On Wed, May 21, 1997 at 09:34:23 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes:
>> From: "William S. Lear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: [PEN-L:10254] Re: planning and democracy
>
>> On Tue, May 20, 1997 at 14:52:05 (PST) Max B. Sawicky writes:
>> >Democratically-elected planners can connive to concoct a plan. . . .
>
>> This is logic of a most curious sort. If Jim, Max, and I, acting as
>> "sub-units", agree on a plan to dine at Chez Maynard's there is no
>> need for some "overlord" to reconcile such a plan. Suppose we extend
>
>There is no anology here because three-person economies
>are not in question. With N persons there would indeed be a need for
>reconciliation on where to eat, what time, and who picks up the
>check. This could be done by a democratically-designated overlord
>or, at somewhat greater cost, by some kind of collective
>decision-making process.
Obviously, Max, three-person economies are not in question. You
neatly snipped out the part of your claim to which I responded---viz,
sub-units "cannot contribute pieces of a plan that some overlord fails
to reconcile". I showed how this was false with a small group, and
how the falsehood (remember the word "cannot"??) remained as the group
scaled upward. Then, you turn around and agree with my point that,
no, there really need not be a central "overlord", and that this could
indeed be taken care of by "some kind of collective decision-making
process".
>> . . .
>> I don't think anyone is claiming that self-serving motives would be
>> rendered obsolete under such a system, parliamentary or otherwise.
>> Nor is anyone arguing that the presence of self-interest precludes
>> acting on "national interest", or vice-versa. Max's argument is, in
>> short, a Manichean straw-man. I think the claim for democracy is,
>> rather, that such motives of self-interest might very well be
>> minimized, and that other values could come to the fore. . . .
>
>That's your claim for democracy -- participation breeds
>altruism or a larger identity or class consciousness or
>whatever you'd like to call it. But you've yet to say why,
>except to invoke the necessity of optimism and to scold,
>inaccurately, about lack of support or faith in the ideal of
>democracy.
Tsk, tsk, Max. Nobody is scolding you. Do you continually need
reassurance on this point? I quoted you quite precisely, and was
pointing out that you seemed to be drawing a hard line between
self-interest and "national interest". I find nothing in the above
that could reasonably be construed as an attack on your support for
the democratic principle.
Now, since Max seems to have overlooked my explanation as to "WHY?
WHY? WHY?" we might expect to see a change in outlook---to one of
mutual concern leading/overshadowing self-interest (or however you'd
like to phrase it)---I'll lay it out again. It is quite simple, and
is not solely dependent on sheer "optimism", as Max puts it, though
optimism can't hurt. It is simply because there has been a major,
very expensive effort, to crush such democratic impulses, and it
seems to me a reasonable assumption that this just might flourish were
these restraints and active attacks removed. See, for example, Alex
Carey's fine book, _Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate
Propaganda versus Freedom and Liberty_ (Univ. of Illinois, 1997) for a
sampling of the corporate effort to flush democracy.
I also quoted J. S. Mill to the effect that this is a learning process
which must occur over time. I will quote him now at length, perhaps
in the hope that Max won't again overlook the point that it is a
"question of development", something I think is quite reasonable, from
basic principles of emotional and intellectual development:
In many cases, though individuals may not do the particular thing
so well, on the average, as the officers of government, it is
nevertheless desirable that it should be done by them, rather
than by the government, as a means to their own mental
education---a mode of strengthening their active faculties,
exercising their judgment, and giving them a familiar knowledge
of the subjects with which they are thus left to deal. This is a
principal, though not the sole, recommendation of jury trial (in
cases not political); of free and popular local and municipal
institutions; of the conduct of industrial and philanthropic
enterprises by voluntary associations. These are not questions of
liberty, and are connected with that subject only by remote
tendencies; but they are questions of development. It belongs to
a different occasion from the present to dwell on these things as
parts of national education; as being, in truth, the peculiar
training of a citizen, the practical part of the political
education of a free people, taking them out of the narrow circle
of personal and family selfishness, and accustoming them to the
comprehension of joint interests, the management of joint
concerns---habituating them to act from public or semi-public
motives, and guide their conduct by aims which unite instead of
isolating them from one another.
---John Stuart Mill, _On Liberty_
If you are interested in looking at how this works in practice, I
suggest you delve into the literature surrounding the occupational
therapy profession.
Bill
