Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves » Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Page: 1 2

Debate 10 Discussion: Whether the masses should rule themselves

Caldwell
Zuleiha's owner

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 18, 2006
Location: Crawl space

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 2224

Posted 04/01/07 - 05:59 PM:	#11
Buddahchuck wrote: This seems to describe the current system of democracy we are using right now. Representative government and Elitism are not mutually exclusive. The argument presented in the debate is that Elitism is an inevitable product of Western Society. So when we talk about some leader representing the masses, we could also say that a monarchy is representative of the masses, or even facism, for both, state officials are meant to represent the people. It's really hard to discuss these words if we keep on equivocating. Like I said, if the debate truly meant "elitism" in its definition of rulers, then the debater meant oligarchy. But, if he meant elitism in the vulgar and common term, then I have nothing to say. I'll leave it up to the others. Supposedly, a democracy allows for the people to have some decision in who their leaders might be, but empirically this is not the case. This is like saying, because currently the politicians aren't acting to represent the desires and views of the people, then we cannot discuss "democracy". I thought this debate is meant to illuminate what is truly "rule by the masses" means, and rule by the elite. If this is not the purpose, but rather expose the corruption and violation of the ideals, then I'm not here to discuss these. In essence, oligarchy and aristocracy are not representative forms of government. You say they represent the people or their subject -- this is a misrespresentation and equivocation, and they are only true by rhetoric, not by practice or meaning. Voting and political participation by the masses are required in "representative" government. It means putting politicians, issues, decisions, propositions on the ballot periodically, with defined terms, limits of office, etc. Do we vote in oligarchy or monarchy? No. I do not see in arguing further these issues. They are out there. If we cannot agree on the definitions of "rule by the elites" and "rule by the masses", I can't think of a better way to discuss this productively.

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 04/02/07 - 08:53 AM:	#12
Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others. A mobile hierarchy is what we want, one that affirms all links in the chain as interdependent and valuable as well as the evolution of ones abilities and concepts making them belong in different niches of the chain of interdependence that humans exist in. I believe the movement of democracy emphasizes the primacy of thinking beings being far more similar than different. It also emphasizes that every complex system is made of simple pieces (rationally open to realization for all thinking people if they only journey there). Science plays a central role in the peripheries or maybe even the heart of democracy and this is why: in science debate and individuals sticking to their points until agreement is communally reached, this is emphasized and I believe may underlie a fundamental truth about every individual and the methods one must employ to enable one to learn. Also, the consistency of the world informing the best explanation for data, our reason tracing the patterns and laying individual claim to the best explanation, this affirms all individuals personal involvement with the world and democracy has the same affirmative aspect...while not necessarily discounting the possibility of those with greater understanding and knowledge than most others (the elite). The emphasis on one over the other is to lose all perspective and create abstract babble. Just some thoughts....
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

Darkphilosophy
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2007

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 22

Posted 04/18/07 - 08:18 PM:	#13
I'm already suspect of the word "elite", I'm only making a quick take on the subject before following it up, but in my experience there are no elites...about as elite as you can get is someone with no stake in the outcome just giving advice for free, only the smartest people know this, there ain't no one who can be truly unbiased all you can do is try to do it for free and hope your not a complete idiot, everyone else falls prey to the corruption of power or money or fame,etc.. Likewise the masses ruling themselves would be biased just the same and surely result in some new damn hippie communism and probably lead to civil war.
A man who can slump it halfway across the galaxy and still has the wherewithall to know where his towel is is a man to be reckoned with. ...you know Einstein was divorced...probably the smartest man ever on this planet...so what chance do you have at a happy marriage, you think you're smarter than Einstein!

