Chris, most of what you say is pragmatic / common-sense, so I won't be disagreeing - though you'll have to come back further on the "Nordic model".
The pragmatic problem I have is that you cannot say simply that "the first step" is to lift the masses. I mean, you're not suggesting we put democratic freedoms on hold until we (someone) considers the masses have been lifted are you ? This is my point about (cough) "intellectual elite". To put it bluntly - who decides when the opinions of the masses are intellectual enough to be given the freedom of more opportunity to choose / decide ? "Broad support" is a nice euphemism for "I / we'll decide" - and you don't mean one individual / one vote democracy on every individual decision. Education, education, education - someone once said - so no argument about education as the priority. So education has to be an important "part of the system". The question is what system ? Clue - the answer is not "no system" nor is it "place the world on hold until we have the perfect system". Choosing what makes for a better system, not simply choosing between least-worst existing systems, I say. What is good ? someone asked. Sorry to jump on you Chris - but this is THE debate I want to have. (All others are subsidiary to this one.) Ian On 7/30/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Grateful for your input Ian, and I see and agree with your points. > > > I believe the answer lies in education, and generally raising the standard > of living of the population in general. I mean, if a democracy is to work > properly (the way we want it to work =) we need to make sure that people are > generally more guided by the intellectual level. I believe that is step one. > > Moreover, I believe in the potential of the Nordic Model to regain it's > former strength and continue to serve Quality. Because the most important > aspect of that is that you have a general movement towards giving people > equal opportunities - and it had, and still has really - a broad support, > it is built for the people by the people. > So if the leaders of this movement can regain their strength (or really be > replaced) and get the whole thing going again I think we are on the road to > a Quality serving society. > > So, the first step is to "lift the masses" so to speak, and create a more > equal and more educated society, and this is being done. > > This was a short answer, I think I'll have to return again to clarify, but > have to go now, but you could give me a general input if you whish > > Regards > Chris > > > > Gad you started this thread Chris, > > > > I've tried many times before. I start from the position "Democracy is > > the worst from of governance, except for all the others." So our > > (worthwhile) task is to see what "kind of" free-democracy would be an > > improvement (from a MoQist perspective). > > > > The debate always founders on the social / intellectual "confusion". > > > > The general points in your thread with Bo, are clearly true - social > > patterns must accept some dominance by intellectual paterns , whilst > > intellectual patterns must recognise that they are supported by social > > patterns. > > > > To be provocative, this boils down to what intellectual (elite) > > arrangements are valid to control / limit the freedoms of social > > arrangements. Practically, the answer cannot simply be one individual > > one vote on every decision that affects every individual - for that > > case read anarchy instead democracy. Even if social and intellectual > > patterns are intermixed in one "cultural" level - as I see it - it's > > the same question of which more-intellectual patterns may limit the > > freedoms of which more-social patterns. If the answer is "any" - that > > is all intellectual patterns dominate and control all social patterns, > > then a VERY clear distinction between social and intellectual patterns > > becomes essential. Otherwise Platt might pass for intellectual ;-) > > > > If the answer is that pragmatically some social institutions must > > agree and enforce intellctually-based limits, the questions become > > practical ones of which and how ? And how do we avoid such > > institutions becoming some embodiment of the Giant ? > > > > Not found a better answer yet than a pragmatic cultural & teleological > > mythology answer so far - but I'm still looking. Freedom is a > > fundamental part of the answer, but totally unlimited freedom is not > > the whole answer. > > Ian > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
