On Mar 8, 2013, at 8:29 PM, Jim Devine wrote:
Michael Smith writes:
Democracy, on any informed understanding of the term, is the
negation of ‘rights’. Democracy means that the people rule. They
give rights, and they take them away, as their good sovereign
pleasure dictates. If you’re really into ‘rights’, you have no use
for democracy; and vice versa. <
I think it's more accurate to say that democracy is the negation of
_natural_ rights attributed to individuals. (Usually, those with a lot
of property claim to have "natural" rights to own it. Some academician
can usually be found to "read" nature's intention and justify this
assertion.) There are no natural rights. But there are
democratically-created rights. (This is agreeing with Michael's point,
just modifying the language a bit.)
I'd put it a bit differently: for "the people" to rule they have to
decide--really decide--all political questions of importance. Because
to rule is to decide and enforce that decision. But how can a
collective body comprising a great number of different individuals and
different groups and even different interests *decide*? Only through a
collective decision-making process from which none are excluded.
Formal democratic rights, the entitlement of all citizens to free
political expression and association, is the true precondition for
popular rule, for democracy. So then, the people do not "give" rights--
it is the rights that constitute the people as a people, as a
democratic subject.
Shane Mage
This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it
always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire,
kindling in measures and going out in measures.
Herakleitos of Ephesos
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
