--- On Mon, 2/2/09, Michael Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > Juho Laatu wrote: > > > I'm not sure that inequality would be a > > requirement. Full equality in terms of > > wealth and power is impossible to achieve, > > but we can approximate that at some > > agreed/suitable level (e.g. by balancing > > the differences a bit where needed) - and > > still keep the natural competitive forces > > alive as the forward driving force in the > > society (and its economy). > > So the realm of possiblity may contain mechanisms to > correct the gross > inequalities of opportunity etc. that divide class from > class, and > nation from nation. You and I can discuss this possiblity > in abstract > terms, like "cultured gentleman".^[1] But what is > the path from > possiblity to actuality?
Many mechanisms are already in place (both in "public sphere" and more officially). In many ways we are already in phases 7 and 8 (see below). > And what are the danger points > along the > way? > > 1. A voting system is instituted in the public sphere, > thus lifting > the lid of the pot. > > People are free to express themselves on issues of > gross > disparity, to be heard, and to build consensus. The > inter-class Some societies have clear classes (inherited or culturally separate), but there are also lesser deviations, and there are differences between individuals of otherwise homogeneous groups. > and inter-national tensions that were formerly > suppressed and > suspended Or simply in worse position, maybe due to recent changes, and maybe without any suppression. > are thus thematized in discussion and > floated for > political action. Or the society as a whole decides to discuss and then act for the benefit of all. > What shall the action be? Everyone > is > talking, voting... > > 2. Stuff happens. To me the most interesting part here might be the formation of widely shared concepts and understanding. > > 3. Eventually reason prevails. The dwellers in the > favelas and the > peasents in the villages (despite long suppressed > bitterness and > anger) No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some may be but better results could be achieved if everyone just understands how the system might benefit better all its members. > enter into a more-or-less rational discussion > with the > weathly entrepreneurs and landowners. Maybe all should discuss more. In most democratic societies all have had the opportunity for a long time now. Involvement and understanding of all segments of the society is needed. Also the rich and powerful may have lost touch and may also benefit of the new ideas. > > 4. A promising "disparity correction" mechanism > is discovered, and > talked about. Or old ones used as they are, or they are balanced in order to respond better to the needs. > > 5. A rough consensus emerges that, yes, this is the very > mechanism > we want. > > 6. Political action follows. The mechanism is emplaced. > > 7. It fails. Continuously - at least there is the risk of continuous erosion. > > 8. Stuff happens. Hopefully already in step 7 and earlier. I'd like to see a system that includes both practical implementation and theoretical consensus targets above the practical level. This makes it easier to adjust the system on the fly (without going from one disaster to decision, frozen positions and next disaster). Politics are too often just bottom level tug-of-war type activities where decisions are made based on who is strongest at this very moment. > > Steps 2 and 8 are problematic. What kind of stuff can > happen? I tried to emphasize the need to generate consensus models that allow high level principles to be implemented and adjusted using some practical mechanisms. That'd be better than revolutions and the tug-of-war game. > > > [1] In Bertrand Russell's History of Western > Philosophy, in the > chapter on Aristotle's Politics, the last few > paragraphs frame a > broad context for discussing the extremes of democracy, > reaction > and counter-reaction. > > > http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ey94E3sOMA0C&pg=PA187#PPA187,M1 > > That's p. 187, which contains the text > "Aristotle's fundamental > assumptions... the rise of industrialism... Both for > good and > evil, therefore, the day of the cultured gentleman is > past." Yes, quite interesting section. - I always appreciate the courage to say that the highest achievements / acme are not here, now or in the future. - Democracy in Athens was a democracy of the top level of the society. That allowed a stronger "cultured gentlemen" approach than the modern approach that serves all and where the highest decision making and consumption potential is quite low in the society (=> "populism" in both politics and consumption). - With the "strength of the masses" the modern (post 18th century) society with high number of rich and independent consumers (= commercial decision makers, often with less political interest) (I mean, what the society in rich countries is now after the turmoil of industrial revolution and related extreme capitalism and socialism) is just a bit more complex to control than the old and simpler "cultured gentlemen" approach. One must take a positive approach and trust that we find good ways forward. - From [EM] point of view the new society may also need richer forms of participation. The public sphere may be used. But also the very traditional political decision making system needs new better approaches. I expect the combination of useful mechanisms (voting, discussion, administration,...) and better consensus based models of the world to work best. - When writing the book Russell (probably) didn't see yet the collision of the human society and the limits of the global resources. That's another challenge that impacts the evolution of the (culture of the) society in addition to the ones that Russell lists, maybe the biggest recent one (?). Juho > > -- > Michael Allan > > Toronto, 647-436-4521 > http://zelea.com/ > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see > http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
