I wrote:
> What's radical is subordinating the government -- and thus the
> market -- to democratic will.
Ian writes:
> Shouldn't there be an s at the end of the last word? Or are you
> romanticizing on the possibile ease of achieving unanimity on
> issues that generate enormous differences of experience and
> outlook under actually existing liberalism?
No, democracy almost never involves unanimity, while by the "democratic will" I mean the expression of the varieties of individual wills via democracy. It is not the same thing as Rousseau's general will. Obviously, real-world democracy involves a lot of conflicts and stresses: however, I think that it's the best way for people to deal with and conquer the "enormous differences of experience and outlook under actually existing liberalism." It's better than having some dictator impose his will on the people or to have the rich folks do so via their economic dictatorship.
> You are after all talking about people subordinating other people. Or is democratic will a realm of perfect non-subordination where there is no difference?<
as long as we have differences of individual wills -- not to mention real-world subordination of classes, ethnic groups, etc. within "civil society" outside the state -- there is going to be subordination of people by other people. The best way to handle that subordination is democratically, especially since democratic principles tend to undermine subordination.
Unlike the anarchists, I see no way to simply abolish the state and extra-statal subordination overnight. Or is there an alternative to democracy that I don't know about?
Jim