Reanna
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2007

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/24/07 - 11:31 PM:	#14
[quote=loveofsophia]Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others. A mobile hierarchy is what we want, one that affirms all links in the chain as interdependent and valuable as well as the evolution of ones abilities and concepts making them belong in different niches of the chain of interdependence that humans exist in. I believe the movement of democracy emphasizes the primacy of thinking beings being far more similar than different. It also emphasizes that every complex system is made of simple pieces (rationally open to realization for all thinking people if they only journey there). Science plays a central role in the peripheries or maybe even the heart of democracy and this is why: in science debate and individuals sticking to their points until agreement is communally reached, this is emphasized and I believe may underlie a fundamental truth about every individual and the methods one must employ to enable one to learn. Also, the consistency of the world informing the best explanation for data, our reason tracing the patterns and laying individual claim to the best explanation, this affirms all individuals personal involvement with the world and democracy has the same affirmative aspect...while not necessarily discounting the possibility of those with greater understanding and knowledge than most others (the elite). The emphasis on one over the other is to lose all perspective and create abstract babble. This argument while an important point to make fails to provide any true form of a conclusion. The arguer starts by stating that neither elite rule nor mass rule is the proper way to go about formulating a form of rule but then enters into a discussion the makes references to ideas of science and the importance of a higher learning which are two aspects that have previously been referred to as attributes of elite rule. I also would like to ask the arguer where they came up with their term of the chain of interdependence. Your definition is unclear due to its circular manner. One other area that is unclear is your use of democracy. Isnâ€™t the current US democratic system ruled by the more elite and alphaâ€™s of America? I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule.

loveofsophia
Endeavor to Understand

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 02, 2006
Location: Near Madison in Wisconsin

