You (Mike) wrote this a while ago, but I think it sums up your position.
> > There's no one "best" candidate. There's one that you insist is > the best, and there's one that someone else insists is the best. > You claim that there's a certain candidate who's really the best, > but there isn't. Sure, there's one that I consider the best. There's > one that you consider the best. But they probably won't be the same one. This is from your recent letter, > You gave an example about a candidate who claimed the earth was > flat. That's a factual issue. Our elections have important issues > that are not factual issues, and whose answers aren't provable > even in principle. > > How much should we help the homeless? Is the price in lives and > billions of dollars justified in order to win some war for which > certain benefits are claimed if we win? Should general tax revenue > be used to pay for the automotive infrastructure such as highways, > roads, streets, parking space, highway patrol, etc.? > > These issues have relevant sub-issues that are factual, of course. > How many homeless are there? What will the war cost? But the issues > themselves are not factual issues. It's a matter of "Is this benefit > worth that cost?" "Is that undesirable result worse than this > undesirable result?" I think you underestimate the extent to which differences in policy are differences of fact. For example, the only factual issue you mention around the homeless is "how many are there." But there are a lot more questions you could answer. Such as, what effect will such and such a policy have? Will it reduce the problem or increase it? > > As I said, the answers aren't provable even in principle. In some sense, nothing is provable. One can devise a contrived explanation for why the earth is really flat, even though this does not appear to be the case. But the lack of proof doesn't mean that there is no right answer. There was a right answer even before humans started accumulating evidence against the flat earth. So, the fact that what we might consider non-factual issues cannot be resolved by proof does not give compelling evidence that there is no right answer. Here's another way of looking at the problem. I've been able to pick up subtle clues that you would have preferred Nader to Bush. So, from your perspective Nader is better than Bush, and from your perspective, the election outcome is unfortunate. Since this is only hypothetical, I can imagine that you do in fact change your mind. In fact, let's imagine that everyone comes to love George Bush (even we foreigners). Bush is now best from everyone's perspective. So, Bush is best in every possible way. So is the problem solved? Of course not. Whatever reasons you had for preferring Nader to Bush haven't gone away just because you've changed your mind. If Bush was a bad choice before, he's still a bad choice. The alternative is to believe that getting governments we like, and liking the governments we get, are equally desirable. > > Blake continues: > > So > democracy, like any standard, can't really be defended, but must be > accepted dogmatically. > > I reply: > > We don't defend standards dogmatically (though I shouldn't > speak for you). We describe standards, and if someone likes them they > do, and otherwise they don't. That's it. We can point to the popularity > of a standard, and suggest that a less poplular standard won't win > popularity. But what your saying is that you can't possibly rationally defend your standards. In fact, I wonder what you think makes people like a standard? Whim? Peer pressure? --- Blake Cretney
