This is mroe useful than making various disparagin remarks about me wouldnt you say SDF? Perhaps not, nevertheless...
: SDF: The reason we democrats accept the will of majorities as regards important decisions about the survival of all is the idea,
There are few situations where human survival are threatened by minority dissent. Lets say environmental damage was one, putting the actual debate to one side and assuming, then I could see that a dissenting minority wishing to continue with a CFC, lead and mercury fest would be a danger.
Turn it around and imagine the majority were *for* a CFC, lead and mercury fest - then the minority wuld be correct in their beliefs.
Numbers have little to do with such issues - the objective truth does.
can you agree on this point, and put our tendency to back-bite on hold for now?
Therefoew to apply the 'majority rule' to any field of endeavour is to open up a world where popular opinion, however *wrong* in any objectove sense becomes a virtual law due to its populism.
Can you appreciate the great danger inherant in that system?
And the very advantage you gave; speed, is also its gravest threat for the above reasons.
: Such people are not part of my society and can go off and live on Easter Island for all I care.
This is interesting, because in enagiging in democracy you are saying that you then gain pre-eminence or title over others who live in the same proximity. Lets say that of a hundred folk in a given village you and 89 others engage in democracy and abide decisions regardless of whether you personally agree or not. The other 10 decide not to go along with it so the 90 say "you are not apart of our society, you can go" - well in what way do the 90 own the homes of the 10? From where do they gain the right to dismiss them? these are questions to be asked of democracy.
: It can also be a double standard: democracy is a "contract between sovereign individuals" if one likes the votes it produces; democracy is that evil "state" if one doesn't like the way any particular vote went.
I absolutely agree with the above.
: SDF: It isn't the "preferences of the able" but the privileges of the owning classes that are over-ruled by the requirement for work.
We were talking about the above within the context of a socialist community. Now I do realize that you refute that large differences in ability would accur in such a community - but you will accept that it most certainly would be true of the first 2 or 3 generations - what of their preferences?
: SDF: Go ahead and forget the definition of class. Class is not determined by some external agent "bunching diverse people together," but rather by something the members of each class themselves do for a living. The working class determines itself by working, the owning class determines itself through ownership.
It is a dubious practice to derive from this any more than what you have stated though - the more we assume each 'class' has as its characterisitics the more we stray from a fact based assessment (owns, works which neednt be a dichotomy) to a subjective extrapolation of inter relations between people.
: SDF: Sorry, hierarchical society is a product of culture, it's not natural. All culture is so overdetermined by other culture that the discovery of the "natural" underneath the human cultural overlay is never going to happen. Societies such as exist in intentional communities do not "naturally" form hierarchies. I've already shown that culture is not "natural" in any way that informs us about its contents.
I can accept the relevance of an argument that states 'All culture is so overdetermined by other culture that the discovery of the "natural" underneath the human cultural overlay is never going to happen', although its rather final - "never"?
What of discoveries regarding human genetic traits? Hotly disputed I imagine, or their effects in human behaviour denied.
Anyway SDF, this is a discussion - can we both agree to cut the 'your a dodge', 'no you cant read' style exchanges for a while?
