Although I wouldn't presume to know what's on that person's mind, it sounds like an extreme case of feedback worship -- the notion that a properly executed feedback system will give perfect results. It's actually a common assumption in capitalist democracies, but usually only because people haven't stopped to question it. It seems a bit extreme to be unable to see its flaws.
Nick > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jeffrey Miller > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 3:13 PM > To: Brin-L > Subject: Corruption in a Democracy > > > On a generally non-political list I'm on, someone is digging their heels > in about the following statements: > > Democracies are corruption-free. > > Democracies wherein elections occur with only 1 viable candidate are not > elections. > > Neither of these feel like sound statements (Corruption free? excuse > me: Enron, Monica, S&L, Iran-Contra, Watergate...) but I'm not quite > able to grasp why, or what the argument behind these statements are. > Normally I'd ignore it, but this person is A) extremely forceful in > their belief, B) unwilling to make the argument other than say ,"I'm > right you're wrong" or some varient thereof and C) is someone who is > generally well regarded on the list. Can anyone shed a little light on > the thinking behind this for me? tia > > -j- >