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 728

Posted 04/29/07 - 04:26 AM:	#15
Reanna wrote: This argument while an important point to make fails to provide any true form of a conclusion. The arguer starts by stating that neither elite rule nor mass rule is the proper way to go about formulating a form of rule but then enters into a discussion the makes references to ideas of science and the importance of a higher learning which are two aspects that have previously been referred to as attributes of elite rule. I am simply stating that our interdependence supersedes any sort of superiority of one person over another. One may make the same argument with regards to life and even the earth. We are dependent on other living things. Superiority is a ridiculous manner to perceive our relationship to other living things if we are dependent upon them. Similarly, our dependence on others affirms their value independent of ours. Anyone in a position of authority needs be (should be) mindful of their responsibility to those that allow them the opportunity to lead. The problem with elitism is that it loses sight of process (conceptual and abilities wise). It encourages a fixed system of those inherently above others. This is short sighted. One could imagine a society or culture as one organism. If one system in the organism fails the organism dies. Our interconnection and interdependence upon each other far exceeds any sort of superiority (difference of ability or intellectuality) one might place in the brain or the heart. I guess this is rather abstract as well. But I feel it highlights what is necessarily the case in a community of people. For one, those that are placed in authority should be open to compromise and a system of checks and balances need be in place to secure the safety of everyone. The US has a system that is enviable. A supreme court that bases their judgments off of the constitution (which I am no expert in but get the gist that it is a rather remarkable achievement to have as our bases). Then their is the legislation and executive branches. The great thing about it is when someone proves themselves to be utterly incompetent...a ruler like a Bush...we are ensured that ruler will not be around for long. And if he crosses a line enough people get angry about...we can get ride of him. In the US their is an attempt to balance the need for freedom and the need for security. Too much freedom leads to insecurity for all and too much of an emphasis on security leads to less freedom. Furthermore, in the US, no matter how imperfect it may be (it is human after all) it emphasizes the abilities and skills of people to search out and find a job and a way of living that they choose. I am not saying it is as good as one might imagine it could be...but the heart of it is good. I also would like to ask the arguer where they came up with their term of the chain of interdependence. We wouldn't get very far without the garbage men, the clerks at the gas station, or the people that work all the odd jobs that are not as lucrative as some others. The fact is, in this system, imperfect as it may be, we are all interdependent. Now, some have more social and monetary influence and power (deserved and undeserved), which should, ideally, make them aware of their debt to society. Many rich people are aware of this and do have a rather giving nature...despite the fact they remain very rich. Those that fail in realizing their interconnection and interdependence with others fail in their social duty. They are worthy of contempt. Your definition is unclear due to its circular manner. One other area that is unclear is your use of democracy. Isnâ€™t the current US democratic system ruled by the more elite and alphaâ€™s of America? If we were to focus more on education and empowering students in the educational system to take more responsibility for their knowledge and understanding (through means I could go into) we would better society through the output of those more aware of the value of dialogue, community, and the need for collective agreement to best accomplish our aims successfully. What is rational, despite conflicts of interest, should lead us often to compromise in the face of others that disagree. The aim is collective agreement on action, which needs occur. The battle for what is right for individuals to do can only be had by the best ideas being implemented and others being willing to argue for their positions. The current trend, I am no historian and I am not certain on how long this trend has existed, to make things overly simple is not beneficial. Let me explain. In our choice of leaders I find it is likely that values are the most important factor. If the voting majority has disorganized and ultimately unhelpful discernment of good values society as a whole will be subjected to their voting into positions of authority those that will not best address our needs. Education and awareness of the process of developing conceptions of more sophistication and worth is not as central to our democratic nation, the US, as it should be. Citizens with good value sets, with comes from growing up in a secure and affirming household (more often then not) and having good educational experiences needs to be the center of a democratic nation. Singling out those of "greater" ability to learn, those with a greater rapidity to their learning process, and leaving the rest behind is not encouraging a healthy community. This is the current trend in our educational establishment and it really attacks the minds and potential for conceptual growth of the body, us as a whole. This is integral to a successful democracy given so much power is vested in the masses (this is unquestionable). The fact that others need focus on their sphere of influence to have the greatest affect in their life and the world would see to society improving. Often the sense we are disconnected and need only care for ourselves, which some may argue is a byproduct of many different causes, causes more harm to our collective health than being willing to engage and discuss disagreements and try and work out solutions together in a local and national sense. I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule. I believe I value democracy, mass rule that selects its representatives to take on the job of representing their collective interests, and it has the greatest potential and makes the greatest sense for any community. If it can become fixed, those that are elite stay in power regardless of how they treat the masses, the potential for harm is significant. The potential for those that are safe in power to abuse those that they depend upon without repercussion is unacceptable in a strictly elite and aristocratic conception of rule. In democracy, ideally, we would promote the elite in ability and values to positions of authority. So emphasizing elite over mass rule, or mass rule over elite rule, loses sight of our interdependence and interconnection. A democracy (with en emphasis on abilities and knowledge as well as values informing the decision as to who leads) and an attention to the abilities of those in process of development (maybe not at the same pace as others) should be present to best succeed as a democracy. Therefore, the main concern of educational health in a democracy is unquestionable to maintain a movement towards good representatives. The current institutions of education need improve in the US but they are not completely absent of worth either. Superiority and inherent value of some people over others is not a helpful or valid conception of a community of people. For one their is process, the development of abilities and concpeitons, that may make people vluaable in ways that are not as immediatly present based off of natural abilities, and similarly, the need for an emphasis on hope and communal involvment is necessary for democracy to best suceed. This interdependence and interconnection is affirmed in a democracy...and there is always room for improvement of the body to make who the place at the head all the more benefical to the heart, lungs, liver, and even our little bitty toes. This is not as clear as I would like, but I believe one could get the gist. Edited by loveofsophia on 04/29/07 - 04:49 AM
It is amazing how susceptible to lies we are when young. I believe people are still far more susceptible to lies as adults than they would like. Balancing what could be, our imaginings, with what we know, this is a delicate act of mind.

