and becoming a member of a Home Owners Association, which has a number of regulations about outside appearance, and an enforcement mechanism as well. One pays fees which pay for trash pickup, maintenance of common areas, snowplowing, etc.
nutella (but really, to others),
what you're clutching at seems to be this: how does one utter the words "power be properly asserted by the proverbial people" or "heedless, half-cocked campaigns" or "fraudulent national accountancy" or "monstrosity" without having some sort of critical frame (which critical frame is itself a system)?
One realizes it's an activity unlikely to be tracked by those who think all laws are bludgeons in a meaningless world, but still: It's long been known among those who study legal history that the federal govt is the least corrupt and corruptible level. As one descends, the bribes prices and quality and quantity (cough) of news coverage decline.
State legislatures tend to be the sweet spots. Big enough to matter and remote enough to escape local experience and media; small and rotten enough to be eminently buyable.
Recent evolution at this level:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/pssst-wanna-buy-a-law-12012011.html
Dawson,
WTF...Seriously?
"the federal govt is the least corrupt and corruptible level"
Fuck man, have you been paying attention to what the dude has been saying?
Just because the federal fucks don't get caught in the same blatant manner as say Gov Blago-hair doesn't mean they are any less corruptible. Just means its institutionalized.
Google "lobbying" for christ sakes!
I laugh when I hear corruption as an adjective used to characterize government--I take if for granted the government largely accomplishes what is designed to do; looking after the interests if the class that gave birth to it--making it, strictly speaking, quite free from corruption. Lobbying and other rituals are really just part of the social etiquette the Court expects of its Lords.
Post a Comment