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 617

Posted 04/30/07 - 05:24 AM:	#16
This I agree with: Love of Sophia wrote: Choosing mass rule or elite rule is a completely ridiculous way to formulate preference of government. Mass rule emphasizes that everyone's voice matters in a community while elite rule emphasizes that some people are more learned and wise than others. as well as... los wrote: Similarly, our dependence on others affirms their value independent of ours. Anyone in a position of authority needs be (should be) mindful of their responsibility to those that allow them the opportunity to lead. But then comes: los wrote: The US has a system that is enviable. I trust you mean worthy of envy and not inviable. A supreme court that bases their judgments off of the constitution (which I am no expert in but get the gist that it is a rather remarkable achievement to have as our bases). Supposedly, but as we see, this is not inherently the case as a great deal of Supreme court decisions seem somewhat whimsical, even in the eyes of the greatest scholars. The great thing about it is when someone proves themselves to be utterly incompetent...a ruler like a Bush...we are ensured that ruler will not be around for long. And if he crosses a line enough people get angry about...we can get ride of him. But this is wrong. Bush is utterly incompetent, and people have gotten angry enough, but as of yet, Bush has not left office. In fact, he has been there for 6 years going on his seventh. Clinton, a president who consistently had over 60% support of the population, was undergoing impeachment trials at this point in his presidency even though most people thought he was doing a good job. Bush, whose popular support has shrunk to an amazing 37%, has not been impeached at all. You may be quite right in saying that Bush is one of the most incompetent leaders America has ever had (perhaps the world), but I do not see how this proves that "the system works." If anything, this is empirical evidence to the contrary. In the US their is an attempt to balance the need for freedom and the need for security. Too much freedom leads to insecurity for all and too much of an emphasis on security leads to less freedom. Does this not also mean that in a world in which the masses rule, where complete freedom is given to everyone that is possible, the eventuality of insecurity is inevitable and a backlash will precipitate? Is this not evident through the flow of history? Furthermore, in the US, no matter how imperfect it may be (it is human after all) No, the United States is not human, it is a nation-state (I don't mean to be a smartie pants, but to err is human, not government). it emphasizes the abilities and skills of people to search out and find a job and a way of living that they choose. No, the United States is not what does this, it is the product of people reacting to their need to live in a capitalist economy. Many times this choice is never made and people wind-up old and impoverished precisely because the couldn't find a job that emphasized their abilities and skills. Look to the current unemployment rate, poverty rate, the number of unskilled workers versus the number of professionals. Anyway, this point does not really matter because we are not seeing any contrast. As I stated in my first post, we need to be able to see a division between elitism and being ruled by the masses. Some people (I am not alone) do not seem to see the United States as being ruled by the masses, especially when a president can win an election without a popular vote (even if representation could be counted). What is a little uphauling about this patriotism I am hearing (not that patriotism is bad, but it just needs a little perspective) is that it being used blindly to argue that the US is the best and most ideal government in the world, and ought to be the standard by which all other governments (utopic or otherwise) should be tested. This is a very poor standard to judge such a debate. If we were to focus more on education and empowering students in the educational system to take more responsibility for their knowledge and understanding (through means I could go into) we would better society through the output of those more aware of the value of dialogue, community, and the need for collective agreement to best accomplish our aims successfully. I agree that education is a valuable resource to any who wish to undertake it, but what is the old adage, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."? It's truly amazing what people can argue when they think themselves informed without truly being so. Sure, its simple to say, give them more education, but I believe it also true that there will be an inevitable divide between those who do well in their studies and those who do not. This is the imperfection of human nature, not the imperfection of an educational system. Granted, we could have better education, and more oppurtunities may then arise, but this is a far cry from eliminating and education gap, unless we are to completely under-educate those that achieve. Otherwise, promoting the need for "dialogue, community and responsibility" is a perfectly commendable goal, and I would be curious to hear you suggestions perhaps in another thread. The battle for what is right for individuals to do can only be had by the best ideas being implemented and others being willing to argue for their positions. Tell that to Socrates. Citizens with good value sets, with comes from growing up in a secure and affirming household (more often then not) and having good educational experiences needs to be the center of a democratic nation. And in America, the households that are affirming and secure with good educational experiences come from upper middle class to rich families, what could be called the bourgeousie. So if the center of our democratic nation comes from a financially elite group of people, what does that mean about our government? Otherwise, I agree, for I am not truly arguing one side of the debate over another, only saying that the debate needs to be framed a different way in order to be conclusive. Singling out those of "greater" ability to learn, those with a greater rapidity to their learning process, and leaving the rest behind is not encouraging a healthy community. But it is not encouraging a healthy community to hold back those who accel. Do you agree? Nobody wants a society of mediocrity. The fact that others need focus on their sphere of influence to have the greatest affect in their life and the world would see to society improving. I don't understand, or rather, I am afraid I do. You think we need more frat boys? Often the sense we are disconnected and need only care for ourselves, which some may argue is a byproduct of many different causes, causes more harm to our collective health than being willing to engage and discuss disagreements and try and work out solutions together in a local and national sense. Aldous Huxley wrote about this. People used to feel isolated and disconnected; so they gave them soma and encouraged orgies. All kidding aside, I honestly do not see this happening in a society of 350 million people, unless you truly do want to construct A Brave New World los wrote: I believe I value democracy, mass rule that selects its representatives to take on the job of representing their collective interests, and it has the greatest potential and makes the greatest sense for any community. But you don't answer what Reanna said: Reanna wrote: I think it is important in this discussion to better define what the differences between elite rule and mass rule are and what the different systems that have existed under each condition are, if there are even systems that have existed under these forms of rule. I think this is absolutely right. What scenarios truly fit the discriptions of ruled by elites and ruled by the masses? You do offer this: los wrote: If it can become fixed, those that are elite stay in power regardless of how they treat the masses, the potential for harm is significant. The potential for those that are safe in power to abuse those that they depend upon without repercussion is unacceptable in a strictly elite and aristocratic conception of rule. And it is also possible that people could engage in discourse without ever taking action. Now that we know the potential harms of both sides, lets reconcile where democracy fits: In democracy, ideally, we would promote the elite in ability and values to positions of authority. So emphasizing elite over mass rule, or mass rule over elite rule, loses sight of our interdependence and interconnection. A democracy (with en emphasis on abilities and knowledge as well as values informing the decision as to who leads) and an attention to the abilities of those in process of development (maybe not at the same pace as others) should be present to best succeed as a democracy. So, why is this not elitism? Aside from that, how is humanity to distinguish between the goals of getting elected and actually having more abilities and knowledge that warrant such leadership? Is it not possible that a person will merely become a smooth, charismatic leader as opposed to a knowledegable, good one? Superiority and inherent value of some people over others is not a helpful or valid conception of a community of people. Agreed. But we can also agree that if Jon is really good at growing corn, that does not mean he should be mayor. Interdependence. Those that run the government should be good at governing, and those that are good at being gas station attendants should run gas stations. This is why we need a definition of what it means to be ruled by the elite, for if the elite are truly elite, then by definition, they ought to be the ones to rule. For one their is process, the development of abilities and concpeitons, that may make people vluaable in ways that are not as immediatly present based off of natural abilities, and similarly, the need for an emphasis on hope and communal involvment is necessary for democracy to best suceed. This interdependence and interconnection is affirmed in a democracy...and there is always room for improvement of the body to make who the place at the head all the more benefical to the heart, lungs, liver, and even our little bitty toes. Okay, using the analogy of the body, do we really want our heart and lungs and liver voting on how we should move our feet, or should we let the brain just control it all? You might want to change your analogy, or stick with it, I don't care.

Machiveli
post-philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 19, 2004

Total Topics: 122
Total Posts: 1282

Posted 04/30/07 - 02:19 PM:	#17
I am just reading brave new world at the moment so this topic was on my mind. However I find both the book and the debate in the debate thread too polarised. The title of the debate was not "should the masses rule themselves or should an elete dictatorship rule for them" but rather simply "should the masses rule themselves? the alternative being left unspecified. The debate died at this point when both parties accepted that the only alternative to the masses ruling themselves was an ongoing dictator ship by a elete composed of a subset of humans alive at that time. I would have liked to have seen a more nuanced debate framed arround the difference between positive and negative liberty. In pithy terms this could have been achieved by Mr.Anonymous asking wander whether he would have accepted the masses voting to end democracy. One could then consider the alternative to the masses ruling themselves in more subtle notion's like the crafting of institutions, the writing of constitutions, the holding up of religious or secular ideals like law and rights. In short the deliberate crafting of history to constrain the possitive freedom of the masses so as to guarantee their negative freedom. And so in the manner of Isaiah Berlin to rescue the masses from their inate self destructive tendancy towards possitive liberty. In short wander attacked a straw man and Mr.Anonymous defended it a victory for wander if that jujitzu was intended but I doubt it was. Edited by Machiveli on 04/30/07 - 02:26 PM

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.